Six Speed Transmission
03-15-10, 09:48 PM
#1
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Six Speed Transmission
I am coming on sixth week of ownership of my 2006 SC. I can't believe that my beloved LX just sits in the garage 
SC is (quietly) taking over as a DD. 
Of course, I am sure the weather is a contributing factor too.
I am surprised at how quick this car can be...when needed. Is it just the six speed tranny or there were other upgrades made to the engine? I test drove a couple of 2003 and a 2005 during my initial search and I thought they were all sluggish when taking off....not this 2006! What gives? I have done nothing special to the car....changed oil to Mobil 1 (all my cars get this), air filter to K&N and reset the ECU trick (found here on this forum). Oh yeah, I find myself driving "semi manual" most of the time.
Cheers.
SC is (quietly) taking over as a DD. Of course, I am sure the weather is a contributing factor too.I am surprised at how quick this car can be...when needed. Is it just the six speed tranny or there were other upgrades made to the engine? I test drove a couple of 2003 and a 2005 during my initial search and I thought they were all sluggish when taking off....not this 2006! What gives? I have done nothing special to the car....changed oil to Mobil 1 (all my cars get this), air filter to K&N and reset the ECU trick (found here on this forum). Oh yeah, I find myself driving "semi manual" most of the time.
Cheers.
03-16-10, 07:58 AM
#2
Options-you have done all the things to make it quicker without any significant mods. it's totally logical that it seems quicker due to the manual shifting, and just the gear ratio of the 2006. Actually by Lexus specs, the 2006 has less HP. Most think the 2006+ are quicker, however.
My 2005 with K&N, reset ECU, no traction and in manual mode (c-gate shifting) seems very quick.
Katy and Bob have regularly noticed a big difference even within 2002-2005 cars when they have driven them.
Carbon buildup, intake, exhaust, fuel injection cleaning, ECU programming all can vary between cars....hypothecially even same year cars with same mileage can vary significantly in performance.
Sounds like you've got a great garage...LX and the SC! Congrats
My 2005 with K&N, reset ECU, no traction and in manual mode (c-gate shifting) seems very quick.
Katy and Bob have regularly noticed a big difference even within 2002-2005 cars when they have driven them.
Carbon buildup, intake, exhaust, fuel injection cleaning, ECU programming all can vary between cars....hypothecially even same year cars with same mileage can vary significantly in performance.
Sounds like you've got a great garage...LX and the SC! Congrats
03-16-10, 10:00 AM
#3
No difference in engine HP between the 2 model years as it is the exact same engine. Only difference is Lexus complied with the SAE HP rating regulation, which lowered the HP specification Lexus could advertise.
An '06 and newer should be quicker as the additional gear gives you a lower ratio's in the tranny across the board.
I think the difference in cars as you're test driving can be attributed to the ECU learning the driving style of each owner. First thing a new owner should do is disconnect the battery for an hour and start fresh.
the car is much more fun to shift manually, as the tranny ECU shifts a little soon IMO. Be nice to have a "sport mode", and get the car to hold gears a little longer.
An '06 and newer should be quicker as the additional gear gives you a lower ratio's in the tranny across the board.
I think the difference in cars as you're test driving can be attributed to the ECU learning the driving style of each owner. First thing a new owner should do is disconnect the battery for an hour and start fresh.
the car is much more fun to shift manually, as the tranny ECU shifts a little soon IMO. Be nice to have a "sport mode", and get the car to hold gears a little longer.
03-16-10, 10:12 AM
#4
PHXSC-you are saying that the 2002-2005 300hp rating and the 2006-current 288hp rating was only a change in Lexus compliance SAE HP rating? Interesting...
I thought it was because the engine was detuned slightly from 300 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque down to 288 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque due to import regulations on fuel and gas guzzler taxes? EPA fuel economy estimates improved slightly too...
I thought it was because the engine was detuned slightly from 300 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque down to 288 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque due to import regulations on fuel and gas guzzler taxes? EPA fuel economy estimates improved slightly too...
