Drive with the Power button on. That will give you a different feel.

 

I'm not sure why you think automatic transmissions haven't improved since 1948...

I suggest you look up what a lockup torque converter is than rethink your position.

(Hint- it eliminates the "advantage" of manuals you are describing, and was first used in 1949... they have been in common use since the late 1970s on automatics to varying degrees... it's advanced use on the IS-F is one of the many reasons its automatic is superior in every performance related way to an antique manual transmission.)

 

1) Do you play video games? Why dont you just let the computer make all the decisions for you. It will probably be just as good. But where is the fun in that?

IMO, Automatic Transmissions are similar to Condoms. It just doesnt feel as good as a manual transmission. My friends 06 G35 MT feels faster than my old IS350 did, despite it being signifigantly slower.

2) The IS350s AT MPG(22/28 old rules, 19/25 new rules) is a total sham. The only reason its even rated at 19/25 is because the auto can keep you driving around the 1000-2000RPM range. To get decent MPG, you really have to baby the car. If I drove it like I would like to drive it... 17-20MPG. If I used those stupid paddles... Horrible MPG!

I could drive my MT 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT(19/25 old rules) the way I want to drive it and get 21-23MPG. My point is, even the IS350s transmission isnt that efficient when you actually want to use the power.

 

the real thing the IS needs to change is putting more room in the rear seats

 

I understand that automatics continue to improve. I have one in my car, and the G37 in the OP that I drove had one. This is a sidebar discussion at best.

To the point: Even though automatic transmissions have improved since 1949, you're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that they put as much power to the rear wheels as a manual, even in modern cars. Those clutches in our automatic transmissions do a lot of slipping by necessity, and the complexity of the auto = more parts = more parasitic losses.

 

Note:

All the magazine instrumented testing that I've seen so far has shown 6-speed manual G37's to be no quicker than 6-speed auto IS350's.

 

The G37 u drove felt faster b/c its a rougher car (not as refined) and its "new" so your brain is telling you "OMG this new car is faster"

As stated while it has nearly 30 more HP than the IS, its either going to be slightly slower or on par with it in acceleration.

Its a fantastic value of a car.

 

The G is a ad BMW clone. the BMW is refined, composed, collected and capable. The G is just capable and raw.

It takes a bucket of paint and lobs it towards canvas without worrying what it will look like; only how much paint was used.

 

if you look at the AMG, M, and RS series, their bloodlines reveal that these cars were indeed bred from the heat of motorsports competition. proof of it is in not just the bigger engines and upgraded suspension pieces, but also the race-inspired improvements: lighter materials, stiffened chassis, bigger and more powerful brakes, improved aerodynamics/styling, sharpened handling, factory-tuned engine management programs, and even the look and feel of the interior... the list goes on, but i digress from the discussion.

the 2is improved on many areas that the first gen didn't address. remember, before the g35 was released, no japanese manufacturer had an answer for the 3-series until the first-gen is came along. at that time, the first-gen is was not only proportionally sized like a 3-series, it drove and felt like a 3-series. admittedly, the 2is lost a little bit of that identity that made the first gen such a cult following. sure, although the handling got softer, and it got a little bigger in every which way (although some argue that the sheetmetal was "pulled tighter"), the 2is addressed many issues that were lacking in the first gen IS: luxury and power. like the g37 and and TL the 2is was a major improvement in many areas - and in its own way was an interpretation on how to make it competitive w/ the 3-series.

as the adaptation/replication of the iDrive system is fairly new technology to them, it's not just not perfect, it's actually flawed in many ways compared to BMW's iDrive. as such, my criticism is directed in that direction. if they wanted to duplicate the functionality of the iDrive system, couldn't have acura and infiniti done a better job engineering their respective systems, considering how much engineering has already gone into their cars?

regardless of how well-engineered a front-wheel-drive car is, it is still susceptible to torque steer - albeit with a lesser-detected amount. carbon-fiber drive shafts, intelligent center differential, computer-assisted traction control systems... all those items dampen the amount of torque steer in front-wheel-drive cars.

