93' SC400 vs 00' SC400: Are there substantial improvements?
09-24-07, 02:36 PM
#16
Lexus Test Driver
Hmm, some of the upgrades are starting to look more desirable.
Personally, the cosmetic upgrades I find most appealing are the gated shifter, 3-spoke wheel and nicer perforated leather, but i'm not sure if it is still worth the $$$.
However, if the early cars were truly much weaker (180 rwhp is wimpy) than the VVTI cars, then I might have to reconsider.
I'm confused and need to drive a 2000.
Is the only differences between a 1998 and 2000 just the steering wheel and perforated leather?
Thanks again guys.
Personally, the cosmetic upgrades I find most appealing are the gated shifter, 3-spoke wheel and nicer perforated leather, but i'm not sure if it is still worth the $$$.
However, if the early cars were truly much weaker (180 rwhp is wimpy) than the VVTI cars, then I might have to reconsider.
I'm confused and need to drive a 2000.
Is the only differences between a 1998 and 2000 just the steering wheel and perforated leather?
Thanks again guys.
09-25-07, 10:14 AM
#17
Pole Position
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: OK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the VVT-i SC400's are beasts. The power difference is more than noticeable, and the interior of the 2000's are much more modern and probably in better condition. If price isn't an option, and you find a good deal, I say go for the '00 hands down.
Last edited by CDY; 09-25-07 at 01:59 PM.
09-25-07, 10:58 AM
#18
Lexus Test Driver
1996+ are OBDII, so are you grouping 1996-2000 SC400's together?
09-25-07, 01:48 PM
#21
TJCali, thanks for putting up this thread. I'm testing the waters for an SC300, trying to determine if there are optimal model years, sub-optimal features, etc. and this thread has been a good read.
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
09-25-07, 01:54 PM
#22
Lexus Test Driver
TJCali, thanks for putting up this thread. I'm testing the waters for an SC300, trying to determine if there are optimal model years, sub-optimal features, etc. and this thread has been a good read.
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
09-25-07, 02:21 PM
#24
Being a 93 owner and just because of all the parts i had to replace, parts that have been documented to be bad on all the older models.
Headlights
front control arm bushings
alternator
power steering
cracked interior parts
climate control lcd
exc.
Given the parts were raplaced with are better than oem stuff, Like daizen for the bushings. Ide go with the 97+ if possible, it will be less headache to start...
Headlights
front control arm bushings
alternator
power steering
cracked interior parts
climate control lcd
exc.
Given the parts were raplaced with are better than oem stuff, Like daizen for the bushings. Ide go with the 97+ if possible, it will be less headache to start...
Last edited by twizted; 09-25-07 at 02:29 PM.
09-25-07, 02:25 PM
#25
if ur looking at engine performance, the years should be grouped as the following:
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
09-25-07, 04:24 PM
#26
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cali
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if ur looking at engine performance, the years should be grouped as the following:
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
Is the weak numbers on the 92-95 cars documented? It seems very optimistic for the same basic motor to increase 40hp from just a small bump in compression and different cam grind. Is it possible the dyno sheet for the 1st was a fluke?
I drove a 96 and did not notice much difference to the 93 also drove the same day.
Thanks for the info.
09-25-07, 04:26 PM
#27
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cali
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TJCali, thanks for putting up this thread. I'm testing the waters for an SC300, trying to determine if there are optimal model years, sub-optimal features, etc. and this thread has been a good read.
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
It's clear there are differences between the 91-95 and the 96-00, but it's kind of hard to tell at this point how substantial those differences are. The VVT-i change in '98 seems to be the least subtle, most noteworthy change.
Thanks again for this...*back to reading more threads*
09-25-07, 04:31 PM
#28
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cali
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you say is the most noticeable changes from gen 1 to your 97, except for the obvious cosmetic changes in your opinion? Thanks.
09-25-07, 04:45 PM
#29
if ur looking at engine performance, the years should be grouped as the following:
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
92-95 - 1st generation of the V8 = 180rwhp (220crank hp)
96-97 - 2nd generation of the V8; i haven't found any dynos for these years (95-97 for LS4s) but from looking at the spec sheets of what have been changed (IE cams, compression, maf, etc), the 260crank hp is more accurate.
98-00 - 3rd generation of the V8 = 235-250rwhp, i have seen varying numbers but roughly in that range.
As we all know, 92-95 HP was underrated. 180RWHP corresponds more correctly with 250 crank HP. 220 crank HP will correspond more with 154RWHP. This is just my calculation though. I do remember an Aussie Soarer with truly 250 crank HP made 176RWHP on the dyno and just used the same calculation.
As for 98-00, i don't think RWHP is quite that high. Since the VVTi only increased crank HP by 40, then how could it have increased RWHP by 50-70? Doesn't make sense. I think it should be near 200RWHP by that same calculation.
Again, these are only calculations and inferences, please feel free to correct me if you have the actual figures.
LexAnt,
Is the weak numbers on the 92-95 cars documented? It seems very optimistic for the same basic motor to increase 40hp from just a small bump in compression and different cam grind. Is it possible the dyno sheet for the 1st was a fluke?
I drove a 96 and did not notice much difference to the 93 also drove the same day.
Thanks for the info.
Is the weak numbers on the 92-95 cars documented? It seems very optimistic for the same basic motor to increase 40hp from just a small bump in compression and different cam grind. Is it possible the dyno sheet for the 1st was a fluke?
I drove a 96 and did not notice much difference to the 93 also drove the same day.
Thanks for the info.
I hope it clears that up.
09-25-07, 04:54 PM
#30
Lead Lap
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think 92-96 sc300/400 don't look anywhere NEAR as modern/clean/smooth/stylish/updated as the 97+.
Side skirts, front bumper, fog lights, rear bumper, extensions, rear spoiler, wheels, tail lights, cluster, 98+ gated shifter, etc- IMO are all noticeable and significant improvements that make the car look noticeably better.
Also, the extra boost in power/torque is always a plus
220 hp at the crank = 154 rwhp?
that's a HUGE loss thru the drivetrain.. are these figures accurate?
Allen
Side skirts, front bumper, fog lights, rear bumper, extensions, rear spoiler, wheels, tail lights, cluster, 98+ gated shifter, etc- IMO are all noticeable and significant improvements that make the car look noticeably better.
Also, the extra boost in power/torque is always a plus
220 hp at the crank = 154 rwhp?
that's a HUGE loss thru the drivetrain.. are these figures accurate?Allen