IS-f or maybe not...
#16
Lexus Champion
I would recommended driving both to see what appeals more to you. I personally love the F because of the way it feels on the road. Based on my perceptions of the pictures I've seen of the V it seems to sit a little high, making it a little top heavy. I love the F because of the interior as well, it's got the luxury and reliability of Lexus which was important to me in my purchase. I'd check out both and let us know what you think
That is a really interesting link. It seems like its in the same ballpark, speed wise to the F, M3 and C63 in the article. I thought it would of been a lot quicker then those posted times according to that review.
Edumunds tested out a CTS-V not exactly the numbers GM were claiming but impressive indeed. Here is the link... BTW my 400th post yeah...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=131106
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=131106
#17
9/22 issue of Autoweek tests the car but without any timed performance data. Comments about the acceleration were " we'd tromped on the throttle and were amazed at just how big a number 556 is", and " it halted all conversation inside the vehicle and squashed us back into the seat like a steak being tenderized". They drove both the six-speed manual and auto, liked the manual best and my impression was they were not that impressed with the paddle shift auto. As a matter of fact during the track test for best performance it was suggested by the Caddy reps. to "put the transmission in sport mode and let it do all the shifting". Not much of a testimonial for the paddle shift IMO. At 4200 lbs.(est.) this is a big HEAVY car and Autoweek compares it to the M5, RS6, and E63 AMG.
Estimated base price $ 62,500.00, with options and gas guzzler tax (EPA: 15 mpg) will probably hit $ 70K.
Estimated base price $ 62,500.00, with options and gas guzzler tax (EPA: 15 mpg) will probably hit $ 70K.
#18
I think considering that it WILL be the fastest production sedan ever made (556hp 550+ torque), there will be a large markup for some time just like every other nice car but then it will eventually die down. IMO I wouldn't even compare this car to the ISF or the M3. 556hp to 416 hp and it's only running a 12.5 second quarter mile. We already have 12.5 second timeslips from the ISF with 140 hp less. This thing is an absolute boat and anyone who buys it as a track car doesn't know anything about cars. I believe I read that when it broke the Nurburgring record it wasn't even close to stock anyways.
This car is going to be bought by old men who won't drive it over 40mph. I love the way it looks/performs but I just understand these comparisons.
This car is going to be bought by old men who won't drive it over 40mph. I love the way it looks/performs but I just understand these comparisons.
I guess I'm one of these "old men" who would look at the CTS-V, but I don't know how you could say that this car would be driven less than 40 mph any more than saying that anyone who bought a Lexus is an old fart and doesn't care about performance and drive's his IS-F like an old man.
Lexus' manufacture claims for the IS-F is "only" 0-60 4.6seconds, 1/4 at 13.0, with no specified curb weight (but some are saying around 3800 pounds ?). We know that the IS-F in some of the CL members hands have gone faster.
Now, here comes a CTS-V with 556.....say that again.....556 HP and over 550 lbs/tq......with a freakin' manual 6 speed close ratio transmission.
It will have 15 inch freakin' Brembo brakes on the darn thing.
Wait until this thing gets into the hands of the rags who will run the snot out of it before you say "only" runs a 12.5 1/4, it's a boat, and couldn't be a track car.
I don't hear anyone calling a AMG E63 an old fart car
Just my .02
#19
uhh yah. CTS-V all the way. i wouldnt even think twice about it. have you read the lightening lap this year? the ISF is probably the worst value for money track car. if we're talking boats, then that would be lexus. in terms of performance the cadillac leads the pack. price wise it will probably come in second most expensive. materials and styling is first rate although i know its subjective. but lets just say you wont find alcantara or leather lined dash in most of these cars. it is also just one of two that will have a manual.
#21
i dont like C&D any more than the next guy, but lap times were strictly used in their rankings. i understand there are lots of parameters to take into account, but they tested 22 cars at the same time with the same set of drivers. there really isnt anything more scientific you can do aside from putting the same type of rubber on all the cars. with that said, the track is fairly long at over 4 miles with lots of elevation change and long straights. FI cars will have an advantage while low displacement NA cars will be slow. so either their ISF had something wrong with it or maybe it just doesnt do well on those types of track.
#22
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (11)
Let's check how the IS-F stacks versus the E92 M3 and the C63 on other tracks and in other hands:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html
Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
Hockenheim Short: IS-F 1:15.8 | M3 (E92) 1:14.3 | C63 1:15.2 | IS-F/M3 2.00%
Hockenheim GP: IS-F 2:04.45 | M3 (E90) 2:02.71| C63 2:04.59 | IS-F/M3 1.42%
SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | IS-F 1.65% faster than M3
and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%
As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.
Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html
Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
Hockenheim Short: IS-F 1:15.8 | M3 (E92) 1:14.3 | C63 1:15.2 | IS-F/M3 2.00%
Hockenheim GP: IS-F 2:04.45 | M3 (E90) 2:02.71| C63 2:04.59 | IS-F/M3 1.42%
SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | IS-F 1.65% faster than M3
and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%
As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.
Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !
Last edited by timeToy; 09-29-08 at 05:56 PM. Reason: Added Hockenheim Times
#23
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Let's check how the IS-F stacks versus the E92 M3 and the C63 on other tracks and in other hands:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html
Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | M3/IS-F 1.65%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%
As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.
Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html
Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | M3/IS-F 1.65%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%
As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.
Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !
#24
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would bet those markup are not going to last. The ISF went tru the same story, whoever wants to be a little patient, like many things in life, can just get a better deal. Those who pay those $20k markups on the GTR might feel sorry in a few months when the car sells at or below MSRP. Let's talk about this again in January. Looking at how the economy is doing that's got to have an impact at some point...
Last edited by sxylxy; 09-30-08 at 05:22 PM.
#25
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoffman Lexus here in EH got 5 is-f's and they sold 2 in the past couple months. Can't get rid of the other 3, probably the same reason they only made a handful of sc300's with 5speeds... we tihnk its cool as tuners 10 years down the road but nobody else with 60K on hand in 2008 really does. I agree the IS-f is a great looking car yata yata, but I think its overpriced and thats why people arn't scooping these things up. That and the lack of a clutch in my case :]
If you look objectively at options, standard equipment, and performance, this car is actually priced below its competitors. So perhaps you can explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the car is overpriced.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post