Article Comments - First Look: 2008 Lexus IS-F

42 messages, Last post on Oct 31, 2007 at 3:53 PM

You are in the Lexus IS Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Lexus IS, Sedan

First Look: 2008 Lexus IS-F - Though Lexus is still coy with us about the specifications of the IS-F's V8 as the date of the car's introduction approaches, the engine is almost certainly based on the LS 600h L's 5.0-liter V8. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 5: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Prev; Next; Last

#26 of 42 Re: my apologies [sjaieve] by pat HOST Oct 29, 2007 (4:06 pm)
Replying to: sjaieve (Oct 26, 2007 12:12 pm) No problem, thanks.
#27 of 42 Article comments. by crimsono2 Oct 29, 2007 (4:06 pm)
Honestly, I'm a little disappointed in the IS-F. Everything it aims to be, seems well executed. However, there are a few things that stand out in my mind: - interior/exterior color combination is off for the intro model (too boy-racer as many have commented) - Rear quad-stacked exhaust is fake and for looks only (not attached to the muffler) - Why not be a 2-door? For a company that usually is a stickler for detail and has a reason for everything, it's hard to find a compelling reason for some of these design cues. Replies to this message: louiswei (Oct 30, 2007 6:30 am) crimsono2 (Oct 30, 2007 9:33 pm) louiswei (Oct 31, 2007 7:20 am) and 5 more...
#28 of 42 rs4, is-f comparison by sjaieve Oct 29, 2007 (5:53 pm)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123158 has anyone read this. help me understand a couple of things -they state in the article that the RS4 weighs more and has less torque than the IS F, yet this car is faster than the IS-F, is this physically possible since both cars have similar HP? -Lexus is historically known to be conservative with the 0-60 numbers, on their website, Lexus claims the IS-F does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. The article states they clocked 4.7/4.8 seconds. Is this consistent with what we have known about the auto maker. -http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=115689/pageNumber=1 in the second article, edmunds tested the rs4, at te time, the rs4's 0-60 was 4.6 seconds, the quartile was north of 13 seconds. you will notice that the rs4, now that the is-f is around, is now faster, i.e. 4.2 seconds and around 12 seconds for the quarter mile. do cars suddenly improve in perfomance when a new competitor arrives. the authour was frank from the begining, in that tthey liked the rs4, but can they give us information that makes sense, compare the is-f to the m3, thats more informative than ths rs4 comparison Replies to this message: gwinbear (Oct 29, 2007 9:53 pm) sjaieve (Oct 30, 2007 11:59 am) rayainsw (Oct 30, 2007 4:25 am) louiswei (Oct 30, 2007 6:33 am) sjaieve (Oct 30, 2007 11:44 am)
#29 of 42 Re: rs4, is-f comparison [sjaieve] by gwinbear Oct 29, 2007 (9:53 pm)
Replying to: sjaieve (Oct 29, 2007 5:53 pm) they state in the article that the RS4 weighs more and has less torque than the IS F, yet this car is faster than the IS-F, is this physically possible since both cars have similar HP? Certainly. It could be mechanical advantage (less power loss from engine to wheels,) different gearing ratio spread, et al. The dyno charts can also provide data on how both apply the power to the ground. It may have less MAXIMUM torque, but what if it gets this torque across the entire RPM range? (see also edmunds' article on G35 vs BMW 335i) Frankly, all these 4 point something numbers are simply too much for the streets. Replies to this message: sjaieve (Oct 30, 2007 11:59 am)
#30 of 42 RS4 quicker than the IS-F – and quicker now? [sjaieve] by rayainsw Oct 30, 2007 (4:25 am)
Replying to: sjaieve (Oct 29, 2007 5:53 pm) I see a couple of potential mitigating factors here - setting aside the issue of gearing ( mentioned above ), different track day conditions, drivers ? , etc. 1 – The RS4 has AWD, and can typically launch harder than an otherwise equivalent RWD. And launch has an effect of ET. 2 – In the initial test of the RS4, Edmunds said: “Although Audi claims production cars won't have it, our test car consistently demonstrated that it had drivetrain protection programmed into its engine calibration. Launching the RS 4 at more than 4,000 rpm was hampered by what felt like the electronic throttle being closed.” If that is now ‘fixed’, I’d expect better acceleration numbers – possibly at the expense of reduced drivetrain life . . . - Ray Disappointed in several aspects of the IS-F.
#31 of 42 Re: Article comments. [crimsono2] by louiswei Oct 30, 2007 (6:30 am)
Replying to: crimsono2 (Oct 29, 2007 4:06 pm) First of all, Lexus not offering the IS-F in 2-door is NOT a "design cue" mishap. The IS-F is the factory tuned version of the regular IS and so far there is no coupe in the IS lineup. Same thing goes for the C63 and RS4, none of them are offered as a 2-door either. I agree that the white/black high contrast interior is a little bit "flashy" but if you don't like it there is always the mature all black version. Exterior color includes black, pearl white, silver. Are those boy-racer in your standard? AS for the "fake" quad-staked exhaust I agree that it looks a bit cheesy however I can understand the reason behind it. There are going to be at least 2 issue if the muffler is attached to the exhaust and they are: 1. overheating the bumper and 2. if rear ended by another car, there will be a lot more things to be replaced. Replies to this message: crimsono2 (Oct 30, 2007 9:33 pm) louiswei (Oct 31, 2007 7:20 am) crimsono2 (Oct 31, 2007 7:48 am) and 4 more...
#32 of 42 Re: rs4, is-f comparison [sjaieve] by louiswei Oct 30, 2007 (6:33 am)
