so how quick is the IS350
05-10-11, 04:59 PM
#16
some folks complain about the handling but truth is, a few suspension mods and the 350 will hang with the best of them. My own suspension is so dialed in, my friends love the circular freeway on ramps hah feel the G's. I can't wait to take her to a track; sways, strut bar, chassis brace, coilovers, performance tires
05-10-11, 05:07 PM
#17
Lexus Fanatic
some folks complain about the handling but truth is, a few suspension mods and the 350 will hang with the best of them. My own suspension is so dialed in, my friends love the circular freeway on ramps hah feel the G's. I can't wait to take her to a track; sways, strut bar, chassis brace, coilovers, performance tires
05-10-11, 08:28 PM
#18
Driver School Candidate
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're looking for speed... you're looking at the wrong car. If you're looking for something that looks good, has a bit of luxury, and has a little extra power the 350 is a good choice.
Bottom line is the 350 isn't fast, and never will be.
Bottom line is the 350 isn't fast, and never will be.
05-10-11, 10:13 PM
#19
I always get a kick out of seeing people trying to objectively argue that a certain car "isn't fast" when "fast" is an arbitrary designation to begin with.
Person A thinks the IS350 is "slow" and the IS250 is "slower" (relative to what?)
Person B thinks the IS350 is "fast" and the IS350 is "slow" (relative to what?)
Person C thinks the IS350 is "really fast" and the IS250 is "fast" (relative to what?)
These are useless designations until you define your terms, and the definitions are necessarily arbitrary.
I wonder if modulating these necessarily arbitrary definitions serves as some psychological placebo effect. Imagine a disgruntled IS250 owner in perhaps some attempt to recoil from the constant barrage of "IS250s are so slow" or from buyer's remorse thinking "I could have gotten 100 extra horsepower for a couple of thousand dollars more" feeling better about his or her decision to purchase an IS250 by shifting from "perspective B" to "perspective A." This is pure speculation of course. I'm just trying to propose a possible model to make sense of this lunacy.
Represent the facts as they are. Hard performance numbers are the only useful metric we have for assessing cars.
How useful would it be for me to say "The Nissan GT-R isn't fast and will never be." It's utterly useless. Perhaps my definition of "fast" entails cars covering the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds or less. It's useless therefore to vacuously assess cars as "not fast" or "slow" or "really fast" without defining your terms to begin with.
Clearly the original poster, upon seeing the hard performance numbers for the IS350, considers it to be "fast" according to his definition. What then is the purpose of responding by saying "No, no, the IS350 actually isn't fast and it never will be" when it should be patently obvious that you two have very different set points for what is considered "fast."
Here are the hard performance numbers for the IS250 versus the IS350. I'll leave it up to the individual to determine where both of these vehicles fall within the arbitrary purview of their own fabricated sense of "fast" and "slow"
IS250 =
IS350 =
Person A thinks the IS350 is "slow" and the IS250 is "slower" (relative to what?)
Person B thinks the IS350 is "fast" and the IS350 is "slow" (relative to what?)
Person C thinks the IS350 is "really fast" and the IS250 is "fast" (relative to what?)
These are useless designations until you define your terms, and the definitions are necessarily arbitrary.
I wonder if modulating these necessarily arbitrary definitions serves as some psychological placebo effect. Imagine a disgruntled IS250 owner in perhaps some attempt to recoil from the constant barrage of "IS250s are so slow" or from buyer's remorse thinking "I could have gotten 100 extra horsepower for a couple of thousand dollars more" feeling better about his or her decision to purchase an IS250 by shifting from "perspective B" to "perspective A." This is pure speculation of course. I'm just trying to propose a possible model to make sense of this lunacy.
Represent the facts as they are. Hard performance numbers are the only useful metric we have for assessing cars.
How useful would it be for me to say "The Nissan GT-R isn't fast and will never be." It's utterly useless. Perhaps my definition of "fast" entails cars covering the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds or less. It's useless therefore to vacuously assess cars as "not fast" or "slow" or "really fast" without defining your terms to begin with.
Clearly the original poster, upon seeing the hard performance numbers for the IS350, considers it to be "fast" according to his definition. What then is the purpose of responding by saying "No, no, the IS350 actually isn't fast and it never will be" when it should be patently obvious that you two have very different set points for what is considered "fast."
