i drove a IS250 in florida for a week, compared to colorado (6500 feet ASL) the 250 at sealevel runs pretty good compared to my TSX at home. however when i went to the lexus dealer all they have is the AWD models and considering i already had a 205hp 2.4L in the TSX i didnt even want to drive the IS 250 here at home, i never would have considered it, i know for a fact the AWD would be slower than the TSX was.
so i figured if im gonna spend 15K more for a replacement to the TSX it better have some NUTZ or forget it.
as a matter of fact i played with a TC on the way to denver one day, i kicked his *** pretty bad in the TSX (6 speed) and considering i had 4 people in the car it was pretty funny.
the IS 350 a situation like that would have never happend because the TC would have only been a speck in my rearview.

 

If you live at that sort of elevation you need to get a turbo car. NA cars are always going to be way down on power that high up, and even supercharged won't make the normal level of boost (and power) since the blower speed is set. A turbo car will generally still be able to generate as much boost (and power) at any elevation. If anything you might have a bit more turbo lag as it takes a bit longer to spool the extra boost (the psi in the manifold will be the same as it would at sea level, but since starting at a lower psi the turbo had to build more boost overall).

-TJ

 

actually thats not entirely true, all cars are affected equally because even boosted cars either mechanically or electrically control boost pressure and dump the rest via wastegate. if you have a turbo that has 15 lbs of boost and your elevation lacks 3psi worth of atmosphere pressure the 15 lbs provided by the turbo is still 15 psi but still 3 psi less than at sealevel.
the good news is you can usually modify a turbo car quite easily go get that lost pressure back.
i know of no car at the track that doesnt loose between 1-1.5 secs in the 1/4 mile because of the elevation change.

and actually turbos spool faster here because the air is less dense they are usually less efficient so boost usually drops off a little on the top end due to the fact the turbo can't grab enough air to hold the pressure up. but your right on the fact it takes longer to build boost, but the spool up time is usually less.

all that said, you do see a lot of people who run FI of some sort but i hate the lag, so just like many people have said, there is no replacement for displacement! and exactly why the 350 was the only option for me. now if you combined the 350 with AWD that would also bennifit on the winter months. but here in colorado springs it usually snows about 3 times a year heavy enough to not be able to make it to work, since im self employed i plan to just take thoes days off anyway and i have a 2007 Ridgeline that does awsome in the snow if i have to drive.

 

Doesn't AWD gives you better performance too compared to RWD because all 4 wheels are creating momentum instead of just two?

 

from launches yeah but top end no

 

The reason whY I mentioned that is because the new Evo and STI all use AWD and they are super fast cars. 300+ HP, whew.

 

they are fast but lack top power when racing another car that is not AWD with the same power, like a 300+hp 350z for instance

 

One thing about AWD is weight, another thing about AWD and doing a hard launch is because of the grip of 4wheels, you'll burn the clutch alot faster. Course you can always put a racing clutch but then in heavy traffic it can become a PITA and you run into the possibility of breaking driveshafts/axels/differentials... There are of course alot of positives to having AWD but like everything its a balancing act, power vs suspension vs relaibiliy vs streetability and so many other factors.

 

AWD = All Wheel Drag always slower with the same HP as a 2 wheel drive version.

 

also rwd can have better cornering ability....some awd understeer way too much

 

AWD is only a benefit if there is a loss of traction, other than that it is just more weight to carry around. So unless your car is putting out enough power for traction to become a problem or you consistently drive in low traction situations AWD does absolutely nothing for you in the performance department, it does however jack up the price of the car for the dealers nicely and when it breaks...and yes it will break.... they aren't cheap to fix.

 

But that's not what the magazines all say....

l1tech, you couldn't be MORE right about AWD. So many guys want to think its the solution to all handling problems without understanding the fundamentals.

But what about all those Audi wins with Quattro?

Sure, they win with Quattro, but guess what? Everyone has a minimum weight to meet, so there's none of the real world advantage of RWD being lighter and less complex.

But what about all those rally cars?

Of course rally cars will use AWD. They compete in very loose conditions - mud, snow, ice, and gravel. Anything to aid traction under those conditions is an advantage. If it were all circuit racing on tarmac (what 99.99% of us do with our daily drivers) AWD would not have a significant advantage unless everyone has to meet the same minimum (heavy) weight.

 

stop complaining..just GET IS-F LOL

 

lets put it this way, chicks would rather ride in your 250 then a scion.

 

In a straight line, I would think the 25% extra power and RWD drivetrain would pretty much make up for the 17-18% extra weight against the tC. You weren't trying to race in the AWD 250, were you? That would make things even tougher.

I wonder how the tC does against a 250 around a track, though.

EDIT: About AWD, weight isn't the only disadvantage. I think there are also usually significantly higher drivetrain losses. AWD will not be faster than RWD either from launch, or from a roll.