BigMikeISF

I would recommended driving both to see what appeals more to you. I personally love the F because of the way it feels on the road. Based on my perceptions of the pictures I've seen of the V it seems to sit a little high, making it a little top heavy. I love the F because of the interior as well, it's got the luxury and reliability of Lexus which was important to me in my purchase. I'd check out both and let us know what you think


That is a really interesting link. It seems like its in the same ballpark, speed wise to the F, M3 and C63 in the article. I thought it would of been a lot quicker then those posted times according to that review.

geneva

9/22 issue of Autoweek tests the car but without any timed performance data. Comments about the acceleration were " we'd tromped on the throttle and were amazed at just how big a number 556 is", and " it halted all conversation inside the vehicle and squashed us back into the seat like a steak being tenderized". They drove both the six-speed manual and auto, liked the manual best and my impression was they were not that impressed with the paddle shift auto. As a matter of fact during the track test for best performance it was suggested by the Caddy reps. to "put the transmission in sport mode and let it do all the shifting". Not much of a testimonial for the paddle shift IMO. At 4200 lbs.(est.) this is a big HEAVY car and Autoweek compares it to the M5, RS6, and E63 AMG.
Estimated base price $ 62,500.00, with options and gas guzzler tax (EPA: 15 mpg) will probably hit $ 70K.

vrferrari

Wow...just wow. I realize that this is just spec racing, but come on

I guess I'm one of these "old men" who would look at the CTS-V, but I don't know how you could say that this car would be driven less than 40 mph any more than saying that anyone who bought a Lexus is an old fart and doesn't care about performance and drive's his IS-F like an old man.

Lexus' manufacture claims for the IS-F is "only" 0-60 4.6seconds, 1/4 at 13.0, with no specified curb weight (but some are saying around 3800 pounds ?). We know that the IS-F in some of the CL members hands have gone faster.

Now, here comes a CTS-V with 556.....say that again.....556 HP and over 550 lbs/tq......with a freakin' manual 6 speed close ratio transmission.
It will have 15 inch freakin' Brembo brakes on the darn thing.
Wait until this thing gets into the hands of the rags who will run the snot out of it before you say "only" runs a 12.5 1/4, it's a boat, and couldn't be a track car.
I don't hear anyone calling a AMG E63 an old fart car

Just my .02

gshb

uhh yah. CTS-V all the way. i wouldnt even think twice about it. have you read the lightening lap this year? the ISF is probably the worst value for money track car. if we're talking boats, then that would be lexus. in terms of performance the cadillac leads the pack. price wise it will probably come in second most expensive. materials and styling is first rate although i know its subjective. but lets just say you wont find alcantara or leather lined dash in most of these cars. it is also just one of two that will have a manual.

timeToy

iTrader: (11)

There is another thread on this, and, as often with C&D, there are massive question regarding the IS-F time, it seems to be around 8 to 10 seconds slower what it should be, if we believe every other review that put say, the M3, the C63 and the IS-F on a track...

gshb

i dont like C&D any more than the next guy, but lap times were strictly used in their rankings. i understand there are lots of parameters to take into account, but they tested 22 cars at the same time with the same set of drivers. there really isnt anything more scientific you can do aside from putting the same type of rubber on all the cars. with that said, the track is fairly long at over 4 miles with lots of elevation change and long straights. FI cars will have an advantage while low displacement NA cars will be slow. so either their ISF had something wrong with it or maybe it just doesnt do well on those types of track.

timeToy

iTrader: (11)

Let's check how the IS-F stacks versus the E92 M3 and the C63 on other tracks and in other hands:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html

Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
Hockenheim Short: IS-F 1:15.8 | M3 (E92) 1:14.3 | C63 1:15.2 | IS-F/M3 2.00%
Hockenheim GP: IS-F 2:04.45 | M3 (E90) 2:02.71| C63 2:04.59 | IS-F/M3 1.42%

SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | IS-F 1.65% faster than M3

and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%

As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.

Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !

caymandive

iTrader: (2)

Wow that's one way to look at things. Thanks for the numbers. C&D testing has had me puzzled for the past few years.

sxylxy

Hoffman Lexus here in EH got 5 is-f's and they sold 2 in the past couple months. Can't get rid of the other 3, probably the same reason they only made a handful of sc300's with 5speeds... we tihnk its cool as tuners 10 years down the road but nobody else with 60K on hand in 2008 really does. I agree the IS-f is a great looking car yata yata, but I think its overpriced and thats why people arn't scooping these things up. That and the lack of a clutch in my case :]

primecut

iTrader: (1)

MB is offering massive discounts on their SLs, and BMW has 0.9-1.9% financing on M models. This whole "sitting on the lot" deal is across the board for all niche vehicles (Exotics excluded), not just for Lexus. The economy took a dump, and this is the result. I think it's also a factor that this car is not as "established" as other performance brands. The typical Lexus buyer is not looking for this type of vehicle, while consumers loyal to other brands are unlikely to switch over.

If you look objectively at options, standard equipment, and performance, this car is actually priced below its competitors. So perhaps you can explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the car is overpriced.