spwolf

very lowest time means nothing. Best comparison is:
- same source
- same track
- same driver
- same weather conditions

which means comparo... Everything else is very subjective performance. Like with CD testing IS350 so much faster than 330i then people pointing out how they tested 330i even faster before... well, that does not matter.

German mags test 330ivsC350 with 0-62mph in 6.6 secs for BMW and 6.5 for C350. Which means 0.1 is faster no matter what 330i might have done in some previous test, somewhere else...

jrock65

But over time, there will be multiple comparos. Some comparos finding that one car is faster than the other, some vice versa, some finding big differences in acceleration, some none at all. So comparos are a good start, but in the end they are a subjective measure nonetheless, because different comparos get different results.

Personally, I think the best measure of what a car's acceleration is is to take the average of all of the timed tests for that car. An imperfect system, but I can't think of a better alternative.

flipside909

Keyword here is estimate.

spwolf

well not really, comparo's with similar cars will bring similar differences. when you are mixing and matching different review, you are doing something completly different since there are gazillion other influences on the car performance. For instance, G35 tested at 60F will probably get 0.2-0.3 sec better time than at 110F. Should that really be compared to Caddy tested at 110F? Then you dont even know how the cars where tested, different mags use different testing techniques, with C&D being most aggressive.

Edmunds might test G35 at 6.6 secs but that doesnt mean that number should be compared to C&D test of IS350 at 5.1 sec, in fact it would be very wrong to do so. Thats all what I am saying.

jrock65

Who said anything about matching different reviews? I hate when people do that. They quote the fastest time they find for car X and then the slowest time they find for car Y. That's stupid.

Fact is, different comparos do NOT bring similar differences, that's why comparos aren't the end all and be all.

My opinion is that the average of all timed tests for a particular car is a good (but far from perfect) indicator of that car's performance. Of course, the more a car is tested, the better the reliability of that average.

BTW, Edmunds got a time of 6.2s for the 2003 G35 auto.

jrock65

Anyways, to get back to the original question, Motortrend in their latest review of the IS250/350, called the IS250 "sluggish and lifeless on mountain roads" or something like that.

They neglected to time the IS250 (they did for the IS350 however).

It's all relative though. Anything is bound to feel slow after you drive the IS350.

LexFather

Last time I checked, anyone I know with a
C230
C240
325
528
A4 1.8 or 2.0
etc
Are not worried about 0-60 times. My GOD, not everyone really gives a squat. Again, tons of people pay for the badge, the luxury and features. And CLEARLY, it works, these cars sell like hotcakes.

The IS 250 0-60 time is not its selliing point. But imagine, you get all the other wonderful features of the IS, for less money.

The IS 250 is going to sell like crack, period.

flipside909

Which is why I purposely drove the IS250 AWD first and then IS350 last.

spwolf

but what do you average? it makes absolutly no sense at all.

As to the edmunds . G35 6 MT was tested 6.13sec and G35 5AT was tested 6.7, but what does it mean? who knows what were the conditions when it was tested 3 years ago, where same people testing it, using same techniques, same track? It makes absolutly no sense to compare the results like that.

TLW

drove it yesterday ...id say around 10 minutes compared to the IS35o

i love that car
IS250 AWD is nice too but i made the mistake of driving the 350 first

jrock65

Let's continue this in the other thread so we're not repeating the same things in two threads.