GM mid sized sedans to only be offered with 4 cylinders
09-01-10, 12:32 PM
#46
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In your earlier post you made it sound like you believed EPA highway ratings were done at 80 mph steady. I was clarifying that they're not even though I realize it was an aside to your primary point.
The graphic you quoted above is their 'high speed' test which they added for 2008 and use to combine with the highway test I posted. So in all 20+ minutes of testing they might touch 80 for under 10 seconds or so and spend an odd amount of time at a complete stop.
IMO the EPA test should resemble the sort of highway driving done on a road trip. Instead, it's more like highway driving done in moderately congested urban rush hour traffic.
The graphic you quoted above is their 'high speed' test which they added for 2008 and use to combine with the highway test I posted. So in all 20+ minutes of testing they might touch 80 for under 10 seconds or so and spend an odd amount of time at a complete stop.
IMO the EPA test should resemble the sort of highway driving done on a road trip. Instead, it's more like highway driving done in moderately congested urban rush hour traffic.
But yes, I agree with your suggestion, a road trip style test would be the most helpful.
I've never driven a TSX, but I would never buy an IS for the 2.5L V6. What a piece of junk. 0-60 in forever and thing struggles to hit 90 MPH.
09-01-10, 12:49 PM
#47
Lexus Fanatic
Speaking of taking forever and struggling, try a Subie 2.5 SOHC making 170 in those heavier sedans/wagons. The 2.5L V6 is a significantly quicker in the IS250.
09-01-10, 01:12 PM
#48
I did, and I was grossly disappointed.
Well your posts seem to be very efficiency minded, so it surprised me that you're concerned with 0-60 times 
And if you're going to drive at 90mph often, what you want is a big V8 with tons of low end torque. It will be far more economical at that speed vs a smallish engine that needs to rev hard and struggle to maintain such speed.
And if you're going to drive at 90mph often, what you want is a big V8 with tons of low end torque. It will be far more economical at that speed vs a smallish engine that needs to rev hard and struggle to maintain such speed.
09-01-10, 01:16 PM
#49
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, I am very efficiency minded, but that doesn't mean that you can't have fun. The A4 is one of my favorite cars on the road today. You can have AWD, a 6MT and 30 Hwy miles to the gallon. I think that the TSFI S4 (which I have not driven) is far better than its predecessor. It's quicker and gained 8 miles to the gallon. Power and efficiency can go hand in hand via proper application.
09-01-10, 01:17 PM
#50
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comparison you made makes absolutely no sense.
09-01-10, 01:24 PM
#51
You're right, I am very efficiency minded, but that doesn't mean that you can't have fun. The A4 is one of my favorite cars on the road today. You can have AWD, a 6MT and 30 Hwy miles to the gallon. I think that the TSFI S4 (which I have not driven) is far better than its predecessor. It's quicker and gained 8 miles to the gallon. Power and efficiency can go hand in hand via proper application.
Under hard acceleration most engines will probably return similar efficiency as well. Lets say you're at WOT 0-60 in a V8 that does it in 4 seconds at used 10mpg vs a 4cyl that does it in 8 seconds and used 20mpg, by the time you reach 60, you both used the same amount of fuel.
The only time in real world when a small engine saves you fuel is in stop and go city driving.
09-01-10, 01:43 PM
#53
Lexus Fanatic
Agreed, the CamCordTima are no ***** of fire.The Legacy/Outback 2.5L SOHC 170hp engine is much slower than the IS250 in reality and not nearly as refined from the standpoint of the engine (which is V6 car you mentioned above).
Last edited by IS-SV; 09-01-10 at 01:48 PM.
09-01-10, 01:52 PM
#54
Coping is fine, if you don't mind the droning. Agreed, the CamCordTima are no ***** of fire.
The Legacy/Outback 2.5L SOHC 170hp engine is much slower than the IS250 in reality and not nearly as refined from the standpoint of the engine (which is V6 car you mentioned above).
Agreed, the CamCordTima are no ***** of fire.The Legacy/Outback 2.5L SOHC 170hp engine is much slower than the IS250 in reality and not nearly as refined from the standpoint of the engine (which is V6 car you mentioned above).
09-01-10, 02:06 PM
#55
Lexus Fanatic
Good example, the EPA gas mileage is nearly identical (with the TSX only rated for 1mpg better on the highway, for reasons none of us will know for sure).
09-01-10, 02:17 PM
#56
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
having driven both, while the IS is 'fun', i prefer the TSX because it's WAY more USEFUL. trunk is much bigger and rear seat folds down AND it has much more rear seat room. on the highway it's smooth and quiet although has more road noise than the lexus. and even the base model has voice recognition that works very well.
