Any 350 AWD's hittin the track?
04-26-11, 08:30 PM
#61
I would expect 1.6-1.8 60' times for an AWD launched correctly. This would transfer to sub 13.3 sec 1/4 mile times (especially with a driver in the 170lb. range.
)
With a trap speed of 99mph, it should run similar times as a Syclone which turns 13.0-13.3 stock.
What this means is an AWD IS350 launched correctly should be showing a RWD IS350 its taillights until about 80-90mph (i.e. most stoplight races).
)With a trap speed of 99mph, it should run similar times as a Syclone which turns 13.0-13.3 stock.
What this means is an AWD IS350 launched correctly should be showing a RWD IS350 its taillights until about 80-90mph (i.e. most stoplight races).
Not sure how you're basing those #s on what a complete different vehicle (syclone) runs...The Syclone made a ton more torque for one thing.
AWD would only help the launch if the car was traction limited to start with... and the IS350 isn't.
That's the entire point. AWD doesn't add any performance. It removes performance by adding weight and draining WHP into the heavier drivetrain losses..
The only thing it adds is traction. Which only helps when you otherwise are lacking it.
That's not the case at the drag strip with this car.
That WOULD be the case with a Syclone which has almost 100 more torque.
You're sorta making my exact point in fact- Vehicles with enough power will be able to leverage AWD into better track performance than the same car in RWD.
306 hp and 277 torque isn't enough power to need that. AWD just slows the car down at that point because traction isn't limited at that power level.
As to the "days of snow" that's 12-14 days on average for Westchester county. That means some years they get more (this past winter) and some years they get less. That's how one reaches an average.
Last edited by Kurtz; 04-26-11 at 08:35 PM.
04-26-11, 08:45 PM
#62
If they weren't, these 60' times would be in the 1.6-1.8 range:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Lexus--IS350-Drag-Racing.html
What's worse is these are the times for people who are trying hard (sticky tires, low air pressure, etc.).
04-26-11, 08:48 PM
#63
You are trying hard to rationalize your point. RWD IS350's ARE TRACTION LIMITED.
If they weren't, these 60' times would be in the 1.6-1.8 range:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Lexus--IS350-Drag-Racing.html
If they weren't, these 60' times would be in the 1.6-1.8 range:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Lexus--IS350-Drag-Racing.html
Since the folks who've actually RUN at the track disagree with you.
You've already demonstrated a poor understanding of what determines track times with your silly syclone comparison, so I'd love to hear your explanation of why a 350 should always put down 1.6 60' times?
In fact... the fact the AWD 350 put down the SAME 60' times kinda proves you have no idea WTF you're saying.
If the RWD car was traction limited the AWD one would have better 60' times. It doesn't. Because it's not.
Now, for an actual useful analysis of his numbers-
Notice the 99 mph trap speed. This is several mph lower than a stock RWD 350. Because the AWD system is eating up some of his horsepower.
You'd have to adjust for DA of course, but most stock RWDs trap in the 103-104 range... so that gives you a bit of an idea of the hp you're giving up with the AWD drivetrain.... that, and the extra weight, are why the AWD car loses the race.
I'd be very curious to see an AWD 350 get put on a dyno to see the difference measured more accurately than we can guess from the trap speed though... wouldn't surprise me to see at least 15-20 whp given up to the AWD system...
Last edited by Kurtz; 04-26-11 at 09:14 PM.
04-26-11, 08:50 PM
#64
Pole Position
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jmags, I grew up in Dutchess County all my family still lives up state. Lets go back years this past year was the worst in like 100yrs but really next winter your probably gonna get like 12 inches all year, Crap i remember one Christmas it was 70 out. Yes AWD is good for those one a million days which you my have had this year but you bought a AWD that will be around all year & the point being said is MOST OF THE TIME it's really not needed. Dude i grew up driving a 78 monte carlo with no heat RWD bald tires & in 95 we got this
(Yes 2 cars in the driveway)
Did it suck yup but after a day everything was fine & did ever really snow again like that not for a really long time. Again point being the AWD IS350 isn't need 99% of the time. But if you want to pay for it than cool. Man i have been laughing thou i pop some popcorn with a drink & enjoy the battle, Been great
(Yes 2 cars in the driveway)
Did it suck yup but after a day everything was fine & did ever really snow again like that not for a really long time. Again point being the AWD IS350 isn't need 99% of the time. But if you want to pay for it than cool. Man i have been laughing thou i pop some popcorn with a drink & enjoy the battle, Been great
04-26-11, 08:54 PM
#65
Course, you might live much further north in Alberta, someplace that gets WAY more snow, or has a lot more slopes...
