toyotatom

I have driven ( don't laugh) the Hyundai Sonata's straight 4 and turbo model, there is a huge difference in the smoothness of the turbo. The car seemed to glide with little effort on the gas pedal with the turbo versus the non turbo where you have to press the gas quite a bit to get moving and that's where you hear the noise of the 4 banger. Im guessing when Lexus gets finished testing the IS200T you won't even know its a 4 cylinder car when driving it. We will see I guess

NYKnick101

I can also see Lexus keeping the 2.5/3.5 V6 for the AWD/RWD versions, but unfortunately seeing the 2.0t as an FWD option

JDR76

There is no way the IS will have a FWD option. I believe the 2.0T will replace the 2.5, and will be offered in RWD for certain, and probably AWD too. The chassis is not designed to accommodate a FWD layout. FWD also does not fit the mission of the car (to be the best handling car in its class).

NYKnick101

well almost every other company that did a 2.0t opted for the FWD with AWD option. The engine is very small and can fit in the bay horizontally. Plus its already rumored to be a F/AWD option. Audi A4 2.0t is FWD with AWD option, Merceds CLA is F/AWD with most of the power at the front wheels. And I think its going to be based of the NX drive train which is FWD with the 2.0t. The only companies That I can think of that kept their 2.0t RWD is Cadillac with the ATS, and BMW (but all their cars are RWD with AWD option).

There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT

JDR76

Do you have the dimensions of the engine and the IS engine bay to verify that statement?

The cars you mention being FWD were originally designed to be FWD, which is the major difference. Can you think of any car that was designed to be RWD and later included a FWD engine option?

There is a HUGE benefit to keeping the IS RWD based. It pays huge dividends in handling that FWD can never match. The fact that the ES, RX and CT are FWD give no merit to making the IS a FWD car. The fact that their handling is nothing close to the handling of the IS should tell you that.

The Cadillac ATS with the turbo four and the 328i are the cars Lexus is trying to compete with, and they would not want to enter that battle with a FWD car.

LexFather

They actually did it with the 2006 GS. The GS 300 had one model year and in 2007 it became the GS 350. The GS 430 was sold one yearn 2006, 2007 they built for America I think 30 cars and the GS 450h came. The GS 460 came in 2008.

carderoni

The IS will never be FWD - that's what the ES is for. The class it's competing in is all RWD and AWD because that's what the consumers want: a sporty luxury car, and FWD is the antithesis of sporty. Plus, converting it to FWD would require a massive overhaul to the drivetrain (transmission, driveshaft, differentials, etc) along with all the other things a rear wheel drive layout impacts, like the hump on the floor in the back. Never gonna happen.

AdvanSLF

its true what you're saying that the 250 is less power, but bigger engine. bmw had the same experience when they switched from their inline 6 (220 hp i think?) to inline 4 turbo (240 hp) and torque and mpg increased as well. Lexus is just following the same suit so they can compete in the same market. when the 200t comes in, i guarantee you lexus will start to phase out the 250 V6, and phase in the 300h. your model line it will look like 300h (~200hp), 200t (235 hp), 350 V6 (306 hp).

it would be great if lexus took it one step further and put on a twin turbo or electronic motor on that V6 and bump up the power in both hp/torque to something more suitable like 320-360 hp / 300-340 tq, so it may compete better with the the 335i's N55 and the new Q50 hybrid.

i totally agree.. i would rather have though 300tt or 300 t^2 [squared], for that twin turbo.

QuentinB

There is a fundamental difference in a FWD chassis and a RWD chassis. Modern FWD chassis have the engine sitting sideways.* That means the crank shaft is parallel to the axles for the front wheels. A RWD chassis has the engine in a longitudinal fashion where the crankshaft is perpendicular to the rear axles. The CLA and A3 are FWD platforms. The IS, 2xx, 3xx, ATS, etc are all RWD chassis.