09-01-10, 03:42 PM
#57
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2.5L H4 2010 Legacy GT does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.3 seconds. Compare that to the 2.5 V6 2010 Lexus IS HIT 60 MPH in 7.4 seconds and did the quarter mile in 15.5 seconds. This is one turbo vehicle that the IS can't touch. Now in reality, the IS 350 AWD is on par with the Legacy GT, not the IS 250. But as we have no data I can't speak to that other than yet to be DIed 2.5L in the Legacy GT is good for 18/25 according to our friends at the EPA, whereas the DIed RWD IS 350 is only good for 18/25 itself, thus I am not expecting the AWD variant if the 350 to be any more efficient, but rather less so.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/up...-2.5gt-limited
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...e-sport-sedans
09-01-10, 03:48 PM
#58
Lexus Fanatic
You are comparing a family sedan/wagon to a smaller, luxury sedan with a direct injected engine. THIS COMPARISON MAKES ABSOLUTELY ZERO SENSE. I get it. You are offended that I don't care for the IS. But since you insist, let's make it a little more relavent to the conversation. Afterall, we are talking about turbos here.
Who knows, who cares.
Nobody is offended. No need to be relavent to suit you.Note: Topic is GM mid-sized sedans to be offered only with 4 cylinder engines.
And my response to OP's topic, needs to be very good 4 cylinder engines.
09-01-10, 04:02 PM
#59
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Did you try the manual TSX, it is a really satisfying sporty car to drive although the steering is not as communicative as the previous model.
Before it gets too far off topic I think we all agree GM really needs to step it up in the 4 cylinder department if they are going to only offer 4 cylinders for small to mid sized sedans in the near future. The turbo engine in the Solstice/Sky put out good power but it was also pretty rough, noisy, and had reliability issues.
09-01-10, 04:05 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Everyone relax. Slegacy You are comparing a turbo to a N/A car.
What OCh and IS-SV are saying is simple. They and myself prefer the quietness and smoothness of the 2.5 V-6 in the IS 250 to the 2.4 I-4 in the TSX which is buzzier and needs to rev to make power. Neither is a fast car and that is not their objective. Oddly the IS with the same cylinders and I believe near equal weight has pretty much the same MPG as the TSX I-4.
Not here to argue which car is better than the other, I much prefer the RWD IS for multiple reasons but the TSX is a solid car as well.
We are not comparing the IS to the TSX. We are talking about a V-6 and an I-4 with near power and MPG and why some prefer the V-6 to the I-4 and vice versa. This thread is about engines.
If anyone wants to compare car vs car please start another thread.
Slegacy You are comparing a turbo to a N/A car.What OCh and IS-SV are saying is simple. They and myself prefer the quietness and smoothness of the 2.5 V-6 in the IS 250 to the 2.4 I-4 in the TSX which is buzzier and needs to rev to make power. Neither is a fast car and that is not their objective. Oddly the IS with the same cylinders and I believe near equal weight has pretty much the same MPG as the TSX I-4.
Not here to argue which car is better than the other, I much prefer the RWD IS for multiple reasons but the TSX is a solid car as well.
The 4 cylinder TSX is quicker then the IS250 and it has a decent rear seat. I test drove a TSX also and the engine was smooth with good power and did not feel like a cheap 4 banger. Honda is one of the few manufactures that makes a really good 4 cylinder and gets 200hp or more on several models without FI.
Did you try the manual TSX, it is a really satisfying sporty car to drive although the steering is not as communicative as the previous model.
Before it gets too far off topic I think we all agree GM really needs to step it up in the 4 cylinder department if they are going to only offer 4 cylinders for small to mid sized sedans in the near future. The turbo engine in the Solstice/Sky put out good power but it was also pretty rough, noisy, and had reliability issues.
Did you try the manual TSX, it is a really satisfying sporty car to drive although the steering is not as communicative as the previous model.
Before it gets too far off topic I think we all agree GM really needs to step it up in the 4 cylinder department if they are going to only offer 4 cylinders for small to mid sized sedans in the near future. The turbo engine in the Solstice/Sky put out good power but it was also pretty rough, noisy, and had reliability issues.
We are not comparing the IS to the TSX. We are talking about a V-6 and an I-4 with near power and MPG and why some prefer the V-6 to the I-4 and vice versa. This thread is about engines.
If anyone wants to compare car vs car please start another thread.