Tested IS350 in Road & Track

[codeflux]

OK, here's another IS350 thread. i've been sort of worried here for a while, with claims of IS350's straight-line performance. nothing to talk about handling, just pulling up to a traffic light with IS350 and going for it. street racing is bad, blah blah. so.

in the latest Road & Track magazine, in the Road Test summary in the back:

Lexus IS 350, tested in the Oct 2005 issue. price as tested $42k.

0-60: 6.0 sec (stock G35 speed)
0-100: 14.9 sec (stock G35 speed)
1/4 mile: 14.5 sec @ 98.6 mph (stock G35 speed)
top speed: 142 mph (haha i know my car will hit 155 at least with TS ECU)
braking 60-0: 128 ft (G35 coupe - 112 ft)
braking 80-0: 222 ft (G35 coupe - 199 ft)
skidpad: 0.80 g (G35 coupe - 0.92 g)
slalom: 61.3 mph (G35 coupe - 66.7 mph)
fuel milage: 17.5 mpg (G35 coupe - 18.4 mpg)

i double-checked these numbers twice - i don't know what's been going on with claims of 0-60 of 5.5 seconds for IS350. just wanted to share what another magazine found in their testing, not to flame anyone or anything.

[Klubbheads]

actually some magazines claim it hit to 60 in low 5s but ur find is interesting.

[G35_TX]

You shouldn't be comparing it to the coupe. The Sedan is the one it should be compared too.

[MikeyMike]

TX,

But the pricing is is equivalent to the coupe. But yea, 4 door vs 4 door.

[codeflux]

Originally Posted by G35_TX

You shouldn't be comparing it to the coupe. The Sedan is the one it should be compared too.

*i* am not comparing. G35 coupe is what R&T had listed in the same table.

[g35john]

Most numbers for the sedan are the same anyway, with the skid pad and slalom being the only exception.

[Driver72]

Motor Trend just tested the IS350 in it's Car of the Year comparo.

Got 0-60 in 5.3 seconds
1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.5
60-0 in 123 ft
.86g on skidpad
65.0 mph on slalom
27.1 seconds on their Figure 8 test.

That's all impressive, especially when you consider
the electronic nannies it has that kick in and can't be
disengaged. I'd love to see what the car would do stock
if the electronic nannies could be turned off.
I would think it's just a matter of a VERY short time when
a tuning shop figures out how to turn off the nannies
from an ECU tune.

Car and Driver got the IS350 to accelerate just a bit faster than
the above listed times too. There both a tick or so faster than
a stock 350Z 6 speed MANUAL.
It's a pretty fast car and it walks away from our G35's in a straight line.
And if and ECU tune allows it's nannies to be turned off, it would
walk away from our G35's on a track too.

If for 2007 they come out with a 6 speed manual IS350 I'll think VERY
seriously about picking one up.

[Picus]

You can turn off VDIM - folks at CL and my.is figured it out about ten days ago. However I have still not been overly impressed with it's handling. Stock (sports suspension) it is too soft and the steering is too boosted. It is however very fast.

[ABQ_G35]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Motor Trend just tested the IS350 in it's Car of the Year comparo.

Got 0-60 in 5.3 seconds
1/4 in 13.9 @ 102.5
60-0 in 123 ft
.86g on skidpad
65.0 mph on slalom
27.1 seconds on their Figure 8 test.

That's all impressive, especially when you consider
the electronic nannies it has that kick in and can't be
disengaged. I'd love to see what the car would do stock
if the electronic nannies could be turned off.
I would think it's just a matter of a VERY short time when
a tuning shop figures out how to turn off the nannies
from an ECU tune.

Car and Driver got the IS350 to accelerate just a bit faster than
the above listed times too. There both a tick or so faster than
a stock 350Z 6 speed MANUAL.
It's a pretty fast car and it walks away from our G35's in a straight line.
And if and ECU tune allows it's nannies to be turned off, it would
walk away from our G35's on a track too.

If for 2007 they come out with a 6 speed manual IS350 I'll think VERY
seriously about picking one up.

Hmmm......But it lost Car of The Year to the Civic!!

[Driver72]

Yes it did.
I sat in the new Civic Si about 2 months ago at the Toyota 400
in Fontana. Nice car and I can understand why it won for
all the changes they made to it and all you'll get for $20K
Wonder what they're going to do with the RSX-S now, since
the Civic has nearly as much power, with a smoother engine, better
handling, for $4K less?

[jawjaw]

You have to remember that those magazine times were "corrected" for altitude, weather, rotation of the earth, driver's weight, or whatever else they could think of. Why they couldn't just post real numbers is beyond me. When I drove an IS350 (preproduction), it felt a touch quicker in a straight line but softer in the turns. There is no debate that the G35 is a better driving car but the IS350 does bring a more modern design and better interior. As a Toyota, I guess you could also say it's built better. Those extra features aren't free, though.

[Picus]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Yes it did.
I sat in the new Civic Si about 2 months ago at the Toyota 400
in Fontana. Nice car and I can understand why it won for
all the changes they made to it and all you'll get for $20K
Wonder what they're going to do with the RSX-S now, since
the Civic has nearly as much power, with a smoother engine, better
handling, for $4K less?

The RSX is on it's way out. The new Si fills the gap it would have left. In Canada the EL was just replaced by the CSX, and I believe the rumor is there will be a TSX coupe at some point, although that's speculation at best.

[Driver72]

Yes, most magazines "correct" there times for sea level, 70 or so degree weather and "average" atmospheric conditions. However, to my knowledge, they do NOT correct
for driver weight, and they also run with a FULL tank of gas.
That alone can mean a difference of 100 pounds compared to someone
running with only a few gallons in there.

As for the 3 largest U.S. auto publications, only Road and Track doesn't correct their times. But the track they use is also only 150 feet above sea level. I think the others "correct" out of fairness to the manufacturers.
It wouldn't be fair to test a turbocharged car in January at sea level and
then later test a competing naturally aspirated car in June at 2000 feet elevation. "correcting" the times somewhat (as much as can be expected) levels the playing field of fairness.

[Driver72]

To get off topic here about the RSX-S.
I heard last year that the S2000 was going bye bye after
2006.
It would be GREAT, if they kept the RSX based car (with the new
updated Civic chassis) and dropped the S2000's 2.2 liter engine in it.
But because of the RSX's FWD platform, tune the S2000's engine for
less top end and peak hp (say 220 hp) and more torque (say...5-6 more than the S2000 currently has).
Sell it in 2007 as the new RSX-S for around $27K (base RSX would get the new Civic Si's engine and tune and sell for $24K).
That's what I'd do...had I been the one makin decisions at Acura.