Lackluster V6 on ES350
02-22-19, 02:11 AM
#31
Instructor
02-22-19, 06:18 AM
#32
>1970 Dodge Challenger 440 six pack, 0-60 5.8 seconds
Ya, what we considered fast back in the day really wasn't. Except the cars didn't handle or stop very well so they were certainly "exciting" to drive.
But as far as 0-60 and 1/4 mi times are concerned, while muscle cars were certainly relatively powerful, they really could'n get the power down on the street. Tires just weren't up to the challenge.
What would be very interesting to know is what a stock Challenger six pack would do at the strip running drag-slicks?
===================================
Trustee Larz Anderson Auto Museum
Ya, what we considered fast back in the day really wasn't. Except the cars didn't handle or stop very well so they were certainly "exciting" to drive.
But as far as 0-60 and 1/4 mi times are concerned, while muscle cars were certainly relatively powerful, they really could'n get the power down on the street. Tires just weren't up to the challenge.
What would be very interesting to know is what a stock Challenger six pack would do at the strip running drag-slicks?
===================================
Trustee Larz Anderson Auto Museum
02-22-19, 07:34 AM
#33
Lexus Champion
02-22-19, 05:39 PM
#34
actually there's a significant difference.
GS being rear wheel drive, engine tuned to 306 hp and a more aggresive transmission.
the gs feels closer to a sports sedan.
The ES is basically for old people i guess, i'd have never ever considered one 10 years ago. or even 5 years ago.
Now that i'm driving one every day, i can say i was right. the thing handles like a boat, steering is lazy as heck, acceleration is laughably bad, body roll is laughably bad, turning radius also bad, sports mode does absolutely jack squat.
But i don't care, i'm done with speeding tickets. i just want to get from home to work and back to home comfortably. There's no denying the ES is a comfortable ride.
GS being rear wheel drive, engine tuned to 306 hp and a more aggresive transmission.
the gs feels closer to a sports sedan.
The ES is basically for old people i guess, i'd have never ever considered one 10 years ago. or even 5 years ago.
Now that i'm driving one every day, i can say i was right. the thing handles like a boat, steering is lazy as heck, acceleration is laughably bad, body roll is laughably bad, turning radius also bad, sports mode does absolutely jack squat.
But i don't care, i'm done with speeding tickets. i just want to get from home to work and back to home comfortably. There's no denying the ES is a comfortable ride.
HA, HA, HA. I wonder what AlexNY will think of the ES300h. That thing is even more of a dog.
I will tell you, though. I travel a lot and rent cars a lot. Mostly new Toyotas, and Nissan Muranos, and Ford Fusions and I can confirm that every time I feel grateful I have the ES as my personal car. It just feels so good to drive. The nice thick wooden steering wheel, the quiet drivetrain, the smooth power delivery. All of those new cars in rental fleets feel inferior to my 5 year old 2014 ES.
02-22-19, 07:19 PM
#35
Intermediate
02-23-19, 09:13 PM
#36
In San Diego you are at sea level and drive on relatively flat roads. I merge onto I70 on an uphill ramp from work every day at 5,000 ft elevation (Denver) and the 300h struggles to get to 65mph to get out of the way of the semis behind me doing 75mph. I feel that the power on the 300h is marginal at best and at elevation the engine makes less power and therefore on uphill roads it struggles to merge with fast moving traffic. The engine does not sound too smooth at 4,000 rpm and above but that is where it needs to operate to merge and pass on uphill grades. It is OK and maintains speed on flat grades. It is the poor acceleration which is the problem.
With 2 kids about to start college I am going to have to live with it for another 10 years or so...
Last edited by zes; 02-23-19 at 10:17 PM.
02-23-19, 10:16 PM
#37
Pole Position
In San Diego you are at sea level and drive on relatively flat roads. I merge onto I70 on an uphill ramp from work every day at 5,000 ft elevation (Denver) and the 300h struggles to get to 65mph to get out of the way of the semis behind me doing 75mph. I feel that the power on the 300h is marginal at best and at elevation and on uphill roads it struggles to merge with fast moving traffic. The engine does not sound too smooth at 4,000 rpm and above but that is where it needs to operate to merge and pass on uphill grades. It is OK and maintains speed on flat grades. It is the poor acceleration which is the problem.
With 2 kids about to start college I am going to have to live with it for another 10 years or so...