It wasnt even an option to take it to the mountains. Our SUV was used for that. And please, I'm sure since you have never been stuck in snow before that you are clearly a better driver, so no need to bring that up 
But I would love for you to come hang out in our -35 degree celcius winters with multiple feet of snow to try it out just for kicks
But I would love for you to come hang out in our -35 degree celcius winters with multiple feet of snow to try it out just for kicks No problems with RWD though.
Pretty big difference I think you'd agree?
I even said a couple times Alaska and northern Canada folks are much more justified getting AWD vehicles when they actually spend a LOT of their time driving in snow weather.
But folks who drive in a couple weeks a year? Not so much.
The piece of mind I get knowing that I don't have to worry about getting stuck or stranded with my son is worth the higher price. I have been on both sides of this argument. RWD with winter tires and AWD with winter tires. But I don't see this as an added cost but more of an investment in my family's safety as well as my investment, although a horrible one, in my car.
(and you also understand why all-seasons aren't the way to go in winter)
NoHoIS350 and others living in the northern US have made the same point I have... 98% of the time AWD is nothing but an albatross around the neck of the car.
The other 2% it's great for getting up hills>15-20% grade compared to RWD with snows... and otherwise... not so much.
Now, you live 8 hours NORTH of the US border or something and spend most (or even half) of the year driving in white stuff- sure, go AWD. Though something with more ground clearance probably makes more sense than an IS.
04-26-11, 09:23 PM
#66
And you base that conclusion on.... What exactly?
Since the folks who've actually RUN at the track disagree with you.
You've already demonstrated a poor understanding of what determines track times with your silly syclone comparison, so I'd love to hear your explanation of why a 350 should always put down 1.6 60' times?
In fact... the fact the AWD 350 put down the SAME 60' times kinda proves you have no idea WTF you're saying.
If the RWD car was traction limited the AWD one would have better 60' times. It doesn't. Because it's not.
Since the folks who've actually RUN at the track disagree with you.
You've already demonstrated a poor understanding of what determines track times with your silly syclone comparison, so I'd love to hear your explanation of why a 350 should always put down 1.6 60' times?
In fact... the fact the AWD 350 put down the SAME 60' times kinda proves you have no idea WTF you're saying.
If the RWD car was traction limited the AWD one would have better 60' times. It doesn't. Because it's not.
For example, an Evo VIII has almost the same torque as an IS350 and turns much lower 60' times in the under 1.8 sec time frame.
Also, I would expect an AWD IS350 to slaughter a RWD IS350 on a auto-x course. I would not even expect this one to be a close race given equal drivers.
If you think I have no idea WTF I'm talking about then you a pretty close-minded. I've probably got more experience than 99% of the people here at both the track as well as 10+ yrs experience working with OEM's on traction control devices (Ford & Chrysler/Jeep).
Since I apparently don't know what I'm talking about, please tell me what the best 60' time an AWD IS350 will do when compared to a RWD IS350.
04-26-11, 09:27 PM
#67
People who buy Porsches and Ferraris are. Because they know they outperform cars with clutch pedals. Heck, F1 cars made the change years ago, production cars are finally catching up!
It's not surprising you're a fan of AWD, all-season tires, and clutch pedals though- you're going for the whole "things that make my car slower" collection!
It's not surprising you're a fan of AWD, all-season tires, and clutch pedals though- you're going for the whole "things that make my car slower" collection!
Man I'd love you see you back that insane claim up.
Westchester is about 5% of the population of NY state.
Yet somehow has 75% of the Lexus owners?
I'm pretty sure that stat was pulled from a pretty dark body cavity
I'd be willing to bet good money there's considerably more Lexus owners in Nassau and Suffolk than Westchester for example. And that's about entirely flat.
(Did I mention I grew up in NY?)
FWIW though Westchester only averages about 12-14 days of snow a year.
Westchester is about 5% of the population of NY state.
Yet somehow has 75% of the Lexus owners?
I'm pretty sure that stat was pulled from a pretty dark body cavity
I'd be willing to bet good money there's considerably more Lexus owners in Nassau and Suffolk than Westchester for example. And that's about entirely flat.
