NINEZeRO

then what are the numbers that Edmunds, Motortrend got?

XeroK00L

It's called different test conditions and different test drivers.

We're talking about the best that a car is capable of here. Like the Nurburgring lap times, only the best result should get the credit and be representative of a car's capabilities.

NINEZeRO

right, but being that 2 of the 3 road tests so far got a time of 4.7 and 4.8 vs 1 that came in 4.2 where one poster here said that C&D launches there cars especially harsh or something.

XeroK00L

3 is not a large number of samples, mind you.

Lexus says 4.6 seconds, so we'll wait till more reviews with instrumented testing come in. All eyes are on R&T now. Wonder what makes them so slow.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

It's not Lexus' fault that MT and Edmunds couldn't duplicate the C&D number. If you look at all Edmunds' reviews (not sure about MT), they are consistantly higher than manufactures' not just for Lexus.

Like somebody before have said, the fastest time indicates what the car is capable of. It's like taking the SAT, one can bomb the test 5 times but ace it the last time and use that one to apply for schools.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

R&T did a 4.9s for IS350 so it should be interesting to see how they'll do in the IS-F.

xioix

That was MT, and the 1st time MT reviewed the IS350, it was closer to like 6 seconds as well

aco

R&T also got 4.9s in the IS350.

NINEZeRO

good point, from now on I will regard the IS-F as a 0-60 in 4.2 sec car, makes me feel better getting one,

LexFather

Also it shows that the car can be faster than 0-60 in 4.2 and also in the wrong conditions, it can be a 5 second car. It depends on conditions.

Me, lets see here...order the sunroof delete, no NAV, no options. The lightest stock IS. Add fatter rubber out back, 275s....

Not sure what you can lighten without making it look like crap. Not sure how much the brakes/wheels weigh but they should already be light.

Say you can add a lighter exhaust.

Depressurize the tires at the track, get some cool air and a perfect launch.

4 second IS-F.....

sincityIS

No car in history has ever been as fast as the manufacturer has claimed. I have only owned about 17 different cars to test this with. It may because I live in Las Vegas at 2000 feet, but no car I have ever owned has come close to the the performance that is claimed by the manufacturer.
Maybe at sea level with 8lbs of air in the tires and a professional driver doing tests for weeks on end may get a ridiculously low number, but not many of us are going to go through those steps to test it out. Not to mention who cares, if you want a real sports car why are looking at lexus instead of Porsche. Not one of the BMWs, Audis, or MBs can step to a Porsche Turbo, well except for the SLR Mercedes, but that is a half million dollar car.

NINEZeRO

uhh.... NO, you're wrong. manufacturers especially for performance cars underrate the performance on print 1)they don't want their competition to know the performance before cars are launched 2)they're not going to overrate the performance and let their vehicles seem like they are overrated in magazine reviews.

there are a million examples but just go to Porsche's website where they list the 0-60 times for all their cars. and then read the magazine tests on them. for example, 911 GT3 and 911 Turbo are listed at 0-60 in 4.1 and 3.7, respectively. Most magazines get 0-60 times of about 3.9 for the 911 GT3 and 3.6 or less for the 911 Turbo.

sincityIS

Yeah and we are talking about "real world" tests, not some BS claim by some anonymous member.

jkrutch

You're dead on....Manufacturers are typically conservative (except Caddy with their V series). When I had my Viper GTS in 1997, I ran a 12.39 1/4 @ 118 in horrible weather. It was upper 90's and high humidity. In better weather the time would have been a few tenths better which is in line with what the mags were getting at the time.

Regarding the IS-F...Until there is a side-by-side comparison I will reserve judgment. I am sure the IS-F will do well. I put my deposit on the GT-R because I wanted the all out performance I had grown accustomed to over the years. I am still a bit leery of Nissan's numbers. 3.5 sec 0-60 seems a bit optimistic given the power to weight ratio on the GT-R. Unless the gearing is super short, I think those numbers will be hard to achieve. On the bright side, long before the car is ready for the U.S market, there will be plenty of road tests done. We'll see how it does.

Regarding the toys on the GT-R. It has all the nice amenities like bluetooth, keyless entry/start, nav, and leather dash. I am sure the reliability will be typical Japanese as well.

I am sure C&D, R&T and MT will all have done their comparos (M3, RS4, etc) before the first IS-F is delivered. That should give us all the answers we are looking for. C&D's time are quite impressive and more in line with what I would have expected given the IS-350 numbers I have seen.

TRDFantasy

Just because you have not gotten close to manufacturer performance numbers, doesn't mean it's not true.

Many IS350 owners here at CL have gotten better performance numbers than what Lexus lists. Does that make all their claims BS too?

I have personally driven many cars and achieved better performance times than what the manufacturer indicates.