i wouldn't go so far to say that lexus didn't have a chance to do anything about it when the g35 was such a popular seller. remember, the first gen is was based on the japanese altezza, which was a very popular seller in japan and here in the US as well (rebadged as the is300, of course). again, the first gen is was to target the then 3-series in feel and handling, while the g35 approached the competition in a completely different direction (power, and lots more of it).

i agree with you that a first-hand experience is important, as it is a good indicator of how good (or bad) a car is. as such, that is why i posted "you can't just judge a car simply by its numbers." numerical data can not replace the emotional affect a car has on its owner/driver.

also, although i made no mention of price considerations, by saying that "you can't just judge a car simply (bolded for emphasis) by its numbers" does not mean that price is not important. as a matter of fact, price should be important, but it should not be the sole determining factor. if price truly, really, absolutely without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt is the only thing that mattered, why should buyers buy anything in this class? why not go out and buy a camry or an accord? after all, they've got four doors, v6 power, and plenty of options (if a buyer wants them). because owners in this class are relatively discriminant and price-independent (we all know what the price of entry is), they are willing to pay a little more for something that not only has four doors, a v6, and options up the wazoo, but also for something that excites them and serves as a status symbol.

and before this thread strays off-topic, to address the OP's gripe regarding the is350 lacking in the power department: if you're going to complain, then move on. if you're offended then i'm sorry, but it's that simple. if you don't like your is350, move on. before lexus entertains any requests for more power, they'll do what serves them best; if it happens to be more power, then consider it a coincidence at best.

 

It's kind of hard to argue with the Lexus crowd about Manual transmissions...that's one of the reasons they chose to buy a Lexus anyway. So let's just say it's more fun...no matter how much more work you have to put in.

For example: Yes I can take my car to a mechanic and do the service but for some reason I enjoy working on my own car.

 

Again, look into a lockup torque converter. The thing invented in 1949.

It locks the converter. So that the transmission has a fully mechanical, 100% no-slip, connection to the engine.

You know, -exactly- like a manual.


And during times when the TC is NOT locked (which on the IS-F for example is almost never) the converter provides torque multiplication that a manual does not, so AGAIN you're accelerating faster than with the manual.

Not to mention the time you lose fiddling with your ancient clutch pedal and losing rpms in the process, while the auto is already in the next gear and continuing to accelerate.


-you- are the one fooling yourself if you think a manual is a "performance" feature, or has been one on a modern car for many years at this point.

It's a relic. A slow one at that.

 

Very good post. IS debuted the same time as teh Altezza. It was the IS 200 in Europe with a 160hp I-6. The 1IS had its own specific platform shared with the Altezza. It was not based on it.

Lexus marketing/management did the reasearch on bringing it to America, the I-6 was too weak, teh Altezza I-4 was deemed not luxurious, so we got the 2JZ stuffed with the 5 speed manual. The Altezza 6 speed would not be able to handle the torque of the 2JZ over time.

 

I'm not sure what qualifies as a sham, honestly. With what you describe here, 'driving like a baby', especially in an automatic car, has more to do with throttle input, as opposed to gear selection at a given RPM/torque range. Drive too much like a 'baby' in a manual, and you risk lugging situations or imperfect shift points for max MPG.

With next to no details on how exactly ‘you’ drive, or even where ‘you’ drive, much less the difference between two separate vehicles in everything from vehicle weight, displacement, torque curves, inclusion of DFI, and even tires, this really isn't a fair argument to try and leverage against the tranny type, which in itself, consist of an entire range of variables. I can just as well claim a 20mpg figure, driving as I like to (vague as that is), at 90% city with an exceptional best of 31mpg @ 90% highway, and consider the IS wonderful. At worst, (in a direct comparison of two different cars, minus other significant details), its one MPG away in the city. Considering the power differences between engines alone, that’s hardly ‘bad’.

