Could a 92 SC3 auto w/ a good driver beat an IS3 auto in all categories? (0-60, 1/4 mile, 60+, etc.)

 

no.

is3 = sc but lighter.. heh.

 

I had the idea that stock SC vs. stock IS and the SC would win. I don't seem to have any problems knocking on IS cars on the streets.

 

The IS300 is listed as follows:

Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.5 sec.
Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 117 ft.
Roadholding Index: NA
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline
Horsepower: 215 hp @ 5800 rpm
Torque: 218 ft-lbs. @ 3800 rpm
Turning Circle: 33.4 ft.
Length: 176.6 in.
Width: 67.9 in.
Height: 55.5 in.
Weight: 3285 lbs.
Wheelbase: 105.1 in.


A 1997 SC300 is listed as follows:

Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.2 sec.
Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 130 ft.
Roadholding Index: 0.86
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline
Horsepower: 225 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 210 ft-lbs. @ 4800 rpm
Turning Circle: 36.1 ft. Length: 192.5 in.
Width: 70.9 in.
Height: 53.2 in.
Weight: 3538 lbs.
Wheelbase: 105.9 in.


These numbers are listed by Road and Track.

I was able to beat a 2000 IS300 on both, acceleration from 60 to 110, and outhandling him in the turns, with my 1997 SC300. Both stock.

 

I took one also in my 5-speed... i had 2 cars on him at 75

I'm positive he was an auto tho... a new manual would have been much closer...

the SC300's 2JZ is a less-pollution-controlled version than the IS300's 2jz motor... the sc300 makes 225hp while the IS300 only makes 215hp and still has VVTI to do it...

with the auto the IS300 will be dying off the line, and also won't put as much power to the ground... probably a 20-30rwhp difference between the two...

But yes the IS300 weighs only 3200lbs while the SC weighs 3532 in manual guise... I'd rather have an IS300 as a turbo car, but being that they aren't used, and they are ODBIII cars, I don't care to try