02-24-19, 10:04 AM
#38
I disagree. I have taken my 14 ESh two times from Texas to Colorado and one time even up to pikes peak, and it never felt under-power with three people. It has plenty of power to get up to 90+ mph on highway imo. Plus i averaged 35+ mpg with just me driving the car and with people about 32 mpg. I also love the eCVT trans in heavy traffic, which is not the case with the es350, which can occasionally be Jerky in heavy stop and go traffic. There are plenty of benefits when driving the ESh.
Conventionally aspirated (non turbocharged) internal combustion engines lose about 1% power per 100m increase in altitude because of lower ambient air pressure. Denver is at about 1,500 m so the power loss is about 15%. This is simple science. Please see the following reference:
Travis D. Husaboe, Marc D. Polanka, Joshua A. Rittenhouse, Paul J. Litke, and John L. Hoke. "Dependence of Small Internal Combustion Engine’s Performance on Altitude", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 30, No. 5(2014), pp. 1328-1333.,
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35133
My point is that for steady speed (non accelerating) driving on the highway there is no problem, because one is not loading the engine to close to 100% of its capability. I travel at 80+ mph regularly going to Colorado Springs from Denver as the limit is 75 mph. The loss of power becomes apparent during acceleration demand, especially on ramps which are uphill. The ESh gains speed in a rather leisurely manner then and it is a little scary when the traffic is heavy with large trucks going fast because they want momentum on their side as the grade increases further up the highway. I use Sport mode then to get the electric motor to help and it does a bit, I guess if the traction battery is not depleted at that instant. If the hybrid synergy drive decides to start charging the traction battery at that point the situation gets even worse because I am trying to accelerate and the computer is diverting engine power to charge the battery.
I have been to Pike's Peak several times and that is not a problem at all because the road is narrow and windy and the speeds are low. Even Priuses are zipping up Pikes Peak with no problem.
The ES300h engine is an Atkinson cycle with a rating of ~150hp at sea level. With 15% loss in Denver because of altitude this equates to about 130hp. For a 3,700 lb car that is not much power. Like you said, 130hp can take it up to 90+ mph, but unfortunately it is not enough for quick acceleration up an uphill ramp.
For many years I owned a 1979 Volvo 242 with a 4 cylinder engine generating 100hp. That car weighed 2,800 lbs, so it had a power/weight ratio of about 28 lb/hp. The ESh weighs about 3,700 lbs and at 130hp, that comes to 28.5 lb/hp. I can attest that the 300h reminds me of my 1979 Volvo, as it is just as anemic up here in Denver.
To give you some perspective, a 2018 Honda accord or Toyota Camry (which by no means are high performance sports cars) weigh approx 3,000 lbs and have 200 hp engines. In Denver the Camry engine makes (200*.85) 170hp. This gives it a power/weight ratio of about 20 lb/hp, or 30% more power than the ESh. Compared to performance at sea level, the ESh is making 42% less power in Denver than Hondas and Camrys at sea level. This is why I call the ESh a dog at altitude. It cannot accelerate.
I wish Lexus hybrid drive switched the engine from Atkinson cycle to Otto cycle in Sport mode. That would have helped.
Last edited by zes; 02-24-19 at 05:33 PM.
The following users liked this post:
signdetres (02-24-19)
02-26-19, 08:45 PM
#39
Pole Position
Conventionally aspirated (non turbocharged) internal combustion engines lose about 1% power per 100m increase in altitude because of lower ambient air pressure. Denver is at about 1,500 m so the power loss is about 15%. This is simple science. Please see the following reference:
Travis D. Husaboe, Marc D. Polanka, Joshua A. Rittenhouse, Paul J. Litke, and John L. Hoke. "Dependence of Small Internal Combustion Engine’s Performance on Altitude", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 30, No. 5(2014), pp. 1328-1333.,
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35133
My point is that for steady speed (non accelerating) driving on the highway there is no problem, because one is not loading the engine to close to 100% of its capability. I travel at 80+ mph regularly going to Colorado Springs from Denver as the limit is 75 mph. The loss of power becomes apparent during acceleration demand, especially on ramps which are uphill. The ESh gains speed in a rather leisurely manner then and it is a little scary when the traffic is heavy with large trucks going fast because they want momentum on their side as the grade increases further up the highway. I use Sport mode then to get the electric motor to help and it does a bit, I guess if the traction battery is not depleted at that instant. If the hybrid synergy drive decides to start charging the traction battery at that point the situation gets even worse because I am trying to accelerate and the computer is diverting engine power to charge the battery.
