Thanks for explaining Kurtz and also for the link to this shift points. All very good to know!

However, do you know if they ever tried testing on the same patch of road? Someone else brought up a good point of how the car shifts very different on uphill vs down. Gernby def made a point to mention his runs were all very diff types of ups and downs. Was just curious if anyone else had further stats. Also, those were from over 3 yrs ago and he was driving an '06. Do you know if there have there been any changes to rpm shift points or to the ecu behavior since then?

 

I don't get it.

In another post I read on here, it was said that a 350 was very close to a lambo in terms of 0-60 if left in 1st gear. If most of your power is generated at higher rpms then putting it in S1 and leaving it there then shifting to second, third etc all at around 6K rpms wouldn't be faster than leaving it in D?

not arguing, just trying to understand is all...

 

No, it wouldn't.

Because the 350 is an automatic.

You can't shift it. Ever.

The automatic transmission does all the shifting.

The only thing the paddles would let you do is PREVENT it from shifting into a higher gear.

Since the automatic won't shift to 2nd until the correct time when floored the only thing you could possibly do with the paddles is either get lucky and let it do what it would have done anyway or paddle too late and screw up the automatic shift.

Given that a human is vastly slower and less consistent than a computer it's more likely you'll slow yourself down using the paddles than anything else. You certainly won't make yourself any faster.





Well, quite a few others have confirmed better 1/4 mile times with ECT-Normal compared to ECT-Power over the years, so the road-gradient thing doesn't seem to have thrown that data off.

I'm not aware of any shift-point changes to the TCU over the years that'd make an 06 different... there was a post-06 update to a new traction computer (that lets you disable VSC/TC without the peddle dance) but that doesn't change the WOT shift points.

 

ok what if I just left it in S1 and accelerated hard (notice I did not say floor it)?

At what speed would I be before I hit the rev limiter?

Would that improve my 0 - whatever speed was answered above as opposed to accelerating the same way in D?

 

^ Just try it, the rev limiter will keep it from blowing up.

 

Yeah, I'm just surprised there's not any real consistent data on this? I mean it's great their 1/4 miles were faster, but there could be so many variables that may have caused that!

Since i don't have the sweet gear they had, I'm tempted to just set up a cam and and do three separate runs a FOT and see rough times, shift points and rpms on each.

I assume they had traction control off too, right? Does that even come into play with an auto?

 

The IS350's acceleration through 1st gear (0 to around 40 MPH) is close to that of an '03 Gallardo -

IS350 =

2003 Lamborghini Gallardo =

IS350 0 - 40 MPH (i.e. through 1st gear at WOT) = 2.7 seconds
Gallardo 0 - 40 MPH = 2.5 seconds

It's not physically/mechanically possible to reach 60 MPH while in 1st gear. The maximum speed allowed in 1st gear is around 40 MPH. 2nd gear will take you through 60 MPH (at WOT).

 

I just tried this yesterday stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the 405fwy, very helpful. MUCH improved, drove me nuts as the car would constantly shift from 2-3-2 in traffic on ECT Normal. Snow is much more smooth, less shifting. Loving the lazy throttle response, too. Brilliant, thanks!

+Rep for this!

 

Wow, thanks for this! But im a little confused. 0-60 in 4.9? Where did you get these stats? The other weird item is the distance travelled. Was over 17 meters longer to 60mph? How is that possible?

 

Longer time = More distance traveled.

 

Like what?

These are folks, a number of them, who consistently ran faster 1/4 mile times with ECT-Normal versus ECT-Power on otherwise the same car, at the same track, in the same weather.

Which is entirely consistent with Gernbys original findings. What other variables would cause that same result at a 1/4 mile track consistently in every tested case?

You'd need something fairly accurate like an accelerometer to get any useful data if comparing acceleration times... I'm not sure you'll be able to get useful shift point data but I suppose you could give it a shot with a decent resolution camera on the tach. You'll need to find someplace you can consistently accelerate flat and straight to north of 100 mph though unless you're only wanting to test the first shift or two.



It does, quite a bit. And yes they had TC off... TC/VSC can slow you down as much as a full half second if you leave it on at the track.

 

Road and Track, torquestats (2 sources) cite the IS350's 0 to 60 in 4.9

Car and Driver (1 source) cites 0 to 60 in 5.1

Edmunds Insideline (1 source) cites 0 to 60 in 5.2, though they admitted that the car "had a better launch in it" and 5.2 wasn't quite optimal.

You can check Road and Track's IS350 stats here = http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...S-350_data.pdf

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co..._is_350_page_4


Car and Driver - "You won’t be working too hard to repeat our 5.1-second 0-to-60-mph time" = http://www.caranddriver.com/features...s_is350_page_8

4.9 is pretty typical. Lexus's official estimate of 5.3 seconds is underrated.

 

Wow interesting indeed! Thanks for these links! I should point out that the Lexus site states 5.6 secs. Any vids i've seen online getting under 5 are HIGHLY modified and very specific weather conditions.

 

Well the weather is a hard one to pin point, but there's also tire pressure, gas, type of mods done to their vehicle(one over the other), getting a good jump off the line, and doesn't the ECU conform to driving habits?

I guess it would have been nice to have his chart from his runs at the track. That would at least provide you with some consistency across his runs.

good point on the gears/speed....I could handle 0-60, but to 100 is tough.

 

sure, i get that. but .6 secs equals over 55 feet? Seems like a lot is all....