Realistically, auto trannies will match or exceed manual vehicles (or more so the drivers...since they are the real dictating factor) in the ability to effectively and consistently deliver performance and acquire good gas mileage, while other factors such as your right foot will definitely have more bearing on increased or decreased numbers.

I love my traditional manual cars, too...but fun and some very minimal advantages often not found in daily driving, are about where it stops. The technology isn't going anywhere, and is evaporating as automatics have nothing but room for growth, continue to introduce manual functions that don’t delay shift times, and as we see with the IS-F, refine the technology to continue the forward trend.

I think in this case, we can make an exception to the stereotype, as a number of us have at one point driven or currently drive more than one vehicle.

 

Why don't you stop being so convined of your own point of view for a second that you can open your eyes and mind and learn something new today.

Just because the torque converter locks in 2 thru 8 does NOT mean the transmission does not suffer more energy losses. The orbital gears used in an auto are not as efficient as the gears used in a manual.

You can say EPA ratings are better in an auto, but that is only when you let the ECU drive the car for you, which seems to shift around 2000-2500 rpm from my experience. This is why GM cars w/ a manual have the 1st to 4th gate in their manuals - because if the car does it for you, it counts in an EPA test.

I don't like to drive boring just to save a few dollars at the pump. Yet, even shifting at no less than 3000 - 3500 rpms all the time I still average 22-24 mpg. An auto would do that. I had a 98 Pontiac Grand Am w/ a 4 banger that did not match that. (Which ALSO had a TC lock in OD - same as the ISx50).

Your continual reinforcement of "autos improving since 1948" while ignoring the same logic for manuals is beyond biased. In the past 5 years the dual clutch auto has evolved from the traditional manual, and will likely supplant it in the future - but for the time being, it is not available on most cars, so what is the point in even comparing it?

Also, you might want to read up on the torque multiplication effect. It only applies when the engine is spinning much faster than the transmission; i.e., only when starting from a dead stop. It is comparable to dropping the clutch in a manual transmission - situational.

But I digress. As has been reiterated numerous times, it really comes down to personal preference. I prefer to have the control over what gear I am in, and the instant connection when I push the gas pedal. The ISx50 with an auto transmission provides neither of these options. You provide "guidelines" at best and the ECU still decides what IT wants to do.

P.S. The IS-F has no place in this discussion as it is not in the same "class," so please stop referring to it in defense of your ISx50 viewpoint.

 

Grasp at straws much?

We're talking about performance, right? the couple % higher efficiency of a simpler gear design won't come anywhere close to making up for the performance losses involved in slower shifts and the loss of revs while having to manually make those shifts.

Or are you now changing your argument from "manuals are for performance enthusiasts" to "Manuals are for efficiency enthusiasts who don't mind greater physical inefficiencies as long as mechanical ones are very slightly better"?






And it -hurts- a manual to repeatedly do this, while it's the normal reliable behavior of an automatic... hence you get better _performance_ launching an automatic so designed.

You are still harping on which is better for "performance" right? (hint: it's not the manual)

Make up your mind... do you care about mileage or not? If you do the modern automatic is measurably better. If you don't, the modern automatic is -still- measurably better because it shifts faster and more reliably.


Because manuals have _not_ improved drastically in that period compared to autos. As you note, the manual transmission is mechanically simple... but not especially advanced.

dual clutch isn't the only advance in autos... the IS-F isn't a dual-clutch auto and hands any manual its rear in performance... even the ISx50 offers an auto better than the manual for mileage and at least equal in performance, even if it doesn't have the direct control the F offers.




I only used the F when it was relevant to the discussion (as an example of yet another type of auto that outclasses manuals in virtually every aspect)

I already addressed where the IS250 auto exceeds the manual offering...and you'll find the same on quite a few other cars that offer both a manual and auto where the auto is offering better mileage for similar or better performance.