Here are the hard performance numbers for the IS250 versus the IS350. I'll leave it up to the individual to determine where both of these vehicles fall within the arbitrary purview of their own fabricated sense of "fast" and "slow"
IS250 =
IS350 =
05-10-11, 10:26 PM
#20
Lexus Fanatic
when i first got my lic, only cars that did 5sec 0-60 times were Porshe/Ferrari and the like, my celica GT did it in 9sec, i think people nowdays are just spoiled~
05-10-11, 10:38 PM
#21
drove my is350 to the pharmacy in order to get to it before it closed. made a trip through traffic in about 13 minutes when the trip is usually 20 minutes in "no traffic" when goin about 60mph... i kno it doesnt mean much but that 13 minute trip i made today in "mediocre traffic" makes my is350 seem very quick!
05-10-11, 11:16 PM
#22
Pit Crew
Thread Starter
My daily driver is a 2002 LS430. The 1/4 mile is 15.2 or something like that. I think the newer LS 430's were quicker with the newer tranny. My old daily driver was a 98 GS 400 which was 1/4 in 14.5.
So to have a car that is quiet, comfortable, gets decent gas milage, and is reliable that covers the 1/4 in 13.5 would be very nice. I know I could get a car with all those components that would be faster, but the price would be significantly higher.
If I want to go really fast I have the viper that is supercharged with nitrous.
So for me the IS350 is looking pretty good.
So to have a car that is quiet, comfortable, gets decent gas milage, and is reliable that covers the 1/4 in 13.5 would be very nice. I know I could get a car with all those components that would be faster, but the price would be significantly higher.
If I want to go really fast I have the viper that is supercharged with nitrous.
So for me the IS350 is looking pretty good.
05-11-11, 05:47 AM
#24
I always get a kick out of seeing people trying to objectively argue that a certain car "isn't fast" when "fast" is an arbitrary designation to begin with.
Person A thinks the IS350 is "slow" and the IS250 is "slower" (relative to what?)
Person B thinks the IS350 is "fast" and the IS350 is "slow" (relative to what?)
Person C thinks the IS350 is "really fast" and the IS250 is "fast" (relative to what?)
These are useless designations until you define your terms, and the definitions are necessarily arbitrary.
I wonder if modulating these necessarily arbitrary definitions serves as some psychological placebo effect. Imagine a disgruntled IS250 owner in perhaps some attempt to recoil from the constant barrage of "IS250s are so slow" or from buyer's remorse thinking "I could have gotten 100 extra horsepower for a couple of thousand dollars more" feeling better about his or her decision to purchase an IS250 by shifting from "perspective B" to "perspective A." This is pure speculation of course. I'm just trying to propose a possible model to make sense of this lunacy.
Represent the facts as they are. Hard performance numbers are the only useful metric we have for assessing cars.
How useful would it be for me to say "The Nissan GT-R isn't fast and will never be." It's utterly useless. Perhaps my definition of "fast" entails cars covering the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds or less. It's useless therefore to vacuously assess cars as "not fast" or "slow" or "really fast" without defining your terms to begin with.
Clearly the original poster, upon seeing the hard performance numbers for the IS350, considers it to be "fast" according to his definition. What then is the purpose of responding by saying "No, no, the IS350 actually isn't fast and it never will be" when it should be patently obvious that you two have very different set points for what is considered "fast."
Here are the hard performance numbers for the IS250 versus the IS350. I'll leave it up to the individual to determine where both of these vehicles fall within the arbitrary purview of their own fabricated sense of "fast" and "slow"
IS250 =
IS350 =
Person A thinks the IS350 is "slow" and the IS250 is "slower" (relative to what?)
Person B thinks the IS350 is "fast" and the IS350 is "slow" (relative to what?)
Person C thinks the IS350 is "really fast" and the IS250 is "fast" (relative to what?)
These are useless designations until you define your terms, and the definitions are necessarily arbitrary.
I wonder if modulating these necessarily arbitrary definitions serves as some psychological placebo effect. Imagine a disgruntled IS250 owner in perhaps some attempt to recoil from the constant barrage of "IS250s are so slow" or from buyer's remorse thinking "I could have gotten 100 extra horsepower for a couple of thousand dollars more" feeling better about his or her decision to purchase an IS250 by shifting from "perspective B" to "perspective A." This is pure speculation of course. I'm just trying to propose a possible model to make sense of this lunacy.
Represent the facts as they are. Hard performance numbers are the only useful metric we have for assessing cars.
How useful would it be for me to say "The Nissan GT-R isn't fast and will never be." It's utterly useless. Perhaps my definition of "fast" entails cars covering the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds or less. It's useless therefore to vacuously assess cars as "not fast" or "slow" or "really fast" without defining your terms to begin with.