(Did I mention I grew up in NY?)
FWIW though Westchester only averages about 12-14 days of snow a year.
There's higher average wealth in Nassau. However, where is it concentrated? Huntington? Glen Cove? That's right, the North Shore. The only places of elevation change on the Island. But that's neither here nor there, because let's be honest, IS250 AWD owners on Long Island have 1 real purpose for getting the AWD over the RWD. That's getting up the ramps at Roosevelt Field's parking decks. Or maybe it's getting plowed in like this on a regular basis.
However, this is not my personal choice. See above.
So you're saying the average Lexus owner is too stupid and lazy to get significantly better stopping and handling in all weather conditions by using the proper tires?
I suppose that might be true, but I'm not sure if "AWD with all-seasons is easier for lazy and stupid people" is a great endorsement of the product.
Especially when we already established it's still both more expensive and inferior to RWD with snow tires.
I suppose that might be true, but I'm not sure if "AWD with all-seasons is easier for lazy and stupid people" is a great endorsement of the product.
Especially when we already established it's still both more expensive and inferior to RWD with snow tires.
It's unfathomable to me that you'd think "I hope I can get up that hill in front of me" is a more important concern than "I hope I don't slam into the back of that car in front of me because I'm on crappy all-season tires"
Personally I have a higher opinion of Lexus owners than you though (well, most of em
) so I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might want things like 20% shorter stopping distance in bad weather...which you'd need proper tires for.When it comes to car maintenance and driver skill, Lexus owners are exactly average. Income/purchasing power has nothing to do with how well you drive or whether or not you will be proactive enough to purchase, mount, store, and install wheels in the fall and spring. Plenty of people in the world barely know how to install a spare tire when they get a flat.
Skewed. The demographic of members of a CAR ENTHUSIAST messageboard is not at all representative of the demographic of Lexus owners. The people who care enough to seek out a place like this actually cares about cars. They will bother changing wheels and tires. They know how. Most people who buy a Lexus care more about impressing someone else or being whisked around in the lap of luxury with as few reminders as possible that they are not sitting on their couch at home. There are some drivers like that in my household. That, and the fact that we live on large hill, drives the decision to buy AWD cars with all seasons and simply drive carefully come snowy weather with the confidence that, short of getting high centered, nothing will impede our path through snow weather.
04-26-11, 09:42 PM
#68
I would expect 1.6-1.8 60' times for an AWD launched correctly. This would transfer to sub 13.3 sec 1/4 mile times (especially with a driver in the 170lb. range.)
With a trap speed of 99mph, it should run similar times as a Syclone which turns 13.0-13.3 stock.
What this means is an AWD IS350 launched correctly should be showing a RWD IS350 its taillights until about 80-90mph (i.e. most stoplight races).
)With a trap speed of 99mph, it should run similar times as a Syclone which turns 13.0-13.3 stock.
What this means is an AWD IS350 launched correctly should be showing a RWD IS350 its taillights until about 80-90mph (i.e. most stoplight races).
Not my first rodeo.
Not sure how you're basing those #s on what a complete different vehicle (syclone) runs...The Syclone made a ton more torque for one thing.
AWD would only help the launch if the car was traction limited to start with... and the IS350 isn't.
That's the entire point. AWD doesn't add any performance. It removes performance by adding weight and draining WHP into the heavier drivetrain losses..
The only thing it adds is traction. Which only helps when you otherwise are lacking it.
That's not the case at the drag strip with this car.
That WOULD be the case with a Syclone which has almost 100 more torque.
You're sorta making my exact point in fact- Vehicles with enough power will be able to leverage AWD into better track performance than the same car in RWD.
306 hp and 277 torque isn't enough power to need that. AWD just slows the car down at that point because traction isn't limited at that power level.
As to the "days of snow" that's 12-14 days on average for Westchester county. That means some years they get more (this past winter) and some years they get less. That's how one reaches an average.
AWD would only help the launch if the car was traction limited to start with... and the IS350 isn't.
That's the entire point. AWD doesn't add any performance. It removes performance by adding weight and draining WHP into the heavier drivetrain losses..
The only thing it adds is traction. Which only helps when you otherwise are lacking it.
That's not the case at the drag strip with this car.
That WOULD be the case with a Syclone which has almost 100 more torque.
