Should you run premium fuel? Yes and no, explained.
03-16-08, 10:41 PM
#61
I guess my Wiki source is just wrong then.. where did you get these numbers?
0-60 times are dubious at best.
-- Though I did admit the II was faster,.. just not amazingly faster.In this comparison it is quite a bit faster for a 10hp gain.
It shed 200 lbs apparently,. but that is from my reference.. which on one page says the I had 256hp and the II had 261 -- (Seem more accurate then nice even 250 and 260) --
Nonetheless.. 100lbs = roughly one tenth off the quarter.. So I can see the weight having the biggest impact.
100x2 = .2
Again, all I"ve done is driven them all -- and driven them hard to test. From 94 to 95 there is hardly any difference to 'me'. None to be honest,.. but on paper it looks to have 10hp and a second on the 0-60 -- I"d guess that figure of to 60 time is probably a little more lax.. but I'll accept it. It matters not.
Quite frankly The III is noticeably faster on paper ,but really not that much so in person. Now the IV + really starts making a substantial difference in the 'seat of pants meter'
03-16-08, 10:56 PM
#63
Lexus Test Driver
I guess my Wiki source is just wrong then.. where did you get these numbers?
0-60 times are dubious at best. -- Though I did admit the II was faster,.. just not amazingly faster.
In this comparison it is quite a bit faster for a 10hp gain.
It shed 200 lbs apparently,. but that is from my reference.. which on one page says the I had 256hp and the II had 261 -- (Seem more accurate then nice even 250 and 260) --
Nonetheless.. 100lbs = roughly one tenth off the quarter.. So I can see the weight having the biggest impact.
100x2 = .2
Again, all I"ve done is driven them all -- and driven them hard to test. From 94 to 95 there is hardly any difference to 'me'. None to be honest,.. but on paper it looks to have 10hp and a second on the 0-60 -- I"d guess that figure of to 60 time is probably a little more lax.. but I'll accept it. It matters not.
Quite frankly The III is noticeably faster on paper ,but really not that much so in person. Now the IV + really starts making a substantial difference in the 'seat of pants meter'
0-60 times are dubious at best.
-- Though I did admit the II was faster,.. just not amazingly faster.In this comparison it is quite a bit faster for a 10hp gain.
It shed 200 lbs apparently,. but that is from my reference.. which on one page says the I had 256hp and the II had 261 -- (Seem more accurate then nice even 250 and 260) --
Nonetheless.. 100lbs = roughly one tenth off the quarter.. So I can see the weight having the biggest impact.
100x2 = .2
Again, all I"ve done is driven them all -- and driven them hard to test. From 94 to 95 there is hardly any difference to 'me'. None to be honest,.. but on paper it looks to have 10hp and a second on the 0-60 -- I"d guess that figure of to 60 time is probably a little more lax.. but I'll accept it. It matters not.
Quite frankly The III is noticeably faster on paper ,but really not that much so in person. Now the IV + really starts making a substantial difference in the 'seat of pants meter'
For the 1995 model, the 0-60 time is quoted as 6.9 seconds and the 1/4 mile time at 15.2 seconds. Horsepower is at 260 for 1995-1997 models, although the acceleration times vary slightly due to minor changes in weight.
For the 1998 model year, the 0-60 time is 6.4 seconds, and the 1/4 mile time is 14.9 seconds. Based on these numbers alone, there is a much bigger change in acceleration between series II and series III LS400's versus series III and series IV. Horsepower is at 290.
03-17-08, 12:06 AM
#64
I guess my Wiki source is just wrong then.. where did you get these numbers?
0-60 times are dubious at best. -- Though I did admit the II was faster,.. just not amazingly faster.
In this comparison it is quite a bit faster for a 10hp gain.
It shed 200 lbs apparently,. but that is from my reference.. which on one page says the I had 256hp and the II had 261 -- (Seem more accurate then nice even 250 and 260) --
Nonetheless.. 100lbs = roughly one tenth off the quarter.. So I can see the weight having the biggest impact.
100x2 = .2
Again, all I"ve done is driven them all -- and driven them hard to test. From 94 to 95 there is hardly any difference to 'me'. None to be honest,.. but on paper it looks to have 10hp and a second on the 0-60 -- I"d guess that figure of to 60 time is probably a little more lax.. but I'll accept it. It matters not.
Quite frankly The III is noticeably faster on paper ,but really not that much so in person. Now the IV + really starts making a substantial difference in the 'seat of pants meter'
0-60 times are dubious at best.
-- Though I did admit the II was faster,.. just not amazingly faster.In this comparison it is quite a bit faster for a 10hp gain.
It shed 200 lbs apparently,. but that is from my reference.. which on one page says the I had 256hp and the II had 261 -- (Seem more accurate then nice even 250 and 260) --
Nonetheless.. 100lbs = roughly one tenth off the quarter.. So I can see the weight having the biggest impact.