03-16-10, 01:45 PM
#5
PHXSC-you are saying that the 2002-2005 300hp rating and the 2006-current 288hp rating was only a change in Lexus compliance SAE HP rating? Interesting...
I thought it was because the engine was detuned slightly from 300 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque down to 288 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque due to import regulations on fuel and gas guzzler taxes? EPA fuel economy estimates improved slightly too...
I thought it was because the engine was detuned slightly from 300 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque down to 288 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque due to import regulations on fuel and gas guzzler taxes? EPA fuel economy estimates improved slightly too...
I'll see if i can find a link
03-16-10, 01:55 PM
#6
Here's text off of toyotanation:
it occured August 2005, affecting MY2006 I was driving a TL at the time and lost 12 HP
So I put in a K & N filter toget some of it back
quote: "It sounds like Toyota and Honda used loopholes in horsepower rating systems to inflate their numbers. US domestic brands should not be affected by these stricter standards as they already followed SAE rules. This is pretty big and will not look good for the automakers who overrated horsepower when it is made public. Note: these revisions may also encompass European brands such as BMW, Volvo, Jaguar, etc.
Acura
RL: New horsepower/torque ratings: 290 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 6200 rpm, 256 lbs-ft torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 5000 rpm (Was 300hp 260Tq)
TL: New horsepower/torque ratings: 258 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 6200 rpm, 233 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 5000 rpm (Was 270hp 238 Tq)
MDX: New horsepower/torque ratings: 253 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 5800 rpm, 250 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 3500 rpm (Was 265hp 253Tq)
RSX: 155 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 6500 rpm, 139 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 4000 rpm
RSX Type-S: 201 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 7800 rpm, 140 lbs-ft of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 7000 rpm
Toyota Camry
Toyota Camry:
4-Cylinder: 154hp/160Tq (was 160hp/163Tq)
3.0 V6: 190hp/197Tq (was 210hp/220Tq)
3.3 V6: 210hp/220Tq (was 225hp/240Tq)
Pontiac G6 - was up
Pontiac G6:
3.5L: 201hp/222Tq (was 200hp/220Tq)
Quote:
All Honda and many Toyota engines were never rated to the SAE standard in the first place, they just said they were. Whether sales and communications staff were aware of it or not, they were just giving Japanese data calcuated using the DIN standard and often metric rather than US hp. The "stricter" SAE standard just brought this discrepancy to light. No official figures have yet been released. No American engines will be affected, but Saab, Jaguar, Volvo and Chrysler's European sourced diesels may be, but not to the same extent as the European EEC standard is much closer to the SAE and turbos largely eliminate the remaining differences. The main problem they have is inadvertant use of metric rather than US hp. Marketing and communications staff have been more careless and ignorant than anything, unaware that Swedish and German words for horsepower refer to metric hp, not the US/Imperial standard. Media are often caught out as well, rushing to publication before manufacturers release US data in hp (SAE or not). Even though GM and Chrysler test using the SAE standard, published figures (even in dealer guides) regularly show obvious errors such as kW and hp ratings that don't match.
Quote:
The loopholes they closed are modifications made to a vehicle used in testing. There is no honest mistake, or some new procedure that caught everyone off guard. They just stopped companies from making modifications to engines that would not be found in production cars. And what happened? GM numbers go up, imports go down. You may not like the results, but don't make excuses. GM has said they will certify their entire 06 line-up. That shows they have nothing to hide. If Toyota does the same, good for them. That Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infiniti don't, then you know they've been making modifications to misrepresent actual performance. Companies found to have substantially misled customers should be sued. People make purchasing decisions based on engine performance, and billion-dollar corporations should not be allowed to cheat customers because they didn't feel like actually spending the money to make their cars perform they way they claim.
it occured August 2005, affecting MY2006 I was driving a TL at the time and lost 12 HP
So I put in a K & N filter toget some of it back
quote: "It sounds like Toyota and Honda used loopholes in horsepower rating systems to inflate their numbers. US domestic brands should not be affected by these stricter standards as they already followed SAE rules. This is pretty big and will not look good for the automakers who overrated horsepower when it is made public. Note: these revisions may also encompass European brands such as BMW, Volvo, Jaguar, etc.
