XeroK00L

Big thanks to jruhi4 @ my.is for posting this for us.

The numbers are looking pretty good against the competition. The IS350's figures are slightly worse than the automatic 330i's 21/29 but still awesome considering the huge power advantage. The IS250's 24/32 rating should also be a good selling point to those who care less about power.

Note that cars.com reported the exact same figures estimated by Lexus earlier in this thread: https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=177263 .

A separate insert to the Tarrytown, NY short-lead press preview kits includes the Official EPA Fuel Economy ratings for the 2006 Lexus IS models:

IS250 RWD Automatic
24 mpg City
32 mpg Highway
27 mpg Combined

IS250 RWD Manual
20 mpg City
29 mpg Highway
23 mpg Combined

IS250 AWD Automatic
22 mpg City
28 mpg Highway
25 mpg Combined

IS350 RWD Automatic
21 mpg City
28 mpg Highway
24 mpg Combined

This compares to the 2005 IS300 figures of:

Automatic
18 mpg City
24 mpg Highway
21 mpg Combined

Manual
18 mpg City
25 mpg Highway
21 mpg Combined

As is the case with the IS300, Premium Fuel of at least 91 Octane rating is recommended. Also note that the fuel tank capacity has decreased slightly, from 17.5 gallons in the IS300 to 17.1 gallons in the IS250/350.

flipside909

IS350 RWD Automatic
21 mpg City
28 mpg Highway
24 mpg Combined

I would give up my IS300 for the IS350's fuel economy anyday...let alone the 250's w/the price of gas now.

biker

I wonder if these numbers will be realistic. I just can't see the 6MT having the worst milage of all of those combinations - regardless of the gearing. The recent car mag milage numbers don't support these EPA numbers. YMMV.

XeroK00L

As you and I have previously discussed in the Canadian MPG figures thread, the gearing of the manual IS250 is about 15% more aggressive overall. These EPA figures, as well as the Canadian ratings, support the gearing numbers very well--the combined EPA mileage of the manual IS250 is (27 - 23) / 27 x 100% = 14.81% worse than the automatic IS250.

I do, however, question Lexus's intention on this. So who will get the manual IS250 now? It's not for the performance-minded since it's lacking in power. It's not for the budget-consious because of the bad gas mileage. Who is it for then, I don't get it.

GFerg

Im not complaining. Those numbers look great.

Minarets

those do look pretty good.
i am still undecided between the G35, 330i and the IS350. i cannot wait to drive it. i am hoping it isnt too small...if you know what i mean.

i just cant get the true feeling by the pics. i must see it in person. the 330i is much smaller then what i expected and from what i imagined after seeing the pics.

a baby seat will be whats riding in the bag for a few years to come so i am not totally concerend about leg room , however i want somthing decent for someone to sit in.

these numbers are def sounding good to me though...not as good at the 3series (but not as much HP), must better then the G35 (but what you dont save in gas you saved upfront with the good deals on the car)

so i am pleased

biker

The 15% might make sense for the hwy number (cause there's probably a good correlation between RPM and milage in 6th gear), but I wouldn't think so for the city number. I wonder if there's a rule on when to shift an MT on the EPA milage test. The city number on the AT is 20% higher than MT - I just don't buy that.

RX300-BV

Wow I like those EPA numbers. I'm also kinda surprised to see the IS250 Manual with the worst fuel efficiency (combined.)

bluestar

In actual dollar difference, the savings in gas cost is miniscule between 23mpg v 27mpg. That's like $500 for the whole year...That's not much to dissuade anyne from buying the 6MT over the slushbox. The sheer pleasure of rowing your own gears more than makes up for the gas mileage difference. Don't you think ?

XeroK00L

True...it's better than the IS300's EPA rating anyway.