NINEZeRO

well, why dont you include the RS4 and M3 in that discussion too, since they are not much faster if not even than the IS-F. I'm sure if Lexus, BMW and Audi only concern were straight line speed they could have made a much faster car. maybe you should try to understand things get a little more complicating when you try to balance speed, handling, comfort, luxury, appearance, etc which is all those cars have achieved to a certain extent.

oh btw, it doesn't matter what the cars skidpad numbers are, if the Jeep tried to race an IS-F or other cars in its class it WOULD flip over.

1QWKGS4

iTrader: (3)

Its funny - no matter how many times I try to explain things - you just don't get it.. in fact the ISF is slower than than M3 and RS4 counterpart, so why talk about it.. I was comparing an SUV to the ISF

NINEZeRO

right.... I dont get it.....


says who? did you even read threads with the magazine reviews? the best 0-60 and 1/4 mi times for the IS-F was 4.2 and 12.7, respectively vs 4.3 and 12.8 for the M3 and 4.3 for the RS4 also (forgot the RS4's 1/4 mi, but it was slower than the 12.7 by Lexus). even if the best times of the IS-F weren't better or later beaten by a best effort of either car, it doesn't matter because they are relatively pretty much equal.


you were comparing the 0-60 and 1/4 times of the Jeep to the IS-F BECAUSE in your opinion the Jeep was just as fast. well since the IS-F is just as fast as the other cars, you should mention them to when you compare the Jeep to the IS-F BECAUSE of its speed.

1QWKGS4

iTrader: (3)

yes, its convienent to take the fastest time by a magazine known for exagerrated times.. Whenever the ISF can be consistently do the that time by every magazine- then I'll beileve it.. even lexus says it will do 4.6 sec and 13.0 et. with those stats.. ISF is slower.. to the other test of other cars who run consistent on their times with most mags.. How does most magazines get same relatively the same times for the M3 and RS4 while the ISF, the numbers are across the board - is it 4.2, 4.6, 4.7 or 4.8 which is it??.. Thats a big range.. I want to believe the lower number as much as you do or anyone else but the numbers or (facts) just don't add up -

CrazyMPG

iTrader: (4)

so do you expect the Jeep to win vs. the IS-F?...heh Plus what is the liter on that car...not too familiar with it...plus does it have the emissions of ULEVII?...also is the Jeep a gas guzzler?...not sure if it is...I think Lexus wanted to make the IS-F avoid the the gas guzzler tax...that is why it isn't a full blown out monster...I think they can probably make the engine even more crazy but decided not to...

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Personal attacks are not permitted here. If I have to clean this thread again, it will be cleaned and locked. Make your points, but leave the insults out of it.

IS350jet

I find this article quite informative but nothing I don't already know. It does get very difficult to read near the end, though. Although some might find it helpful distinguishing between HP and Torque, I find it leaves many questions unanswered regarding the relationship between torque and weight.

First, if torque is not what moves weight then why doesn't Cadillac use an 8,000 RPM, 400HP engine in the Escalade? It would certainly be more fuel-efficient. Could it be because 275 foot-pounds of torque would not sufficiently move all that weight around?

Second, The 237HP engine in the S2000 works well because the car is light. However, could you imagine how well it would perform stuffed into the Pilot? Even though the HP is near identical to the Pilot's V6, the big SUV would barely get out of its own way. Why? Because 162 foot pounds of torque is not enough to move all that weight around.

Third, The 160HP TC and the 160HP civic are good examples. Same HP, same weight. Why does the TC literally "smoke" the civic? Because the TC has gobs more torque to move the weight.

High RPM, low torque engines have their place but not in big heavy vehicles. If you applied this policy to trucks and SUV's they'd be rendered useless with no towing capacity, whatsoever.

I'm not trying to argue with you because you are in fact a very intelligent person and a well-respected member, here, but the article you posted does in fact state that torque is what moved the one-pound weight and that HP is calculated using torque data.

I'll stand by my first post and say that the SRT8 Jeep is a beast simply because of the monstrous torque figure.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I once worked with a 30,000 rpm motor that made so little torque I could pinch it with my fingers and stop it. It was installed in a million to one gearbox with a 16" long arm attached to it. There was NOTHING I could do to stop that arm when the motor ran. Torque means NOTHING without knowing the gears ratios between the source and the output.

The Jeep's torque from the engine is only slightly related to the torque at the wheel because there is an entire train of gears between the engine and the wheels.

Torque at the wheel rules. Torque at the engine is only important in how it relates to horsepower because I'm going to change the torque at the wheel with the geartrain. That's the part you are missing.

1QWKGS4

iTrader: (3)

No I don't want the JEEP to beat the ISF - I was referring to the stats on the two vehicles - and (for the third time) The JEEP and ISF have similiar stats in HP - though the ISF has an advantage but the Jeep can achieve almost the same test times weighing 1000 lbs more.. what gives? (thats my point)

CrazyMPG

iTrader: (4)

yea...Lexus didn't maximize the potential of the car...but I am sure they have their reasons...

1QWKGS4

iTrader: (3)

Agreed, Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep group have really put their ***** to the walls for the last couple of years and came out with some powerful vehicles. and Lexus is more of a refined luxury car company now with its race-inspired car but for whatever reason decided not to go "***** to wall" on it because maybe they want it to last 300K miles and be reliable as any other lexus model..which is good thing!

But to me, "racers" - real racers don't really care how long an engine last - they usually change engines after each race or a pre-determined mileage.

Wouldn't it be great if say, Lexus would build a Monstrous beast- not limiting the car to reliablity standards and give you the 3 engine exchanges part of the cars selling point or have packages for however many engines exchanges since, if you buy it to be a track car as the ISF was created for the track..
Just an idea.. Don't flame me..

vip3r1850

If youve ever driven the srt8 jeep youd know its fast till about 75mph, then it just starts to shut down. Pull up a video of a 335i vs an srt8 jeep, the jeep owns it to 65 and then the beamer just walks away from it.

italiandud

I cant say im disappointed because its going to be faster than the germans M3...

is-fan

A comparison test of the IS-F vs M3 has not been done yet or if it has, I haven't seen it. Let's not jump to any conclusions before they have been compared side-by-side by the same driver under the same conditions.

IS350jet

Though the 30,000 rpm motor might be a good example of what gear reduction can do it really is an extreme example and has absolutely nothing to do with automotive design. Gearing in automotive design has limits and comes nowhere close to your example. Again, the article that you posted does in fact state that torque is what moves weight. The article discusses three things; HP, Torque and RPM and how they all relate together. It does not, however, discuss the relationship between torque and weight, which is what we're discussing, here. The fact remains: If you've got 10,000 lbs. to tow, what would you rather have, 600 HP and 300 ft. lbs. of torque, or the other way around? Within the limits of OEM automotive gearing, the answer is obvious.