2008-2013 ISF are 0-60 times getting slower
07-10-13, 01:39 PM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008-2013 ISF are 0-60 times getting slower
I am just curious.
I owned a 2008 and now a 2012 ISF and every magazine seems to be showing much slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
2008- 4.2 (0 to 60) and 12.7@ 114mph (1/4 mile)
2010-2013 4.5-4.8 (0-60) and 13.1@ 109mph (1/4 mile)
These are based on stock cars.
Just wondered if anyone else has noticed these differences.
I owned a 2008 and now a 2012 ISF and every magazine seems to be showing much slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
2008- 4.2 (0 to 60) and 12.7@ 114mph (1/4 mile)
2010-2013 4.5-4.8 (0-60) and 13.1@ 109mph (1/4 mile)
These are based on stock cars.
Just wondered if anyone else has noticed these differences.
Last edited by secondisf; 07-10-13 at 01:40 PM. Reason: grammar
07-10-13, 01:54 PM
#2
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MD
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just curious.
I owned a 2008 and now a 2012 ISF and every magazine seems to be showing much slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
2008- 4.2 (0 to 60) and 12.7@ 114mph (1/4 mile)
2010-2013 4.5-4.8 (0-60) and 13.1@ 109mph (1/4 mile)
These are based on stock cars.
Just wondered if anyone else has noticed these differences.
I owned a 2008 and now a 2012 ISF and every magazine seems to be showing much slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
2008- 4.2 (0 to 60) and 12.7@ 114mph (1/4 mile)
2010-2013 4.5-4.8 (0-60) and 13.1@ 109mph (1/4 mile)
These are based on stock cars.
Just wondered if anyone else has noticed these differences.
07-10-13, 02:46 PM
#4
Noticed it too..some 08 tests show:
0-60 @ 4.7
1/4 @ 13.0/111.7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...f/viewall.html
The numbers are comparable, it's probably just the different drivers (says the guy with the potentially slower 2011).
0-60 @ 4.7
1/4 @ 13.0/111.7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...f/viewall.html
The numbers are comparable, it's probably just the different drivers (says the guy with the potentially slower 2011).
07-10-13, 05:41 PM
#5
It's not that the car is slower, it's just a variance between test drivers, locations and weather conditions. Though I can't say I've never seen a 4.2 0-60 on this car published anywhere. In the few times that people have asked me, I've said it's supposed to be a 4.5 0-60 car, but I've never timed it.
The most impressive performance aspect of this car (to me) is how hard it pulls even in the triple digit range.
The most impressive performance aspect of this car (to me) is how hard it pulls even in the triple digit range.
07-10-13, 08:51 PM
#6
It's not that the car is slower, it's just a variance between test drivers, locations and weather conditions. Though I can't say I've never seen a 4.2 0-60 on this car published anywhere. In the few times that people have asked me, I've said it's supposed to be a 4.5 0-60 car, but I've never timed it.
The most impressive performance aspect of this car (to me) is how hard it pulls even in the triple digit range.
The most impressive performance aspect of this car (to me) is how hard it pulls even in the triple digit range.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test
07-10-13, 09:17 PM
#7
Car and driver is wrong on a lot of stuff they write(article about the 2011 is-f-said it was the first year with torsen lsd) and almost every time car and driver posts seems to be a bit on the quick side. The track i usually go to seems to run a bit slow and i ran a 12.89@110.4 in my 2011
Trending Topics
07-10-13, 11:03 PM
#8
Instructor
Real world drag strip numbers is what counts. Not saying any other year is slower than the other. I think, and only me, is the earlier years were more geared towards proving those numbers. Later years are wwwwaaaaaayyyy better with handling hands down. No dispute about that.
My $.02
My $.02
07-11-13, 11:44 AM
#10
07-11-13, 02:07 PM
#11
Conditions(temp, humidity, elevation) have so much to do with a cars performance. I try not to put too much stock in magazine stats as they are usually a decent gauge but can be a little off. Its quite possible to get the car and driver numbers but not every early is-f is going to run them...depends on location/conditions
07-11-13, 02:12 PM
#12
A guy ran 12.63@113.59 on dragtimes.com. Their are a few guys that ran a bit quicker but had the spare/jack/tools removed. Dragtimes.com is a decent gauge as they are real world times usually with videos or slips
07-13-13, 01:52 PM
#14
Hello all,
I had an '09 IS F that I bought CPO and it was really nice. I also had test driven an M3 sedan six speed before the F and I thought that they were very close in power though the M3 needs to be much higher in the rpm range to get the torque that the F has. Anyway, when I read about of the revised suspension on the '11 IS F I decided to test drive the '12 which has 0.5" wider wheels. The ride was so much better and the handling on the few sweeping turns I could take it on felt planted and better than the '09. As far as sheer speed, the '12, which I purchased, was alot slower during the break-in period. Once I had about 1700 miles on it I opend it up and it was as fast feeling as the '09. Once I had about 2500 miles on it, from a dig it felt faster as though it had more torque. Maybe the influence of the Torsen LS? The '12 I have definetily feels more potent than the '09 it replaced. Maybe just variance in the drive train build? Either way, the ride and handling is far better than the first two to three years of the F. However, as I have stated before, all years of the F are special and extrodinary machines.
I had an '09 IS F that I bought CPO and it was really nice. I also had test driven an M3 sedan six speed before the F and I thought that they were very close in power though the M3 needs to be much higher in the rpm range to get the torque that the F has. Anyway, when I read about of the revised suspension on the '11 IS F I decided to test drive the '12 which has 0.5" wider wheels. The ride was so much better and the handling on the few sweeping turns I could take it on felt planted and better than the '09. As far as sheer speed, the '12, which I purchased, was alot slower during the break-in period. Once I had about 1700 miles on it I opend it up and it was as fast feeling as the '09. Once I had about 2500 miles on it, from a dig it felt faster as though it had more torque. Maybe the influence of the Torsen LS? The '12 I have definetily feels more potent than the '09 it replaced. Maybe just variance in the drive train build? Either way, the ride and handling is far better than the first two to three years of the F. However, as I have stated before, all years of the F are special and extrodinary machines.