I have been to Pike's Peak several times and that is not a problem at all because the road is narrow and windy and the speeds are low. Even Priuses are zipping up Pikes Peak with no problem.
The ES300h engine is an Atkinson cycle with a rating of ~150hp at sea level. With 15% loss in Denver because of altitude this equates to about 130hp. For a 3,700 lb car that is not much power. Like you said, 130hp can take it up to 90+ mph, but unfortunately it is not enough for quick acceleration up an uphill ramp.
For many years I owned a 1979 Volvo 242 with a 4 cylinder engine generating 100hp. That car weighed 2,800 lbs, so it had a power/weight ratio of about 28 lb/hp. The ESh weighs about 3,700 lbs and at 130hp, that comes to 28.5 lb/hp. I can attest that the 300h reminds me of my 1979 Volvo, as it is just as anemic up here in Denver.
To give you some perspective, a 2018 Honda accord or Toyota Camry (which by no means are high performance sports cars) weigh approx 3,000 lbs and have 200 hp engines. In Denver the Camry engine makes (200*.85) 170hp. This gives it a power/weight ratio of about 20 lb/hp, or 30% more power than the ESh. Compared to performance at sea level, the ESh is making 42% less power in Denver than Hondas and Camrys at sea level. This is why I call the ESh a dog at altitude. It cannot accelerate.
I wish Lexus hybrid drive switched the engine from Atkinson cycle to Otto cycle in Sport mode. That would have helped.
Travis D. Husaboe, Marc D. Polanka, Joshua A. Rittenhouse, Paul J. Litke, and John L. Hoke. "Dependence of Small Internal Combustion Engine’s Performance on Altitude", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 30, No. 5(2014), pp. 1328-1333.,
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35133
My point is that for steady speed (non accelerating) driving on the highway there is no problem, because one is not loading the engine to close to 100% of its capability. I travel at 80+ mph regularly going to Colorado Springs from Denver as the limit is 75 mph. The loss of power becomes apparent during acceleration demand, especially on ramps which are uphill. The ESh gains speed in a rather leisurely manner then and it is a little scary when the traffic is heavy with large trucks going fast because they want momentum on their side as the grade increases further up the highway. I use Sport mode then to get the electric motor to help and it does a bit, I guess if the traction battery is not depleted at that instant. If the hybrid synergy drive decides to start charging the traction battery at that point the situation gets even worse because I am trying to accelerate and the computer is diverting engine power to charge the battery.
I have been to Pike's Peak several times and that is not a problem at all because the road is narrow and windy and the speeds are low. Even Priuses are zipping up Pikes Peak with no problem.
The ES300h engine is an Atkinson cycle with a rating of ~150hp at sea level. With 15% loss in Denver because of altitude this equates to about 130hp. For a 3,700 lb car that is not much power. Like you said, 130hp can take it up to 90+ mph, but unfortunately it is not enough for quick acceleration up an uphill ramp.
For many years I owned a 1979 Volvo 242 with a 4 cylinder engine generating 100hp. That car weighed 2,800 lbs, so it had a power/weight ratio of about 28 lb/hp. The ESh weighs about 3,700 lbs and at 130hp, that comes to 28.5 lb/hp. I can attest that the 300h reminds me of my 1979 Volvo, as it is just as anemic up here in Denver.
To give you some perspective, a 2018 Honda accord or Toyota Camry (which by no means are high performance sports cars) weigh approx 3,000 lbs and have 200 hp engines. In Denver the Camry engine makes (200*.85) 170hp. This gives it a power/weight ratio of about 20 lb/hp, or 30% more power than the ESh. Compared to performance at sea level, the ESh is making 42% less power in Denver than Hondas and Camrys at sea level. This is why I call the ESh a dog at altitude. It cannot accelerate.
I wish Lexus hybrid drive switched the engine from Atkinson cycle to Otto cycle in Sport mode. That would have helped.
02-27-19, 09:26 PM
#40
Agreed. I sometimes wish that I had purchased a GS450h but I think the ES is prettier and is much more roomy inside. I never liked the front of the GS. Too aggressive for my taste. And also the GS is much more expensive. Way beyond my means ..
