IS350 0-60 times
08-31-05, 07:39 PM
#1
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: None
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS350 0-60 times
So, so far we have for the IS350:
C&D: 5.1s
MT: 5.5s
R&T: 6.0s
Edmunds: 6.1s
Average: 5.675s
It looks like Lexus's estimate of 5.6s was pretty much dead on. No matter how you spin it, the IS350 (5.1s to 6.1s) is handily the fastest car in this class (second is the G35 with a range of 5.5s to 6.5s).
Hope we get some tests for the IS250. But I'm not holding my breath seeing as how the mags tested the hell out of the GS430 and the M45, while pretty much neglecting the volume GS300 and M35.
C&D: 5.1s
MT: 5.5s
R&T: 6.0s
Edmunds: 6.1s
Average: 5.675s
It looks like Lexus's estimate of 5.6s was pretty much dead on. No matter how you spin it, the IS350 (5.1s to 6.1s) is handily the fastest car in this class (second is the G35 with a range of 5.5s to 6.5s).
Hope we get some tests for the IS250. But I'm not holding my breath seeing as how the mags tested the hell out of the GS430 and the M45, while pretty much neglecting the volume GS300 and M35.
Last edited by jrock65; 09-01-05 at 06:37 AM.
08-31-05, 10:46 PM
#3
Lexus Connoisseur
Originally Posted by LEXUS FAN!
Autoweek tested the IS250 RWD at 7.9 and 8.3 for the AWD version
09-01-05, 05:51 AM
#4
wtf? Please dont post .... You can not mix and match results. What you are doing is just plain magazine racing which has nothing to do with real life.
CD tested IS350 with other cars. Those results should be only comparable to other results from the same test, with same results. Which means that CD tested IS350 at 13.7 while getting 14.6 out of G35...
There are good reasons for comparo's, in this case it was very hot at 110F, which is why CD adjusted their 330i test to 6.0sec and didnt use their test from winter when weather conditions were much more suitable.
It does not really matter, every comparo will say the same thing... Hopefully BMW wont be broken again :-).
CD tested IS350 with other cars. Those results should be only comparable to other results from the same test, with same results. Which means that CD tested IS350 at 13.7 while getting 14.6 out of G35...
There are good reasons for comparo's, in this case it was very hot at 110F, which is why CD adjusted their 330i test to 6.0sec and didnt use their test from winter when weather conditions were much more suitable.
It does not really matter, every comparo will say the same thing... Hopefully BMW wont be broken again :-).
09-01-05, 06:42 AM
#5
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: None
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spwolf
wtf? Please dont post .... You can not mix and match results. What you are doing is just plain magazine racing which has nothing to do with real life.
I posted the average of the timed tests for the IS350. I'm not sure why that makes you so upset.
And as more results come in for both the IS350 and the IS250, I'll continue to do so. Thanks.
09-01-05, 07:03 AM
#6
Lexus Connoisseur
Hey guys chill. This is still great news that the IS is on par with what Lexus has published as an estimate. Now no one can complain that the New IS has unacheivable estimated performance numbers.
09-01-05, 09:13 AM
#7
Originally Posted by jrock65
Hey, I'll post whatever I want as long as it is within forum guidelines. If you feel my post voided the rules, please take it up with the moderators and administrator.
I posted the average of the timed tests for the IS350. I'm not sure why that makes you so upset.
And as more results come in for both the IS350 and the IS250, I'll continue to do so. Thanks.
I posted the average of the timed tests for the IS350. I'm not sure why that makes you so upset.
And as more results come in for both the IS350 and the IS250, I'll continue to do so. Thanks.
I am not saying this to prove IS350 is faster than 6.1 or whatever, I could care less. I am just saying as objective means of measurment, averaging unrelated tests is pretty useless.
Now, if you average comparo's where same cars were tested in same conditions, that makes a lot more sense, but you are not doing that.
Trending Topics
09-01-05, 09:43 AM
#8
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: None
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spwolf
Heh, I am not upset... I am just saying averages dont mean anything... You can post whatever you want, it is an free country afterall, I am just stating my opinion how ridicilous this averaging is.
I am not saying this to prove IS350 is faster than 6.1 or whatever, I could care less. I am just saying as objective means of measurment, averaging unrelated tests is pretty useless.
Now, if you average comparo's where same cars were tested in same conditions, that makes a lot more sense, but you are not doing that.
I am not saying this to prove IS350 is faster than 6.1 or whatever, I could care less. I am just saying as objective means of measurment, averaging unrelated tests is pretty useless.
Now, if you average comparo's where same cars were tested in same conditions, that makes a lot more sense, but you are not doing that.
My main point is to answer the question, "How fast is the IS350 in 0-60?" Now, in my opinion, the best answer to that is to take the average of that car's 0-60 times. I see nothing ridiculous about that.