100x2 = .2
Again, all I"ve done is driven them all -- and driven them hard to test. From 94 to 95 there is hardly any difference to 'me'. None to be honest,.. but on paper it looks to have 10hp and a second on the 0-60 -- I"d guess that figure of to 60 time is probably a little more lax.. but I'll accept it. It matters not.
Quite frankly The III is noticeably faster on paper ,but really not that much so in person. Now the IV + really starts making a substantial difference in the 'seat of pants meter'
03-17-08, 12:38 AM
#65
Driver
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is off topic, but seeing as though everyone is curious, here are the specs of the 1990-94 and 1995-97 LS400s in full colour (and in metric)straight from the original Australian Lexus LS400 brouchures
(56k beware)
1990 - 94 LS400
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1993p1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1993p2.jpg
1995 - 97 LS400
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1995p1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1995p2.jpg
As I stated earlier, 204 kilowatts = 275 horsepower. 100 kilometres per hour = 62 miles per hour.
(56k beware)
1990 - 94 LS400
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1993p1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1993p2.jpg
1995 - 97 LS400
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1995p1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Losiho/LS1995p2.jpg
As I stated earlier, 204 kilowatts = 275 horsepower. 100 kilometres per hour = 62 miles per hour.
Last edited by Losiho; 03-17-08 at 12:41 AM.
03-17-08, 05:38 AM
#66
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
i know we're off topic here, but i can't help but think either the engines were overrated on the ucf10's, or the trans design just sucked as far as parasitic losses. i've driven them all too, as a lexus tech for quite a while, and even the early ucf20's seemd quite a bit faster than any ucf10. it doesn't make sense with only 10 more hp and 10 more tq. even the 200 lb difference in weight doesn't explain it becasue the car is just much more responsive and snappy. it must be in teh trans.
03-17-08, 02:05 PM
#68
Yeah we've twisted the topic -- but the fuel debate is a dead horse
I don't deny the numbers -- Really I don't. Even from 'Lexus' themselves I could guarantee you I could personally get a different range of 0-60 and quarter mile times. Both have huge variables. Even with automatics.
My point is just that First gen to second gen isn't that much different to me -- maybe it is just the cars I've driven,.. maybe my second gens were poorly taken care of,.. maybe my first gen has a little more hp than normal
(Also hp differences vary from engine to engine/car to car) -- Even the same parts and process result in slightly differing RWBHP.. Negligible.. but the small things add up -- From the factory, to how maintained, to how fat the driver is, to how they drive, etc etc.
Also I was just saying you get a huge difference in Gen I to Gen III -- Or a ridiculous difference in Gen I to Gen IV -- IE: Stepping in one, then the other.
I have a Gen II at my fathers house.. I drove it yesterday to test this again. I drove up in my Gen I. Not alot of difference.
He has a Gen III as well that he drives more often. Big difference.
I've driven up in my Gen I to the dealership (of course) -- And test drove a new one for kicks. Humongous difference.. (Now is that Gen V? VI? .. whatever it might be, they've gotten rediuculously fast with the latest models) -- The 0-60 and quarters on these is faster than my 300ZX Twin turbo was.. (Has to be in the low 5's..)
Doesn't feel right for an automatic though.. lol
I don't deny the numbers -- Really I don't. Even from 'Lexus' themselves I could guarantee you I could personally get a different range of 0-60 and quarter mile times. Both have huge variables. Even with automatics.
My point is just that First gen to second gen isn't that much different to me -- maybe it is just the cars I've driven,.. maybe my second gens were poorly taken care of,.. maybe my first gen has a little more hp than normal
(Also hp differences vary from engine to engine/car to car) -- Even the same parts and process result in slightly differing RWBHP.. Negligible.. but the small things add up -- From the factory, to how maintained, to how fat the driver is, to how they drive, etc etc.
Also I was just saying you get a huge difference in Gen I to Gen III -- Or a ridiculous difference in Gen I to Gen IV -- IE: Stepping in one, then the other.
I have a Gen II at my fathers house.. I drove it yesterday to test this again. I drove up in my Gen I. Not alot of difference.
He has a Gen III as well that he drives more often. Big difference.
I've driven up in my Gen I to the dealership (of course)
-- And test drove a new one for kicks. Humongous difference.. (Now is that Gen V? VI? .. whatever it might be, they've gotten rediuculously fast with the latest models) -- The 0-60 and quarters on these is faster than my 300ZX Twin turbo was.. (Has to be in the low 5's..)Doesn't feel right for an automatic though.. lol
03-17-08, 02:10 PM
#69
Driver
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also driven a Series 5, 1997 - 2000 model VVTi LS, and I noticed it had a lot more bottom end and mid range than my car.
