Lexus IS200t is coming!
#16
I have driven ( don't laugh) the Hyundai Sonata's straight 4 and turbo model, there is a huge difference in the smoothness of the turbo. The car seemed to glide with little effort on the gas pedal with the turbo versus the non turbo where you have to press the gas quite a bit to get moving and that's where you hear the noise of the 4 banger. Im guessing when Lexus gets finished testing the IS200T you won't even know its a 4 cylinder car when driving it. We will see I guess
totally agree. I don't care if the 2.5 liter is slower or more gas hungry. I prefer the smoothness and sound over a turbo 4. As much as I would like the 2.5 to be faster, I bought the car knowing full well that it is what it is. So I don't care if they bring the 2.0t out in 2015 or 2016, but i'd be way more upset if they brought the USB color to the US and I didn't wait
#17
Lexus Test Driver
There was a thread two or three weeks ago revealing more on the 2.0T coming to the IS. It should be for the 2016 model year. With nearly all other competitors currently offering a 2.0T, this WILL happen. Fuel economy is trumping all other things nowadays. But I have a feeling Lexus's version will manage to be a gem and model of smoothness not seen elsewhere (and the other 2.0t's are already pretty smooth). About the only hitch I see coming (and Lexus is good at this) is releasing this innovative and interesting new engine for 2016, then facelifting the IS for 2017, right when it's due for that. So once again, there will likely be another odd-duck year for the model.
#18
Lexus Champion
There is no way the IS will have a FWD option. I believe the 2.0T will replace the 2.5, and will be offered in RWD for certain, and probably AWD too. The chassis is not designed to accommodate a FWD layout. FWD also does not fit the mission of the car (to be the best handling car in its class).
#19
Lexus Test Driver
There is no way the IS will have a FWD option. I believe the 2.0T will replace the 2.5, and will be offered in RWD for certain, and probably AWD too. The chassis is not designed to accommodate a FWD layout. FWD also does not fit the mission of the car (to be the best handling car in its class).
There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT
Last edited by NYKnick101; 05-28-14 at 12:08 PM.
#20
Lexus Champion
well almost every other company that did a 2.0t opted for the FWD with AWD option. The engine is very small and can fit in the bay horizontally. Plus its already rumored to be a F/AWD option. Audi A4 2.0t is FWD with AWD option, Merceds CLA is F/AWD with most of the power at the front wheels. And I think its going to be based of the NX drive train which is FWD with the 2.0t. The only companies That I can think of that kept their 2.0t RWD is Cadillac with the ATS, and BMW (but all their cars are RWD with AWD option).
There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT
There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT
Do you have the dimensions of the engine and the IS engine bay to verify that statement?
The cars you mention being FWD were originally designed to be FWD, which is the major difference. Can you think of any car that was designed to be RWD and later included a FWD engine option?
There is a HUGE benefit to keeping the IS RWD based. It pays huge dividends in handling that FWD can never match. The fact that the ES, RX and CT are FWD give no merit to making the IS a FWD car. The fact that their handling is nothing close to the handling of the IS should tell you that.
The Cadillac ATS with the turbo four and the 328i are the cars Lexus is trying to compete with, and they would not want to enter that battle with a FWD car.
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
2016 sounds right. I don't think Lexus would spend all that money to modify their assembly line for a car that will be changed in a year. Plus the 200t will be a smaller and different shaped engine and the amount of engineering work required to reroute the mechanical and electrical components would be too expensive. That is also why I think the 2015 model will remain the same. Maybe a few added options to the fsport.
#22
The IS will never be FWD - that's what the ES is for. The class it's competing in is all RWD and AWD because that's what the consumers want: a sporty luxury car, and FWD is the antithesis of sporty. Plus, converting it to FWD would require a massive overhaul to the drivetrain (transmission, driveshaft, differentials, etc) along with all the other things a rear wheel drive layout impacts, like the hump on the floor in the back. Never gonna happen.
#23
it would be great if lexus took it one step further and put on a twin turbo or electronic motor on that V6 and bump up the power in both hp/torque to something more suitable like 320-360 hp / 300-340 tq, so it may compete better with the the 335i's N55 and the new Q50 hybrid.
i totally agree.. i would rather have though 300tt or 300 t^2 [squared], for that twin turbo.
#24
well almost every other company that did a 2.0t opted for the FWD with AWD option. The engine is very small and can fit in the bay horizontally. Plus its already rumored to be a F/AWD option. Audi A4 2.0t is FWD with AWD option, Merceds CLA is F/AWD with most of the power at the front wheels. And I think its going to be based of the NX drive train which is FWD with the 2.0t. The only companies That I can think of that kept their 2.0t RWD is Cadillac with the ATS, and BMW (but all their cars are RWD with AWD option).
There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT
There is really no benefit with lexus being FWD or RWD since lexus has plenty of successful cars in their line that are FWD like the ES, RX, and CT
Look at the side profile of an IS. Notice how the front wheels are pushed to the nose of the vehicle. Now look at an ES. Notice how the front wheels are pushed back toward the cabin. That is the difference between a longitudinal mounted drivetrain and a transverse mounted drivetrain. The ES has major packaging advantages to the IS because the whole of the powertrain is a nice tidy package in front of the front axles; nothing from the powertrain is encroaching on the passenger volume. The IS has major handling advantages because the weight of the powertrain is contained within the wheelbase. It is a matter of the vehicle's moment of inertia. The further the weight is from the center of the vehicle, the harder it is to change the direction of the momentum of that vehicle. A lot of the FWD platforms use tricky braking to get the vehicle to rotate. The Focus ST is an example of this. It is a nose heavy pig of a vehicle, but they apply the brake heavier to the inside corner by use of a program that basically watches the steering angle and braking/throttle inputs. The vehicles are already configured for traction control which can brake any of the 4 wheels individually, so it is a good bandaid. If I'm dropping $45k on a sport sedan, I don't want a bandaid. I want good physics in the first place.