About your point about averaging comparos to get a car's relative performance to other cars, I agree with that. Unfortunately, it may be while before numerous comparos come out that pits these cars against one another. Also, different comparos do different things, like compare manual vs. auto, auto vs. auto, and at different times (so that a car may have gotten a horsepower bump or extra gear). So, in many instances, it's hard to get a set of apples to apples comparos.
So my points are,
1) Average 0-60 times of all tests is an objective measure of how a car accelerates from 0 to 60.
2) A bunch of apples to apples comparos and taking the average from that would be the best measure of a car's relative performance, ideally speaking. We'll have to wait for more tests to be conducted.
Originally Posted by spwolf
wtf? Please dont post ....
Originally Posted by spwolf
You can post whatever you want,
Last edited by jrock65; 09-01-05 at 09:54 AM.
09-01-05, 10:55 AM
#9
Intermediate
Originally Posted by jrock65
You're looking at this ONLY in terms of how a car compares to other cars.
My main point is to answer the question, "How fast is the IS350 in 0-60?" Now, in my opinion, the best answer to that is to take the average of that car's 0-60 times. I see nothing ridiculous about that.
About your point about averaging comparos to get a car's relative performance to other cars, I agree with that. Unfortunately, it may be while before numerous comparos come out that pits these cars against one another. Also, different comparos do different things, like compare manual vs. auto, auto vs. auto, and at different times (so that a car may have gotten a horsepower bump or extra gear). So, in many instances, it's hard to get a set of apples to apples comparos.
So my points are,
1) Average 0-60 times of all tests is an objective measure of how a car accelerates from 0 to 60.
2) A bunch of apples to apples comparos and taking the average from that would be the best measure of a car's relative performance, ideally speaking. We'll have to wait for more tests to be conducted.
doesn't quite jive with this
My main point is to answer the question, "How fast is the IS350 in 0-60?" Now, in my opinion, the best answer to that is to take the average of that car's 0-60 times. I see nothing ridiculous about that.
About your point about averaging comparos to get a car's relative performance to other cars, I agree with that. Unfortunately, it may be while before numerous comparos come out that pits these cars against one another. Also, different comparos do different things, like compare manual vs. auto, auto vs. auto, and at different times (so that a car may have gotten a horsepower bump or extra gear). So, in many instances, it's hard to get a set of apples to apples comparos.
So my points are,
1) Average 0-60 times of all tests is an objective measure of how a car accelerates from 0 to 60.
2) A bunch of apples to apples comparos and taking the average from that would be the best measure of a car's relative performance, ideally speaking. We'll have to wait for more tests to be conducted.
doesn't quite jive with this
09-01-05, 02:45 PM
#10
Speaks French in Russian
Originally Posted by umpalumpa
i agree, i'm just happy to know that the times are close to what lexus claimed. other threads have voiced skepticism over lexus estimates and these numbers confirm them. no one here should EVER tell another member not to post either...thats BS! have some respect for cripes sake!
I'm sorry I couldnt help myself.
09-01-05, 02:56 PM
#11
Originally Posted by spwolf
wtf? Please dont post ....
09-01-05, 03:55 PM
#13
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flipside909
I find it interesting that the same exact numbers are published by Lexus as "mfg. estimates".
my bad, but even so...that is what the average will be
also...jrock...
why did you take out one of the magazine estimates?
09-01-05, 04:06 PM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: None
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LEXUS FAN!
oh ok...
my bad, but even so...that is what the average will be
also...jrock...
why did you take out one of the magazine estimates?
my bad, but even so...that is what the average will be
also...jrock...
why did you take out one of the magazine estimates?
09-01-05, 05:29 PM
#15
lol, you are right tig, i should not have posted the OBVIOUS :-).
and jrock - only reason I am seeing this as car vs car was you posting G35 numbers, where you obviously...compared them :-).
To me, apples to apples sounds a lot better than apples and beef steak :-).
Saying IS averages 5.6 (or 5.2 for that matter) still makes little sense since most of those tests only had one thing in common - same car. If you ever tested your car at different tracks, with different elavation, temperature, humidity, you probably would understand why mixing and matching wont work.
And nothing against posting all times, which i think is pretty good idea, just that averaging is simply not actual averaging but mixing and matching.
and jrock - only reason I am seeing this as car vs car was you posting G35 numbers, where you obviously...compared them :-).
To me, apples to apples sounds a lot better than apples and beef steak :-).
Saying IS averages 5.6 (or 5.2 for that matter) still makes little sense since most of those tests only had one thing in common - same car. If you ever tested your car at different tracks, with different elavation, temperature, humidity, you probably would understand why mixing and matching wont work.
And nothing against posting all times, which i think is pretty good idea, just that averaging is simply not actual averaging but mixing and matching.