Big Willy

OK...To clarify. for all who are so concerned about were things are posted...

Is there anyone out there who owns an ISF, that is currently trying to get rid of there car? I am not interested in buying it.( Or i would have posted this in the classified section) Just curious to why you are looking to get out of it...

DaEvilG

I wanna get rid of mine and buy a Lambo Reventón...haha jk. I've seen one person I think in Georgia who sold theirs because of "Speeding Tickets." Sucks for them.

UZ214

i saw one person selling his few months ago on ebay, reason was wife was pissed off. poor guy

kickhard

selling mine for no other reason than that my GTR is coming in. I have had no problems at all with the ISF. Its rock solid

foup

Hey kickhard, make sure to make a comparison between the GTR and the ISF once you get it. How much you're asking for your ISF (how many miles)?

I like the GTR specs over the ISF such as: AWD, adjustable suspension, column-mounted paddles. Even though the acceleration numbers are better, however, I doubt it feels that much faster than the ISF (480HP/V6 vs 416HP/V8) and I have great reservation (until I see one) about the front look and the interior look (seems there are buttons, ***** and displays everywhere...) Thanks.

f=ma

no way, my isf is my DD. Its everything I ever needed. I am thinking about dumping my e93.

kickhard

LOL just looking at the specs on paper the ISF really is not in the same league as the GTR and I expect it to out perform the ISF by alot(GTRs are running 11.6 1/4 mile stock versus 12.8s for the ISF). Just the 0-60times between the 2 tells the story but really the main reason is after market. Already there are tons of parts for the GTR plus boost is a wonderful thing. Cobb tuning already has the ecu out for it amoung others. We still might keep the ISF, again it has been the one car that i have had that has not had a single thing go wrong with it.

My ISF has roughly 9800 miles on it.

Celsius

iTrader: (1)

you have got to be kidding right? The GTR is a TRUE SUPERCAR! There is a reason why the IS-F hasn't ran the ring yet!

DRE1615

FYI the GTR's are very very underrated. They are faster than cars with more power and less weight. Some dyno tests have shown them having around 550-580 hp with different estimated drivetrain losses. No way will/should an ISF keep up or even compare to the GTR in performance.

However, in other areas I think the ISF is better.

kickhard

I have never seen a dyno figure that supports 550-580hp in Wheel HP or Crank HP. The problem with everyone trying to figure the drivetrain loss is that they are mostly wrong. Nissan states drivetrain loss is rougly 10% which is really low for drivetrain loss. We are used to 15% for manual Transmission cars and 20% for auto Transmission cars. It seems the drivetrain on this car is very efficient. Most GTRs I have seen are reading 410awhp-430awhp on various dynos. This still figures more than the 480 hp crank that Nissan states but not by much. I would say anywhere from 490-510hp crank is probably where the GTR is. Still under rated

To compare a ISF to a Super Car is un-comparable. Thats like comparing a Lambo Gallardo, Porsche 911TT, ZO6 to a ISF. Apples and Oranges

DRE1615

Ok so maybe I was exaggerating with the 550-580hp. Here's the vid I saw which somewhat proves your theory, b/c with a smaller drivetrain loss the power should be pretty accurate to Nissan's claims. But if we are wrong and it is in fact about a 20% drivetrain loss then they are extremely underrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJgvI9A1zcI

Not sure what to think. Supercar status if you ask me but still many unanswered questions. In a good way though

ToothDoc

I almost traded in my IS-F for the GT-R a couple of weeks ago. Yes, they had a black one in stock not sold!!! I think they got like 6 of them. This is Arlington Nissan by my Lexus dealership Arlington Lexus.

Anyways, my wife and I both agreed that the GT-R had awesome wheels, brakes, tail pipes and probably performance... BUT, IOO (in our opinion - new one eh?) the IS-F just simply looked better and nicer. More upscale. The GT-R kinda looked like a freaky 350Z from the profile and didn't have the muscle car look. So, reason number one - the IS-F actually looks nicer and so is the interior. Performance, I'm sure the GT-R is better but there are so many limitations/issues. Just the maintenance alone is SIGNIFICANTLY higher on the GT-R and even though it's a performance car, if you read their fine print, any kind of racing voids their warrantee. What's up with that? The last thing that was a no go for me was they wanted 30K over sticker and on top of that, they were charging 3K for the clear plastic shield over the bumper/hood.

In the end, I'm pretty sure I made the right choice sticking with the IS-F. It's a blast of a car and NOT ONE THING WRONG yet. That's one of the biggest reason I got into a Lexus in the first place (opposed to M and AMG).

kickhard

I agree with your thoughts. No GTR to me is worth 30k over either. I ordered mine at MSRP. Hell if you raced the ISF I would bet Lexus would try to not cover anything related to damage from racing either or for that fact any maker. But i think Nissan is being a lot to paranoid on its first entry into the supercar world. Just trying to cover its butt

primecut

iTrader: (1)

Yea, can't really compare a GT-R with an IS-F. Not in the same league. But GT-R is more of a race car, and you sacrifice a lot of luxury, amenities, reliability, and comfort for the performance. It comes down to what kind of balance you're looking for. Maintenance cost is through the roof on the GT-R also.

I'm planning on sticking with this car for the long term...

Scottward

If so I would do so in a hurry before the massive failure rates of the fuel pumps hits the consumer report mags and JD power surveys. Once this happens, the resale may tank. Not only that, but the midlife update is scheduled to hit in about a month.