Look at the side profile of an IS. Notice how the front wheels are pushed to the nose of the vehicle. Now look at an ES. Notice how the front wheels are pushed back toward the cabin. That is the difference between a longitudinal mounted drivetrain and a transverse mounted drivetrain. The ES has major packaging advantages to the IS because the whole of the powertrain is a nice tidy package in front of the front axles; nothing from the powertrain is encroaching on the passenger volume. The IS has major handling advantages because the weight of the powertrain is contained within the wheelbase. It is a matter of the vehicle's moment of inertia. The further the weight is from the center of the vehicle, the harder it is to change the direction of the momentum of that vehicle. A lot of the FWD platforms use tricky braking to get the vehicle to rotate. The Focus ST is an example of this. It is a nose heavy pig of a vehicle, but they apply the brake heavier to the inside corner by use of a program that basically watches the steering angle and braking/throttle inputs. The vehicles are already configured for traction control which can brake any of the 4 wheels individually, so it is a good bandaid. If I'm dropping $45k on a sport sedan, I don't want a bandaid. I want good physics in the first place.

* Certain FWD Audi models and certain FWD Subaru models have FWD and a longitudinal drivetrain. It is essentially the worst of both worlds because the car is extremely nose heavy and packaging isn't great (huge overhang on the front, passenger cabin has to deal with a transmission tunnel that a pure FWD car wouldn't). Lexus could conceivably do this by removing the rear prop shaft out of the transfer case on the AWD IS, but that would be really, really dumb from a packaging, performance, and cost perspective. Like, such a dumb idea that I'd never ever ever ever consider buying a Lexus of any kind.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

you do realize the engine block on the 3.5 IS/GS and 3.5 camry/RX/etc are the same? The block is designed so that i can be used in FWD and RWD applications. The same engine block is able to accept FWD and RWD transmissions.

NYKnick101

WOW, you mention FWD and everyone jumps down my throat lol. I completely understand the geometry of the IS but it doesnt mean things can be changed by Lexus. The 2.0 engine design is gonna require a complete rework of the geometry of the car since its a much lighter/smaller engine. Plus FWD drive trains are MUCH cheaper than others so it can be really put in any direction they want. I never said its CONFIRMED FWD, only saying I wouldn't be surprised since the NX is already FWD and alot of IS 4cyl rumors are linked to the NX

And 4Tehnguyen, I know the 3GR egine is both inthe IS/GS and Camry/Avalon/RX. Different versions but same 3.5 block. When you think about it, in the IS AWD, remove the front differential and im sure the small camry transmission can fit right in there

AGAIN I UNDERSTAND THE GEOMETRY OF THE IS, best handling car bla bla bla, setup for whatever. I'm just saying I wont be suprised if the 2.0 engine is a completely different drive train. They MAY do something completely different like even keep the V6 2.5 and 3.5 and offer the 2.0 as a completely different option. Nothing is confirmed so anything I say or anyone else says is just speculation

JDR76

I recently read that the 2.0T actually weighs more than the 2.5 V6. Does anyone have the numbers? Not sure if they've been released yet.

rayaans

Why dont they just stick the turbo onto the IS250 and see how that goes. Will be smoother than the 2.0t thats for sure

JDR76

I like the way you think.

Throw a turbo on the 2.5, and two on the 3.5. I'd bite.

NYKnick101

NOW THATS MY KIND OF THINKING!

lol. Infinity/nissan did it so its possible. Twin-turbo v6

It depends on what kind of block they use. If its an aluminum similar to other 2.0t blocks, it should weigh around 350lbs with fluids maybe less (comparing to other 2.0t engines) and the 4GR engine weighs 397lbs with fluids so its lighter but not by much. (4gr engine actually weighs more than the 2gr engine 174kg/383lbs). GM began using sand casting blocks with iron sleeves (vs the old school die cast aluminum) on their 2.0t which is supposedly shaved off a few lbs on engine weight so who knows if they are adopting that to save weight. The specifics aren't really there I dont think