lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

It's a magazine test car. No telling what's been done to it to make it perform better than the average F. FWIW, the Supra TT tested by C&D in 1993 went 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and did the 1320 in 13.1 seconds at 109 mph. No owner EVER got a stock car to run that quick or fast. Rumors abounded about a "special" ECM for that particular red hard top car. Owners saw 106 mph universally.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the F handed to R&T was a "ringer" with special mods (like empty second cats) to make sure the car fared well against the other entries.

Damage

Ah..totally forgot about ringers. Like I said in previous post, a .4s difference in 0-60 is pretty significant. I've heard of manufacturers underrating HP, but not acceleration times.

8speed

And the 12.38 @ 115 that Cayman ran was a ringer car as well


I've been driving high performance cars for over 20 years from Dinan tuned M3's to Ecutek tuned STi's to Revo tuned S4's...........I see and feel based on real world driving no reason for the IS-F to not hit low 4's 0-60 and low 12's in the 1/4 mile. I don't need inane car reviews and youtube banter to tell me that. And I surely don't need anyone who doesn't own or who has never driven in one to tell me otherwise!

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Are you referring to me? I hope not. I've been driving longer than you've been alive. I've driven 9 second machines and held a few racing licenses. Magazine cars are ringers almost universally especially in their first production year. And yeah, I own an F.

Caymandiver got exceptional conditions for his run, and he'll tell you he did. His run is not indicative of everyday driving the F. Making a claim that this is "what they do" and trying to back it up against someone who does this at any typical density altitude will result in a loss, and maybe a pretty embarrassing one (every tenth is a car length in a quarter mile). "See and feel" doesn't mean jack to anyone with a watch. Lots of things feel quick or fast and aren't. The watch doesn't lie.

Dave600hL

I thought we were talking about if the car could do faster than the manufactures claim here? If Caymandiver did it then the car is certainly capable of pulling those times, end of story. No matter how much you want to about the the air density altitude, or the track was on a 30% slope and their was a 200mph tail wind and the car was hooked up to a funny car for the pass, the fact remains the car was stock and ran those times in favourable conditions(which mind you may only equate to few tenths over the quater and even less for the 0-60)

FPR1939

+1, Dave I agree with you.

Cabinetman

We can argue numbers all day long, but what is really comes down to is if the F is quick enough for you. The answer for me is a resounding YES. Granted, this is the fastest car I have ever owned so I might be more easily impressed than others here.

cssnms

Oh it's a big conspiracy... Stop it already you sound silly! First you wanted "proof" now you want more proof.... Why don't you call C&D and ask them how they launched to get such a time and report back here for everyone's benefit. Don't forget to ask about the weather conditions and the driver's experience. Then call R&T and ask them the same thing. It would make for more of an effective analysis if you could get Lexus to provide the same details. Now don't come back until you have all of the supporting documentation.

8speed

LMAO

..............popcorn anyone

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Ever since Ford got screwed with their Mustangs being slow, every manufacturer has sandbagged their numbers, and historically, the magazines have always gone quicker and faster than the OEM numbers (with a couple of exceptions because those magazine's drivers would be hard pressed to handle a riding mower.) I still wouldn't claim Caymandiver's numbers as representative, I'd call them under ideal conditions so anyone deciding they wanted to run against me with their truly low 12 second car wouldn't embarrass me to no end when my F runs a high 12 (closer to normal) and they beat me by 4 - 6 tenths (4 - 6 car lengths, a bloody eternity) at the track.

CrazyMPG

iTrader: (4)

haha I am pretty sure caymandiver isn't driving a "Stock" is-f...he has some weight reduction and I believe drag radials on stock 18" 2IS wheels when he goes 1/4 mile drag racing...hehe Plus the place he goes has a very nice DA...stupid Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, CA sucks in DA... I ran 12.979 recently...but I didn't launch right and my wheels slipped in 2nd and 3rd gear...and I messed up my shifting...I only got to go once cuz there were sooooo many cars....a stock GTR got 11.8 tho...hehe

ArticKnght

What happened to this thread? I though it was supposed to be about what we think will be in the 2010 model. Some how we are talking about 0-60 times.

hwy1isf

iTrader: (1)

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the 2010 model.

8speed

Cayman said specifically (See link below) that the DR's didn't improve his time, it just helped him stay more consistent. And he specifically stated that the 18 inch IS wheels were actually heavier than the OEM IS-F wheels so fail for not doing your research. And shaving weight isn't always a modification........would you call removing your spare and tools from the trunk and running at the strip with 1/4 of a tank of gas a mod CF seats, hood, lighter wheels on the other hand? Absolutely!

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...etition-9.html

For every 12.8-13.0 second pass for the IS-F there are just as many 12.4-5's so I wouldn't say that high 12's are the norm. Mid 12's sounds more accurate.

http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes
I suck at life

rominl

iTrader: (4)

yes, everyone please get back on topic about what the potential changes are on the 2010 model. other topics feel free to open a new thread.