The engine also seemed quieter, probably due to the stronger firewall and thicker windscreen glass in this model.
The engine also seemed quieter, probably due to the stronger firewall and thicker windscreen glass in this model.
03-17-08, 02:28 PM
#70
Yeah we've twisted the topic -- but the fuel debate is a dead horse
I don't deny the numbers -- Really I don't. Even from 'Lexus' themselves I could guarantee you I could personally get a different range of 0-60 and quarter mile times. Both have huge variables. Even with automatics.
My point is just that First gen to second gen isn't that much different to me -- maybe it is just the cars I've driven,.. maybe my second gens were poorly taken care of,.. maybe my first gen has a little more hp than normal
(Also hp differences vary from engine to engine/car to car) -- Even the same parts and process result in slightly differing RWBHP.. Negligible.. but the small things add up -- From the factory, to how maintained, to how fat the driver is, to how they drive, etc etc.
Also I was just saying you get a huge difference in Gen I to Gen III -- Or a ridiculous difference in Gen I to Gen IV -- IE: Stepping in one, then the other.
I have a Gen II at my fathers house.. I drove it yesterday to test this again. I drove up in my Gen I. Not alot of difference.
He has a Gen III as well that he drives more often. Big difference.
I've driven up in my Gen I to the dealership (of course) -- And test drove a new one for kicks. Humongous difference.. (Now is that Gen V? VI? .. whatever it might be, they've gotten rediuculously fast with the latest models) -- The 0-60 and quarters on these is faster than my 300ZX Twin turbo was.. (Has to be in the low 5's..)
Doesn't feel right for an automatic though.. lol
I don't deny the numbers -- Really I don't. Even from 'Lexus' themselves I could guarantee you I could personally get a different range of 0-60 and quarter mile times. Both have huge variables. Even with automatics.
My point is just that First gen to second gen isn't that much different to me -- maybe it is just the cars I've driven,.. maybe my second gens were poorly taken care of,.. maybe my first gen has a little more hp than normal
(Also hp differences vary from engine to engine/car to car) -- Even the same parts and process result in slightly differing RWBHP.. Negligible.. but the small things add up -- From the factory, to how maintained, to how fat the driver is, to how they drive, etc etc.
Also I was just saying you get a huge difference in Gen I to Gen III -- Or a ridiculous difference in Gen I to Gen IV -- IE: Stepping in one, then the other.
I have a Gen II at my fathers house.. I drove it yesterday to test this again. I drove up in my Gen I. Not alot of difference.
He has a Gen III as well that he drives more often. Big difference.
I've driven up in my Gen I to the dealership (of course)
-- And test drove a new one for kicks. Humongous difference.. (Now is that Gen V? VI? .. whatever it might be, they've gotten rediuculously fast with the latest models) -- The 0-60 and quarters on these is faster than my 300ZX Twin turbo was.. (Has to be in the low 5's..)Doesn't feel right for an automatic though.. lol
http://www.lexus.com/contact/pdf/1998/1998LSspecs.pdf
http://www.lexus.com/contact/pdf/1995/1995LSspecs.pdf
http://www.lexus.com/contact/pdf/1994/1994LSspecs.pdf
OEM-supplied MPG info is in there too.
03-17-08, 02:29 PM
#71
Lexus Test Driver
No, it's not. The 1990-1994 LS400 uses the A341E. The 1995-1997 LS400 uses the A340E. The only major differences between the two are the ratio of the 1st gear and the ratio of the reverse gear. 2.531 in 1st on the A341E versus 2.804 on the A340E. Reverse gear is 1.880 on the A341E and 2.393 on the A340E.
Series IV is 1998-2000.
Series IV is 1998-2000.
03-17-08, 03:48 PM
#72
Driver
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's not. The 1990-1994 LS400 uses the A341E. The 1995-1997 LS400 uses the A340E. The only major differences between the two are the ratio of the 1st gear and the ratio of the reverse gear. 2.531 in 1st on the A341E versus 2.804 on the A340E. Reverse gear is 1.880 on the A341E and 2.393 on the A340E.
Not in this country.
Series 1 = the original LS400 (1990 - 1992)
Series 2 = mild update - bigger rear headrests + headlight washers. Same 15" wheels (1992 - 1993)
Series 3 = the final UCF10. Dual Air bags + 16" wheels (1993 - 1994)
Series 4 = UCF20. Complete re-design, totally different car. (1995 - 1997)
Series 5 = VVti, 5 speed auto, different 16" wheels, trip computer, VSC, etc etc (1997 - 2000).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KahnBB6
Car Chat
11
04-18-18 07:38 PM
1995LS400
LS - 1st and 2nd Gen (1990-2000)
20
04-09-08 08:54 PM
