KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

I was wondering where this was on their official Youtube channel but thankfully someone else uploaded it not too long ago.


John Davis narration: "...but in our minds we couldn't have asked for more!"

Well... actually John Davis... you certainly could have asked for more: the 2.5L 1JZ-GTE turbocharged engine, R154 5-speed manual transmission and Torsen LSD that all could be optioned on the Japanese market version.

...And of course a voltmeter and oil pressure gauge (for those who haven't watched a lot of vintage Motorweek review videos John Davis often lamented whenever a vehicle didn't have those from the factory)

t2d2

iTrader: (8)

Interesting tidbit there for me is them saying the SC400 is only 81 lbs more than the M/T SC300. The common production numbers and curb weights chart has the difference at 119 lbs. Did Motorweek know something back then that was mostly lost to history, about the SC400's weight being overstated or the SC300's being understated?

(I've always been skeptical of the supposed 10-22 lb (varies by year, which is also suspicious) difference between the M/T and A/T SC300. Not having weighed or worked on either tranny, but basing it on manual swaps on other platforms, I would expect the manual to be half to two-thirds the weight of the automatic. So, like 50-100 lbs lighter.)

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Their investigative journalism was conducted so many years ago it is very difficult to tell today if they knew something we don't, if they were testing a very lightly optioned (or no-option) SC400 or if they were given a "ringer" car by Lexus for magazine/video testing purposes. Ringer cars with less weight, slightly more horsepower (when possible) or with tweaked electronics have been used for years if the manufacturer could get away with it. Not always but sometimes.

I think the difference might be down to inaccurate numbers or an SC400 and SC300 as weighed with very light or no options... versus the cars they actually tested.

As for the weight of a factory SC300 5-speed the early ones were supposed to be just over 3,500lbs. I'm not sure if that does or does not include the sunroof and automatic adjusting steering column "options". Here they state that their 5-speed test car is 3,494lbs but still came with the motorized steering column, Nakamichi premium stereo and a sunroof. It makes me wonder.

As for the slight weight difference between the M/T and A/T SC300 of the same model year it should come down to the weight of the W58 vs A340E, slight front driveshaft weight difference, lack of TRAC on the 5-speed and who knows what else. The clutch pedal assembly including the box must add a couple of pounds.

t2d2

iTrader: (8)

I assumed they go by the weights the manufacturers provide them, but maybe the big magazines do their own weighing? If so, options differences would make a difference, and they'd be weighing it full of fluids ... which makes me think they wouldn't do it that way, since it would be guaranteed to not match listed dry weights.

Was the sunroof and power column "option" only applicable to M/T's? I.e., were they standard features on A/T's? If so, it would make sense to report the base model weight for manuals, even if that's only 0.00001% of all models produced. But, if that's what they did, it would increase the gap between M/T and A/T weights, not reduce it. So, I don't think it was that, either.

I'm seeing a range of weights for the W58, from 77 to 110 lbs. The A340E is a bit tougher to find specs on, but looks like it may be 130-150 lbs. Both are lighter than I expected, but potentially still in my "half to two-thirds" estimate, depending on where they fall in their respective ranges. The real difference in weight is probably double what's typically reported, at any rate.

The M/T pedal set weighs a little more, but is basically offset by the less complicated shifter assembly and less wiring (unless both were pre-wired the same). The only real gotcha is flywheel vs. flex plate, with the M/T gaining back some weight there. And perhaps the master cylinder with a small contribution.

Kira X

iTrader: (24)

This was a good video. I enjoyed the SC400 review they did back in the day and before knew they did an SC300 review until today. It makes me wish I had a 5-speed SC300 though. They seemed much quicker than my auto SC300.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

Kira, you could always swap your auto SC300 to manual : ) There are only so many mechanical and other minor differences between the two trims (a manual ECU is ideal and a 92-94 5-speed cluster swap and TRAC delete would make it near identical to a factory 5-speed. The auto 4.272 final drive ratio that your SC300 already has is, IMO, more fun than the stock 4.083 that all 5-speeds came with).

RudysSC

Super cool... I love seeing reviews and info about these cars in their glory days! Thanks for sharing.

Kira X

iTrader: (24)

I’ve considered doing that. If I could’ve gotten a cheap R154 years ago that would’ve sealed the deal. I never thought about the auto final ratio. That would be pretty fun. Especially if I went NA-T.

KahnBB6

iTrader: (5)

R154's have gone up in price in the last few years. There's also the CD009 option. And Tremec but then it's getting past an R154's currently all-in cost.

With a W58/R154 if staying NA then I think a 4.272 ratio is the most fun. Sure, highway cruising RPMs are a bit higher than with a 4.083 ratio but overall the whole powerband is more fun and usable.

However if you're going NA-T with a W58/R154 then I recommend an SC400's 3.92 ratio at minimum. Even that ratio will feel a bit on the aggressive side with boost but it is very easy to get compared to a 3.769 ratio. A 3.615 ratio (ring and pinion only taken from a 1989-1995 LS400 diff) has to be built fully custom.

I have tried 4.272 ratio gearing with boost and all the power comes on crazily fast but it also doesn't allow that power to stay on for very long in each gear. For JZ engines it really is only best as an NA style ratio.