Of course I have slightly more negative camber. The left rear is at 1.5 and the right rear is at 1.75, still acceptable IMO. If I increase (make more positive) the camber on the right, it may rub the fender well, so I'm leaving it as it is. As for balance, since the car is dropped and with F/R aftermarket sway bars, the car handles even better than it did stock: lower C.O.G., less sway, the car feels like more of an extension of your body.

 

Great thread guys! Certainly interesting to see everyone's input on the IS350 and 335i! Look forward to continued reading here in these forums, and (offtopic), hearing more about the IS500!

Also, with regards to this:

Just so you know SPWOLF, the S54 engine from BMW won International Engine of the Year in its class. For six straight years. 2001-2006. It also won the Overall International Engine of the Year in 2001, as well as the Best new Engine Award as well. That's 8 "Engine Oscars" for the S54. The engine was also listed on Wards Best Engines list for 3 straight years from 2002-2004.

Lastly with regards to "engine issues", the fault early on was with random ball bearings supplied by a 3rd party, of which limited shipments of the ball bearings didnt fit the required specs. The problem was fixed in 2003.

Great forum by the way guys, really happy I stumbled across it as a resource!

 

 

I too will digress for but a moment. I am very interested in seeing what comes of the IS500 and possibly new Supra (if it's produced). Although I think the IS500 will likely take the path of providing competition for the new V8 M3.

 

I just found a this searching around about the car since I am thinking about buying one. In the Article it says that the car was dyno'd professionally and they estimated that the car is putting out 350hp and 360 lb-ft of torque....Could this be true. Here the link to the article http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=638.........also im test driving it tomorrow and i will post back with what i think. Mike.

 

This is interesting. I'm no mathematician but this guys numbers just don't add up. First, the article mentions the 330i and the 20% power loss from crank to rear wheels. Fair enough. However, they expected the same 20% loss on the 335i. Well, if the rated HP of the 335i is 300 and you minus 20% from that you get 280, NOT the 235 that they expected. A 20% loss of 300hp puts it near exactly what it was tested at. 280HP (275 to be exact). It looks like BMW's rating of 300HP is accurate.

 

Huh? First off, 20% loss is massive. Accepted numbers are 15% for a manual and 18% for a torque converter style auto.

So, lets run a couple of numbers -

First for the BMW:

CHP x .85 = 280 WHP

That means 326 hp at the crank (CHP). Not bad. 13 years after the 2JZ-GTE, BMW have a twin turbo 3 liter making 326 hp. Of course my 2JZ-GTE made 330 hp at the wheels bone stock, so I don't call this much of an achievement.

Now, let's take the IS350. Caymandive has posted his dynojet numbers, so I'll use them.

CHP x .82 = 263 WHP

320 hp at the crank. Not bad for a completely stock car without boost, and only 500 additional cc's displacement. BTW, in case no one here knows, Toyota is notorious for underrating their engines.

 

Great information. Lexus did a decent job.

 

That would be very impressive if it's true.

320 bhp with a 3.5-L NA engine seems pretty incredible. Hell, even the listed 306 seemed pretty impressive to me.

I always wondered how much variance there is from car to car in the power output of these engines, though... I know they're identically manufactured, but I'm sure there's still some differences. Especially with varied styles of "breaking in" after the driver has had them for a few weeks...

 

really? i thought all of the japanese manufacturers had a problem of overrating their engine once the SAE ratings came out and it was determined the engines were overrated. however, i do know the BMWs are notorious for underrating their engine.

 

Really, I find it hard to believe that any auto makers underrate their engines...

 

yup! BMW all the way! lexus is lame.


search is your freind.

 

Bimmers does it all the time.

 

and so does GM on some cars (like the chevy cobalt SS)

 

Lovely what the media report. I'm talking about actual owner's results vs. factory claims. I've been around MkIV Supras pretty much since they were released. Typical MkIV Supras dyno'd at 280 - 295 at the wheels. The were rated at 320 at the crank. Mine and one other I know about dyno'd MORE than 320 at the wheels. Oleg Kouznetsov's '98 dyno'd 340 at the wheels in front of an entire meet in Las Vegas.

Yes, there is considerable variance among engines straight off the assembly line. It is impossible to hold tolerances tight enough to make them all the same, particularly deck height, which I consider probably the most important dimension on an engine since it determines squish, and squish affects power, efficiency and fuel sensitivity.

I've built enough engines to know the factory will always err on the side of too much for deck height, so some will be good, some will be not as good, and a few will slip through that are really great. Suzuki had a slight error in their production run of 750's a few years back, and if you managed to get one of the "good" ones, they were significantly more powerful than the rest of the run, but did not tolerate poor fuel.

So, yes, especially after Ford got sued by their Mustang owners for false hp claims, ALL the manufacturers are claiming "worst case" power numbers, and the vast majority of units coming off the line make more than this number.