Clearly the original poster, upon seeing the hard performance numbers for the IS350, considers it to be "fast" according to his definition. What then is the purpose of responding by saying "No, no, the IS350 actually isn't fast and it never will be" when it should be patently obvious that you two have very different set points for what is considered "fast."
Here are the hard performance numbers for the IS250 versus the IS350. I'll leave it up to the individual to determine where both of these vehicles fall within the arbitrary purview of their own fabricated sense of "fast" and "slow"
IS250 =
IS350 =
So relative to what are you judging the 350 as not fast? I've driven and owned faster cars, but I still consider the 350 fast, given its 0-60 times under 5 seconds, which can't be matched by many cars that are less expensive, and it isn't really fair to compare the 350 to much more expensive cars, since there's always a faster car out there (but you have to pay for it).
05-11-11, 10:37 AM
#25
Pole Position
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: IL
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything in the 13's is considered fast! I agree with the previous poster that stated people are spoiled. shizblam seems to be one of them. My 2005 Evo with a reflash, running 21 psi on stock turbo, full 3in turboback exhaust ran a 13.4 in the quarter. My IS350 bone stock ran a 13.23. I don't know if it's a Illinois law or national law but any car running in the 13's the driver has to wear a helmet. I didn't have one when I ran my IS350 so needless to say I only got one run in and I had to leave. 
05-11-11, 12:06 PM
#26
i had an 09 mazdaspeed fully bolted before my IS350, and the best I could get at our local 1/8th mile track was a 9.3 at about 85 mph. That car was damn quick from a roll though, but FWD is a fail without slicks at the track. I took the lexus this past weekend and on the first run, after i did the pedal dance, i ran a 8.9 at 85 mph. Pretty damn good for a comfortable 4 door sedan. My only mod is K&N intake.
05-11-11, 03:04 PM
#27
Anything in the 13's is considered fast! I agree with the previous poster that stated people are spoiled. shizblam seems to be one of them. My 2005 Evo with a reflash, running 21 psi on stock turbo, full 3in turboback exhaust ran a 13.4 in the quarter. My IS350 bone stock ran a 13.23. I don't know if it's a Illinois law or national law but any car running in the 13's the driver has to wear a helmet. I didn't have one when I ran my IS350 so needless to say I only got one run in and I had to leave.
05-11-11, 03:42 PM
#28
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, just wanted to add my thoughts on this. I have owned, rode in and raced some extremely built turbo/supercharged cars in the past. This was at the track, drag as well as SCCA solo II, and tons of "safe" street racing. To me a decent running street car in street trim at 3500 lbs will run a 13 flat at the track. A pretty quick street car will run a 12 flat and an extremely quick car will run an 11 flat. I feel the IS 350 runs and handles VERY good for an out of the box, luxury, performance sedan.
Brad
Brad
05-11-11, 07:03 PM
#30
Driver School Candidate
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: PA
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for this post, this should (but won't) end the discussion over what cars are "fast" and what cars aren't. Calling a car fast or slow should be based on numbers and should be relative to at least some other cars.
Given that "fast" is completely subjective, arbitrary, and relative, I'd very much like to hear why you don't consider the 350 fast. Judging a car as "fast" seems to me to necessitate at least implicitly comparing it to other cars (or I guess other modes of transportation, if you want to get more abstract); you can't judge a car as "fast" or "not fast" in a vacuum. When the Ford Model T was introduced with 20 hp and was the first car anyone had ever seen, I'm going to bet they found it "fast".
So relative to what are you judging the 350 as not fast? I've driven and owned faster cars, but I still consider the 350 fast, given its 0-60 times under 5 seconds, which can't be matched by many cars that are less expensive, and it isn't really fair to compare the 350 to much more expensive cars, since there's always a faster car out there (but you have to pay for it).
Given that "fast" is completely subjective, arbitrary, and relative, I'd very much like to hear why you don't consider the 350 fast. Judging a car as "fast" seems to me to necessitate at least implicitly comparing it to other cars (or I guess other modes of transportation, if you want to get more abstract); you can't judge a car as "fast" or "not fast" in a vacuum. When the Ford Model T was introduced with 20 hp and was the first car anyone had ever seen, I'm going to bet they found it "fast".
So relative to what are you judging the 350 as not fast? I've driven and owned faster cars, but I still consider the 350 fast, given its 0-60 times under 5 seconds, which can't be matched by many cars that are less expensive, and it isn't really fair to compare the 350 to much more expensive cars, since there's always a faster car out there (but you have to pay for it).
It's all a matter of opinion and what kind of vehicles you've had the opportunity to ride in I guess.