03-02-19, 07:55 AM
#41
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
From a standing start I would generally agree with the OP, but I think they do it on purpose because it's front wheel drive. The nature of the platform can't handle a ton of power without wheel spin and torque steer. When I first got the car I thought I would be able to punch it, but the wheels don't hook up well and torque steer occurs pretty badly. I blame the weight of the car and front wheel drive more than the engine, which is one of the best naturally aspirated V6s around. There is a reason why cars with a ton of power are rear wheel drive - that configuration can put the power down properly.
For me, this engine shines the most when you're on the move and need passing power on the highway. A downshift into S mode and there is good power at the ready to make a pass. Otherwise, if I need to jut out of traffic, I have learned to start moderately so the wheels hook up and then apply the power so it translates on the road.
For me, this engine shines the most when you're on the move and need passing power on the highway. A downshift into S mode and there is good power at the ready to make a pass. Otherwise, if I need to jut out of traffic, I have learned to start moderately so the wheels hook up and then apply the power so it translates on the road.
I've noticed this too. The car does take a while to get going from a standing start. I've been testing it out since starting this thread and I'm starting to get the feeling its meant for smooth acceleration rather than instant power - is this a correct assumption?
03-02-19, 08:38 PM
#42
Advanced
Still can’t understand your perceived lack of acceleration, in sport mode mine takes off pretty well, WOT from a standing start is never required. 5.8 sec 0-60 is pretty good. It’s a luxury car after all.
03-04-19, 06:53 PM
#44
Driver School Candidate
Hi Guys. new guy here deriving a lot of pleasure reading the forum/ Will "likely" buy an ES or GS next year. Used. maybe 50.000 miles.
On the ES.....I have no allegiance (yet) between 5th or 6th gen. Car will be an old man's only car but will likely never go over 200 miles on a trip. A classic Grocery Getter that will probably average
about 5,000 miles per year. I spend half the year in Florida (ES) and spend the other half in Oklahoma (2011 Cad CTS)
One thing I have wondered about.....and I am a old car guy......I know from experience that some cars that do not "require" premium gas will run "satisfactorily" on regular gas.
But I also know that same car may well run a little "sharper" on the premium.
What is the OP running? Can this account for the differences that I see in this thread....or is it just that different people have different expectations perhaps?
On the ES.....I have no allegiance (yet) between 5th or 6th gen. Car will be an old man's only car but will likely never go over 200 miles on a trip. A classic Grocery Getter that will probably average
about 5,000 miles per year. I spend half the year in Florida (ES) and spend the other half in Oklahoma (2011 Cad CTS)
One thing I have wondered about.....and I am a old car guy......I know from experience that some cars that do not "require" premium gas will run "satisfactorily" on regular gas.
But I also know that same car may well run a little "sharper" on the premium.
What is the OP running? Can this account for the differences that I see in this thread....or is it just that different people have different expectations perhaps?
03-05-19, 07:24 AM
#45
Hi Guys. new guy here deriving a lot of pleasure reading the forum/ Will "likely" buy an ES or GS next year. Used. maybe 50.000 miles.
On the ES.....I have no allegiance (yet) between 5th or 6th gen. Car will be an old man's only car but will likely never go over 200 miles on a trip. A classic Grocery Getter that will probably average
about 5,000 miles per year. I spend half the year in Florida (ES) and spend the other half in Oklahoma (2011 Cad CTS)
One thing I have wondered about.....and I am a old car guy......I know from experience that some cars that do not "require" premium gas will run "satisfactorily" on regular gas.
But I also know that same car may well run a little "sharper" on the premium.
What is the OP running? Can this account for the differences that I see in this thread....or is it just that different people have different expectations perhaps?
On the ES.....I have no allegiance (yet) between 5th or 6th gen. Car will be an old man's only car but will likely never go over 200 miles on a trip. A classic Grocery Getter that will probably average
about 5,000 miles per year. I spend half the year in Florida (ES) and spend the other half in Oklahoma (2011 Cad CTS)
One thing I have wondered about.....and I am a old car guy......I know from experience that some cars that do not "require" premium gas will run "satisfactorily" on regular gas.
But I also know that same car may well run a little "sharper" on the premium.
What is the OP running? Can this account for the differences that I see in this thread....or is it just that different people have different expectations perhaps?