* Certain FWD Audi models and certain FWD Subaru models have FWD and a longitudinal drivetrain. It is essentially the worst of both worlds because the car is extremely nose heavy and packaging isn't great (huge overhang on the front, passenger cabin has to deal with a transmission tunnel that a pure FWD car wouldn't). Lexus could conceivably do this by removing the rear prop shaft out of the transfer case on the AWD IS, but that would be really, really dumb from a packaging, performance, and cost perspective. Like, such a dumb idea that I'd never ever ever ever consider buying a Lexus of any kind.
#26
Lexus Test Driver
There is a fundamental difference in a FWD chassis and a RWD chassis. Modern FWD chassis have the engine sitting sideways.* That means the crank shaft is parallel to the axles for the front wheels. A RWD chassis has the engine in a longitudinal fashion where the crankshaft is perpendicular to the rear axles. The CLA and A3 are FWD platforms. The IS, 2xx, 3xx, ATS, etc are all RWD chassis.
Look at the side profile of an IS. Notice how the front wheels are pushed to the nose of the vehicle. Now look at an ES. Notice how the front wheels are pushed back toward the cabin. That is the difference between a longitudinal mounted drivetrain and a transverse mounted drivetrain. The ES has major packaging advantages to the IS because the whole of the powertrain is a nice tidy package in front of the front axles; nothing from the powertrain is encroaching on the passenger volume. The IS has major handling advantages because the weight of the powertrain is contained within the wheelbase. It is a matter of the vehicle's moment of inertia. The further the weight is from the center of the vehicle, the harder it is to change the direction of the momentum of that vehicle. A lot of the FWD platforms use tricky braking to get the vehicle to rotate. The Focus ST is an example of this. It is a nose heavy pig of a vehicle, but they apply the brake heavier to the inside corner by use of a program that basically watches the steering angle and braking/throttle inputs. The vehicles are already configured for traction control which can brake any of the 4 wheels individually, so it is a good bandaid. If I'm dropping $45k on a sport sedan, I don't want a bandaid. I want good physics in the first place.
* Certain FWD Audi models and certain FWD Subaru models have FWD and a longitudinal drivetrain. It is essentially the worst of both worlds because the car is extremely nose heavy and packaging isn't great (huge overhang on the front, passenger cabin has to deal with a transmission tunnel that a pure FWD car wouldn't). Lexus could conceivably do this by removing the rear prop shaft out of the transfer case on the AWD IS, but that would be really, really dumb from a packaging, performance, and cost perspective. Like, such a dumb idea that I'd never ever ever ever consider buying a Lexus of any kind.
Look at the side profile of an IS. Notice how the front wheels are pushed to the nose of the vehicle. Now look at an ES. Notice how the front wheels are pushed back toward the cabin. That is the difference between a longitudinal mounted drivetrain and a transverse mounted drivetrain. The ES has major packaging advantages to the IS because the whole of the powertrain is a nice tidy package in front of the front axles; nothing from the powertrain is encroaching on the passenger volume. The IS has major handling advantages because the weight of the powertrain is contained within the wheelbase. It is a matter of the vehicle's moment of inertia. The further the weight is from the center of the vehicle, the harder it is to change the direction of the momentum of that vehicle. A lot of the FWD platforms use tricky braking to get the vehicle to rotate. The Focus ST is an example of this. It is a nose heavy pig of a vehicle, but they apply the brake heavier to the inside corner by use of a program that basically watches the steering angle and braking/throttle inputs. The vehicles are already configured for traction control which can brake any of the 4 wheels individually, so it is a good bandaid. If I'm dropping $45k on a sport sedan, I don't want a bandaid. I want good physics in the first place.
* Certain FWD Audi models and certain FWD Subaru models have FWD and a longitudinal drivetrain. It is essentially the worst of both worlds because the car is extremely nose heavy and packaging isn't great (huge overhang on the front, passenger cabin has to deal with a transmission tunnel that a pure FWD car wouldn't). Lexus could conceivably do this by removing the rear prop shaft out of the transfer case on the AWD IS, but that would be really, really dumb from a packaging, performance, and cost perspective. Like, such a dumb idea that I'd never ever ever ever consider buying a Lexus of any kind.
And 4Tehnguyen, I know the 3GR egine is both inthe IS/GS and Camry/Avalon/RX. Different versions but same 3.5 block. When you think about it, in the IS AWD, remove the front differential and im sure the small camry transmission can fit right in there
AGAIN I UNDERSTAND THE GEOMETRY OF THE IS, best handling car bla bla bla, setup for whatever. I'm just saying I wont be suprised if the 2.0 engine is a completely different drive train. They MAY do something completely different like even keep the V6 2.5 and 3.5 and offer the 2.0 as a completely different option. Nothing is confirmed so anything I say or anyone else says is just speculation
#27
Lexus Champion
#28
Lexus Test Driver
#29
Lexus Champion
#30
Lexus Test Driver
lol. Infinity/nissan did it so its possible. Twin-turbo v6
It depends on what kind of block they use. If its an aluminum similar to other 2.0t blocks, it should weigh around 350lbs with fluids maybe less (comparing to other 2.0t engines) and the 4GR engine weighs 397lbs with fluids so its lighter but not by much. (4gr engine actually weighs more than the 2gr engine 174kg/383lbs). GM began using sand casting blocks with iron sleeves (vs the old school die cast aluminum) on their 2.0t which is supposedly shaved off a few lbs on engine weight so who knows if they are adopting that to save weight. The specifics aren't really there I dont think
Last edited by NYKnick101; 05-29-14 at 08:36 AM.