You're sorta making my exact point in fact- Vehicles with enough power will be able to leverage AWD into better track performance than the same car in RWD.
306 hp and 277 torque isn't enough power to need that. AWD just slows the car down at that point because traction isn't limited at that power level.
As to the "days of snow" that's 12-14 days on average for Westchester county. That means some years they get more (this past winter) and some years they get less. That's how one reaches an average.
12-14 days, on average of snow. Nights below freezing, however, are much higher. Mix that with daytime meltoffs and black ice, or, in Nassau County, the complete and utter lack of snow removal, and you still have dicey conditions for much of winter.
And you base that conclusion on.... What exactly?
Since the folks who've actually RUN at the track disagree with you.
You've already demonstrated a poor understanding of what determines track times with your silly syclone comparison, so I'd love to hear your explanation of why a 350 should always put down 1.6 60' times?
In fact... the fact the AWD 350 put down the SAME 60' times kinda proves you have no idea WTF you're saying.
If the RWD car was traction limited the AWD one would have better 60' times. It doesn't. Because it's not.
Now, for an actual useful analysis of his numbers-
Notice the 99 mph trap speed. This is several mph lower than a stock RWD 350. Because the AWD system is eating up some of his horsepower.
You'd have to adjust for DA of course, but most stock RWDs trap in the 103-104 range... so that gives you a bit of an idea of the hp you're giving up with the AWD drivetrain.... that, and the extra weight, are why the AWD car loses the race.
I'd be very curious to see an AWD 350 get put on a dyno to see the difference measured more accurately than we can guess from the trap speed though... wouldn't surprise me to see at least 15-20 whp given up to the AWD system...
Since the folks who've actually RUN at the track disagree with you.
You've already demonstrated a poor understanding of what determines track times with your silly syclone comparison, so I'd love to hear your explanation of why a 350 should always put down 1.6 60' times?
In fact... the fact the AWD 350 put down the SAME 60' times kinda proves you have no idea WTF you're saying.
If the RWD car was traction limited the AWD one would have better 60' times. It doesn't. Because it's not.
Now, for an actual useful analysis of his numbers-
Notice the 99 mph trap speed. This is several mph lower than a stock RWD 350. Because the AWD system is eating up some of his horsepower.
You'd have to adjust for DA of course, but most stock RWDs trap in the 103-104 range... so that gives you a bit of an idea of the hp you're giving up with the AWD drivetrain.... that, and the extra weight, are why the AWD car loses the race.
I'd be very curious to see an AWD 350 get put on a dyno to see the difference measured more accurately than we can guess from the trap speed though... wouldn't surprise me to see at least 15-20 whp given up to the AWD system...
Based on your comments, you are saying that no IS350 (RWD or AWD) will ever run better than a high 1.9-2.0 sec 60' time because it is limited on torque? Really?
For example, an Evo VIII has almost the same torque as an IS350 and turns much lower 60' times in the under 1.8 sec time frame.
Also, I would expect an AWD IS350 to slaughter a RWD IS350 on a auto-x course. I would not even expect this one to be a close race given equal drivers.
If you think I have no idea WTF I'm talking about then you a pretty close-minded. I've probably got more experience than 99% of the people here at both the track as well as 10+ yrs experience working with OEM's on traction control devices (Ford & Chrysler/Jeep).
Since I apparently don't know what I'm talking about, please tell me what the best 60' time an AWD IS350 will do when compared to a RWD IS350.
For example, an Evo VIII has almost the same torque as an IS350 and turns much lower 60' times in the under 1.8 sec time frame.
Also, I would expect an AWD IS350 to slaughter a RWD IS350 on a auto-x course. I would not even expect this one to be a close race given equal drivers.
If you think I have no idea WTF I'm talking about then you a pretty close-minded. I've probably got more experience than 99% of the people here at both the track as well as 10+ yrs experience working with OEM's on traction control devices (Ford & Chrysler/Jeep).
Since I apparently don't know what I'm talking about, please tell me what the best 60' time an AWD IS350 will do when compared to a RWD IS350.
However, around an Auto-X, I don't think the AWD would be better at all. It's heavier, and more of that weight is over the front axle. Auto-X courses are tight and the increased understeer would certainly hurt it. They also sit higher than the RWD cars, so they're less stable in the transitions.