Replying to: sjaieve (Oct 29, 2007 5:53 pm) Here's the beef I have with this comparo: - They said the style is "subjective" and only "Toyota Fanboys" would like it, which is not professional at all. Of course, the stylish can be a subjective matter, but that doesn't mean that if one likes it, he's a "Fanboy". Unbiased review? I don't think so. - Quote from Edmunds: "The 3,780-pound IS-F gets to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and does the quarter-mile in 13.2 seconds at 109 mph, trailing the RS4 to 60 mph by about a half-second and to the quarter-mile by almost as much. This is with the stability and traction control systems off (yes, Lexus actually allows such a thing, a policy initiated for its performance cars for 2007) and the transmission in Drive. Later we made our runs and manually shifted the IS-F's transmission, which feels fast but predictably isn't, especially since the launch is better in Drive." Car and Driver did it in Sport mode (less wheel spin there) with manual shifting and got 4.2 seconds. Edmunds, maybe you still have a thing or two to learn... Why did they have the transmission in regular Automatic? I thought Lexus said that if the driver puts the transmission in M mode and has the sport button activated that it would give the best launch times? Also, what's even funnier is that in the IS-F first drive article Edmunds stated that this 8-speed tranny can shift as fast as Ferrari's F1 gearbox on the F430 while in the manual mode. If that's the case why would they put in "Drive" instead while testing the 0-60 performance? Makes no sense, they are contradicting themselves over and over. - Quote from Edmunds: "Where the IS-F has a certain look that we associate with the worst excesses of the aftermarket, the Audi is all understated musculature. It's relatively subtle, but we like it." Edmunds editors, please find me an aftermarket job that looks like the IS-F and please be specific about how come that the IS-F looks aftermarket and Audi is "subtle" when clearly the lines are much busier on the RS4. If the IS-F retains the regular IS exterior with only minor cosmetic differences like the RS4 does then it'll be call an "IS500" or "just an IS with a V8". If the IS-F isn't as track worthy as it is or isn't "hardcore" as Edmunds put it then it'll be called "just as soft as every other Lexus". Either way Lexus can't win with this car. Since that's the case I like Lexus' "all out approach" in order to prove that "the -F is everything you thought we weren't". It's another way of them saying: the heck with you guys. Replies to this message: sjaieve (Oct 30, 2007 11:44 am)
#33 of 42 Re: rs4, is-f comparison [louiswei] by sjaieve Oct 30, 2007 (11:44 am)
Replying to: louiswei (Oct 30, 2007 6:33 am) I think you are right, Lexus cant win with this car. I think the time has come for most of these editors to realize that the world does not stop spinning if they admit that the Japanese are now going toe to toe with the Germans. I remember when the IS350 came out, before the 335i was introduced, comparisons were made with the much slower 330i, most editors agreed that the 330i was still superior cos of "driving dynamics". Comparisons have also been made btwn the G35 & the 328i, and again the 328i won cos of driving dynamics & refinement. Such conclusions lead a lot to be desired IMO.
#34 of 42 Re: rs4, is-f comparison [gwinbear] by sjaieve Oct 30, 2007 (11:59 am)
Replying to: gwinbear (Oct 29, 2007 9:53 pm) Certainly. It could be mechanical advantage (less power loss from engine to wheels,) different gearing ratio spread here you are assuming that the Lex engineering is inferior, lets assume its not
#35 of 42 Re: Article comments. [louiswei] by crimsono2 Oct 30, 2007 (9:33 pm)
Replying to: louiswei (Oct 30, 2007 6:30 am) Don't get me wrong, I love the IS. It's just one can't help but feel a little disappointed because they are very close to the competition when they executed this car. The devil is just in the details. Saying why there's no 2-door version of the IS-F just because the C63 and RS4 don't is a cop out. The car that IS-F is gunning for is not the C63 nor the RS4, it is the M3, which, last I checked, has always been a 2-door, until recently. Surely they could've at least acknowledged that the performance demographic they were gunning for had particular preferences in door configurations. Could the IS-F have lost of a few more lbs by making it a 2-door instead of a 4-door? As stated, it is factory tuned, but they redid the hood to allow the V8 to fit, also redid the seats, and the suspension, rear fascia, and you want to tell me that they couldn't bother to redo the body so that it had 2 doors instead of 4? The question arises then, did they make the IS-F to try and compete and steal M3 sales? Or did they make it for kicks and giggles? Logical business practice would venture to say they developed this car to do the former, and break out of the stereotype they have formed over these years (in that order). Then again, as the article states, the designers themselves had less than usual R&D resources to make this car happen so, I again reiterate, am happy this car exists. But that doesn't mean I will not comment on how I wish it could be better. Your arguments regarding the fake exhaust confuse me, if they were worried about overheating the bumper, why then does the exhaust terminate underneath the car? Hell, I can't even find where they really end from the pictures I've seen on the internet. Why would Lexus care how many things need to be replaced in the event of a rear-end accident? It's all $$ to them. They just care that you walk out alive, not making it cheaper for you. Replies to this message: louiswei (Oct 31, 2007 7:20 am) crimsono2 (Oct 31, 2007 7:48 am) louiswei (Oct 31, 2007 8:15 am) sjaieve (Oct 31, 2007 9:44 am) and 2 more...