Acura
RL: New horsepower/torque ratings: 290 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 6200 rpm, 256 lbs-ft torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 5000 rpm (Was 300hp 260Tq)
TL: New horsepower/torque ratings: 258 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 6200 rpm, 233 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 5000 rpm (Was 270hp 238 Tq)
MDX: New horsepower/torque ratings: 253 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 5800 rpm, 250 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) at 3500 rpm (Was 265hp 253Tq)
RSX: 155 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 6500 rpm, 139 lbs-ft. of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 4000 rpm
RSX Type-S: 201 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 7800 rpm, 140 lbs-ft of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04) @ 7000 rpm
Toyota Camry
Toyota Camry:
4-Cylinder: 154hp/160Tq (was 160hp/163Tq)
3.0 V6: 190hp/197Tq (was 210hp/220Tq)
3.3 V6: 210hp/220Tq (was 225hp/240Tq)
Pontiac G6 - was up
Pontiac G6:
3.5L: 201hp/222Tq (was 200hp/220Tq)
Quote:
All Honda and many Toyota engines were never rated to the SAE standard in the first place, they just said they were. Whether sales and communications staff were aware of it or not, they were just giving Japanese data calcuated using the DIN standard and often metric rather than US hp. The "stricter" SAE standard just brought this discrepancy to light. No official figures have yet been released. No American engines will be affected, but Saab, Jaguar, Volvo and Chrysler's European sourced diesels may be, but not to the same extent as the European EEC standard is much closer to the SAE and turbos largely eliminate the remaining differences. The main problem they have is inadvertant use of metric rather than US hp. Marketing and communications staff have been more careless and ignorant than anything, unaware that Swedish and German words for horsepower refer to metric hp, not the US/Imperial standard. Media are often caught out as well, rushing to publication before manufacturers release US data in hp (SAE or not). Even though GM and Chrysler test using the SAE standard, published figures (even in dealer guides) regularly show obvious errors such as kW and hp ratings that don't match.
Quote:
The loopholes they closed are modifications made to a vehicle used in testing. There is no honest mistake, or some new procedure that caught everyone off guard. They just stopped companies from making modifications to engines that would not be found in production cars. And what happened? GM numbers go up, imports go down. You may not like the results, but don't make excuses. GM has said they will certify their entire 06 line-up. That shows they have nothing to hide. If Toyota does the same, good for them. That Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infiniti don't, then you know they've been making modifications to misrepresent actual performance. Companies found to have substantially misled customers should be sued. People make purchasing decisions based on engine performance, and billion-dollar corporations should not be allowed to cheat customers because they didn't feel like actually spending the money to make their cars perform they way they claim.
Trending Topics
03-17-10, 05:01 PM
#10
^^^ +1 I've always thought the GS was faster too...going way back to my 93 GS300 versus my 95 SC300. Supposed to have the same engines, same SAE HP, etc but my GS always seemed quicker.
My MIL (mother-in-law) just bought a beautiful 2010 mercury metallic GS350 from Sewell with the gray interior and chrome wheels. Traded in her matador red mica RX400h 2008.
I know the GS is probably due for a change, but to me it's still fresh and very fun to drive, but still luxurious and up-to-date. Not sure if Lexus has any plans on the horizon soon for it, but my mother in law didn't care because she loved the drive so much.
My MIL (mother-in-law) just bought a beautiful 2010 mercury metallic GS350 from Sewell with the gray interior and chrome wheels. Traded in her matador red mica RX400h 2008.
I know the GS is probably due for a change, but to me it's still fresh and very fun to drive, but still luxurious and up-to-date. Not sure if Lexus has any plans on the horizon soon for it, but my mother in law didn't care because she loved the drive so much.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