04-26-11, 09:49 PM
#69
If anyone thinks a RWD IS350 is not traction limited, try launching at 4500rpm and let us know what happens. This should be the optimal launch RPM for an IS350 based on the engine and no traction issues. I would expect an AWD launch should get fairly close to this without just torching the tires. This is the main reason I checked into this thread.
As a reference, at the top of the dragtimes chart, Caymandive made his best runs brake-torquing at 1100rpm. Not exactly the best rpm to maximize your 60' time if traction was no issue.
As a reference, at the top of the dragtimes chart, Caymandive made his best runs brake-torquing at 1100rpm. Not exactly the best rpm to maximize your 60' time if traction was no issue.
04-26-11, 10:02 PM
#70
If anyone thinks a RWD IS350 is not traction limited, try launching at 4500rpm and let us know what happens. This should be the optimal launch RPM for an IS350 based on the engine and no traction issues. I would expect an AWD launch should get fairly close to this without just torching the tires. This is the main reason I checked into this thread.
As a reference, at the top of the dragtimes chart, Caymandive made his best runs brake-torquing at 1100rpm. Not exactly the best rpm to maximize your 60' time if traction was no issue.
As a reference, at the top of the dragtimes chart, Caymandive made his best runs brake-torquing at 1100rpm. Not exactly the best rpm to maximize your 60' time if traction was no issue.
04-26-11, 10:05 PM
#71
No. Stock converter is what's holding you back at this point. a 2.01 short time was the best I was going to get out of the car with a DA damn near 0, if not negative. Stock converter is very tight. I stalled up to 2 grand because I didn't want to heat the trans up any more than that, and it would start pushing through a little bit higher.
I would think the trans would handle more abuse/heat than generated by a 2k rpm launch but I can certainly understand not treating your car like that! Heat is mainly a by-product of time, as long as you weren't holding it more than a few seconds there would not be enough time for the heat to build up.
I run F1 Asymmetric 275/30/19's on the back and the traction control is still constantly coming on, especially on off camber turns or in wet weather. The rear end just wants to slide out.
04-26-11, 10:17 PM
#72
How did you launch? Does the throttle programming (done as a recall on my car, probably standard on yours) allow the car to push?
I would think the trans would handle more abuse/heat than generated by a 2k rpm launch but I can certainly understand not treating your car like that! Heat is mainly a by-product of time, as long as you weren't holding it more than a few seconds there would not be enough time for the heat to build up.
I run F1 Asymmetric 275/30/19's on the back and the traction control is still constantly coming on, especially on off camber turns or in wet weather. The rear end just wants to slide out.
I would think the trans would handle more abuse/heat than generated by a 2k rpm launch but I can certainly understand not treating your car like that! Heat is mainly a by-product of time, as long as you weren't holding it more than a few seconds there would not be enough time for the heat to build up.
I run F1 Asymmetric 275/30/19's on the back and the traction control is still constantly coming on, especially on off camber turns or in wet weather. The rear end just wants to slide out.
I stall the car up to 2k and leave. That's it. Drama free. I tried one 2200 launch and slowed down. I tried an off idle launch and slowed down. I've tried to stall it higher on the street and pushed through the brake a bit. Certainly nowhere near 4500. There is simply no way to launch at 4500 on the stock converter.
04-26-11, 10:30 PM
#73
It's irrational, but I try to be gentle with automatic transmissions. I know that it's in the GS350 AWD, so it should handle the abuse no problem, but I still don't like to. Maybe it's years of watching my friends blowing up their 4l65s, 4l80s, and TH400s. I stage my car like I'm bracket racing, just so I'm not sitting on the converter for too long. Some people take forever to stage, so I sit and wait on the first beam until the other driver rolls forward.
I stall the car up to 2k and leave. That's it. Drama free. I tried one 2200 launch and slowed down. I tried an off idle launch and slowed down. I've tried to stall it higher on the street and pushed through the brake a bit. Certainly nowhere near 4500. There is simply no way to launch at 4500 on the stock converter.
I stall the car up to 2k and leave. That's it. Drama free. I tried one 2200 launch and slowed down. I tried an off idle launch and slowed down. I've tried to stall it higher on the street and pushed through the brake a bit. Certainly nowhere near 4500. There is simply no way to launch at 4500 on the stock converter.
So how did it slow down when increasing from 2k to 2.2k rpm? Did it bog from traction control or something? Based on your responses, I don't think you spun the tires.
