Edmunds: IS-F vs. RS4
10-29-07, 01:01 PM
#19
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, I'm not usually one to bag on reviewers. After all, an opinion is an opinion. I'm going to call BS on this one though.... This contradicts every other review out their, not to mention their first impressions. Not only that, these jerkoffs couldn't pull a good time out of a bag for a real car if their lives depended on it.
The thing that irks me the most though, is that this kind of criticism is what leads lexus to make soft, un-inspiring cars in the first place. A.s.s.ho.les. One less website that I will bother to read.
The thing that irks me the most though, is that this kind of criticism is what leads lexus to make soft, un-inspiring cars in the first place. A.s.s.ho.les. One less website that I will bother to read.
10-29-07, 01:09 PM
#20
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MD
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=3 RS4 VS E92 M3
What do you guys think about these two cars and their performance when compared to the IS-F. I wish I could send this flying in the face of the person who wrote the article or narrated the comparo. They are totally biased and foolish with their judgements.
What do you guys think about these two cars and their performance when compared to the IS-F. I wish I could send this flying in the face of the person who wrote the article or narrated the comparo. They are totally biased and foolish with their judgements.
10-29-07, 01:51 PM
#21
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you're a writer for Edmunds it's just plain rude and completely unprofessional to make statements such as:
The writers should have stated that styling is subjective, and leave it at that. There was absolutely no reason to add in that "fanboy" comment.
Furthermore, Edmunds in it's reviews/comparisons gets slow performance times for the vast majority of vehicles they test. The ONLY reason Edmunds got such fast times for the RS4 is because it's AWD and thus allows for good launches no matter how bad of a driver you are.
XeroK00L pointed out that Edmunds did not do proper launches for the IS-F, and thus did not show the full performance potential of the IS-F.
Also want to point out that the IS-F trapped at a higher speed than the RS4 in the 1/4 mile:
RS4: 12.8 sec @ 108.5 mph
IS-F: 13.2 sec @ 109.3 mph
Originally Posted by Edmunds
We accept that the question of styling is largely a subjective matter. So there might be some Toyota fanboys who will admire the IS-F's nose — so like that of a Beluga whale.
Furthermore, Edmunds in it's reviews/comparisons gets slow performance times for the vast majority of vehicles they test. The ONLY reason Edmunds got such fast times for the RS4 is because it's AWD and thus allows for good launches no matter how bad of a driver you are.
XeroK00L pointed out that Edmunds did not do proper launches for the IS-F, and thus did not show the full performance potential of the IS-F.
Also want to point out that the IS-F trapped at a higher speed than the RS4 in the 1/4 mile:
RS4: 12.8 sec @ 108.5 mph
IS-F: 13.2 sec @ 109.3 mph
Last edited by TRDFantasy; 10-29-07 at 02:05 PM.
10-29-07, 02:43 PM
#22
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds, like Consumer Reports, consistently gets poor performance numbers and that is fine. To me it is about consistency and I suspect that Edmunds performance numbers are much more readily reproduced than the fantasy numbers that the car rags churn out for the manufacturers ad copy.
Allow me to add, that all the obsession about performance numbers, especially published numbers, is more than a bit silly. Anyone who buys the IS-F because they saw, and believed, a some magazines published 4.2 second time to sixty mph is just as foolish as a person who passes on the car because a websites 4.8 second one is "just too slow".
As you say, styling is subjective and taking a few potshots at the IS-F's perceived excesses may be rude, but I would rather they articulate a position with humor and a modicum of writing flair with comment, such as, the fanboy/Beluga whale one then lapse into cliches like "fugly" or "butt ugly" or similar.
I would have said that:
"the raised hood, dictated by the V-8 engine installation, compromises the lines of the original IS design in a way that an unbiased observer might find bulbous if not downright ugly."
Which I think gives a fair appraisal of the situation, but may still offend the "fanboys".
Moreover, the gaudiness of the the faux-quad exhaust speaks for itself. This IS-F has enough genuine "excitement", both visually and in performance, that it doesn't need the fake foursome as a parting shot any more than a lily needs to be painted white.
Allow me to add, that all the obsession about performance numbers, especially published numbers, is more than a bit silly. Anyone who buys the IS-F because they saw, and believed, a some magazines published 4.2 second time to sixty mph is just as foolish as a person who passes on the car because a websites 4.8 second one is "just too slow".
As you say, styling is subjective and taking a few potshots at the IS-F's perceived excesses may be rude, but I would rather they articulate a position with humor and a modicum of writing flair with comment, such as, the fanboy/Beluga whale one then lapse into cliches like "fugly" or "butt ugly" or similar.
I would have said that:
"the raised hood, dictated by the V-8 engine installation, compromises the lines of the original IS design in a way that an unbiased observer might find bulbous if not downright ugly."
Which I think gives a fair appraisal of the situation, but may still offend the "fanboys".
Moreover, the gaudiness of the the faux-quad exhaust speaks for itself. This IS-F has enough genuine "excitement", both visually and in performance, that it doesn't need the fake foursome as a parting shot any more than a lily needs to be painted white.
Last edited by CRB; 10-29-07 at 02:48 PM.
10-29-07, 02:45 PM
#23
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you're a writer for Edmunds it's just plain rude and completely unprofessional to make statements such as:
The writers should have stated that styling is subjective, and leave it at that. There was absolutely no reason to add in that "fanboy" comment.
Furthermore, Edmunds in it's reviews/comparisons gets slow performance times for the vast majority of vehicles they test. The ONLY reason Edmunds got such fast times for the RS4 is because it's AWD and thus allows for good launches no matter how bad of a driver you are.
XeroK00L pointed out that Edmunds did not do proper launches for the IS-F, and thus did not show the full performance potential of the IS-F.
Also want to point out that the IS-F trapped at a higher speed than the RS4 in the 1/4 mile:
RS4: 12.8 sec @ 108.5 mph
IS-F: 13.2 sec @ 109.3 mph
The writers should have stated that styling is subjective, and leave it at that. There was absolutely no reason to add in that "fanboy" comment.
Furthermore, Edmunds in it's reviews/comparisons gets slow performance times for the vast majority of vehicles they test. The ONLY reason Edmunds got such fast times for the RS4 is because it's AWD and thus allows for good launches no matter how bad of a driver you are.
XeroK00L pointed out that Edmunds did not do proper launches for the IS-F, and thus did not show the full performance potential of the IS-F.
Also want to point out that the IS-F trapped at a higher speed than the RS4 in the 1/4 mile:
RS4: 12.8 sec @ 108.5 mph
IS-F: 13.2 sec @ 109.3 mph
funny how they got the fastest time for the RS4 in a road test while getting the slowest for the IS-F.
10-29-07, 02:54 PM
#24
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-29-07, 07:07 PM
#28
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-29-07, 08:51 PM
#29
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief ... can anyone in here think rationally? The IS-F MIGHT not be better than it's German competition!!! Get over it. The Germans invented the sport sedan and they are pretty good at making them ... they always have been. Other boards at least have somewhat intellectual debates but on this board people shout down any dissenting voice and cry: "How could you say that about lexus." What if Edmunds is right? Nobody on this board can say that they've done an all day comparison test with an IS-F against the competition on a racetrack. I'm not going to stop visiting Edmunds because they didn't give my favorite car a good review?! I like Lexus but I don't think that they are the best values anymore like they used to be and frankly I would take a Merc C63 over the IS-F if it was my money.
I'm sure I will get shouted down and then this post will be deleted but that's my .02.
I'm sure I will get shouted down and then this post will be deleted but that's my .02.
Last edited by LexElite; 10-29-07 at 09:21 PM.
10-29-07, 09:26 PM
#30
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief ... can anyone in here think rationally? The IS-F MIGHT not be better than it's German competition!!! Get over it. The Germans invented the sport sedan and they are pretty good at making them ... they always have been. Other boards at least have somewhat intellectual debates but on this board people shout down any dissenting voice and cry: "How could you say that about lexus." What if Edmunds is right? Nobody on this board can say that they've done an all day comparison test with an IS-F against the competition on a racetrack. I'm not going to stop visiting Edmunds because they didn't give my favorite car a good review?! I like Lexus but I don't think that they are the best values anymore like they used to be and frankly I would take a Merc C63 over the IS-F if it was my money.
I'm sure I will get shouted down and then this post will be deleted but that's my .02.
I'm sure I will get shouted down and then this post will be deleted but that's my .02.
The problem is not with giving the IS-F a bad review. Its because their last review contradicts completely with their first review. Not only that, they completely dog the transmission of the IS-F which has been one of the things that almost all magazine reviews have raved about.
See, your just like the Edmunds writer. You come in here without any knowledge of what people are complaining about and you just imply that we are fanboys (you did, so shut up). and then you go on to say your money would be on the C63 when you really dont have anything to base that judgement on (yet).
just GTFO
and FYI like many people here that are CONSIDERING an IS-F I am ALSO considering a M3 or a C63 but am waiting for fair reviews from reliable sources, given that there will be a mark up for the GTR (if not, GTR over any of those three).