CRSKTN

Admirer
Messages
584
Reaction score
1,111
Interesting you nothing about me, the cars I own or what I have owned but you are criticizing me for reading car reviews...wow

Car reviews are entertainment. A lot of the time they are *intentionally controversial or unreasonable* to provoke a stronger response.
 

Levi

Expert
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
1,505
IS 500: 3,891 lbs
BMW M340i xDrive: 3,968 lbs
Audi S4: 3,847 lbs
Mercedes C43 AMG 4MATIC: 3,825 lbs

Interesting to me that the BMW is the heaviest of the bunch, but I realize each of these cars is a little different in philosophy. IS 500 is the only one that isn't AWD, and they're all within ~150lbs of eachother, so I'm pretty excited for the track battle once it inevitably comes.

Interesting how Mercedes is the lightest. When a BMW or Porsche is heavy and compensates with power, no one cares.
 
Messages
856
Reaction score
1,417
IS 500: 3,891 lbs
BMW M340i xDrive: 3,968 lbs
Audi S4: 3,847 lbs
Mercedes C43 AMG 4MATIC: 3,825 lbs

Interesting to me that the BMW is the heaviest of the bunch, but I realize each of these cars is a little different in philosophy. IS 500 is the only one that isn't AWD, and they're all within ~150lbs of eachother, so I'm pretty excited for the track battle once it inevitably comes.

I'm confident that the BMW will wipe the floor with everyone in almost every single comparison test. I think the IS500 will slot in right under the BMW in terms of performance, on par or better than the Mercedes and definitely crushes the S4.

B58 (that's insanely underrated) + ZF8 + xDrive = 👑
 
Messages
39
Reaction score
38
I'm confident that the BMW will wipe the floor with everyone in almost every single comparison test. I think the IS500 will slot in right under the BMW in terms of performance, on par or better than the Mercedes and definitely crushes the S4.

B58 (that's insanely underrated) + ZF8 + xDrive = 👑
would love for the US to get the m340 wagon. i just hope the IS500 or ISF will be around in 2.5 some years when my lease is up.
 

ssun30

Expert
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
4,468
Seeing the 2UR-GSE rev makes me even more impressed by the LFA's 1LR-GEU. The 2UR is already a very responsive engine, yet it could only rev to 5k rpm in the same time the 1LR revs to its 9k redline!

Funny that when the RC F came out, everyone was harping on it being 4,000lbs and now just a few years later, we let out a sigh of relief when a new performance car weighs that much
People are freaking out about C"63" with Inline-4. I look forward to their reaction to its weight.

I fully expect the next C"63" to be a flop, because it tries to be 'green' with a laughable ICE. People have no reason to buy it over a TM3 Performance. The IS500 on the other hand is a unique product with no direct competition.
 
Messages
856
Reaction score
1,417
Seeing the 2UR-GSE rev makes me even more impressed by the LFA's 1LR-GEU. The 2UR is already a very responsive engine, yet it could only rev to 5k rpm in the same time the 1LR revs to its 9k redline!


People are freaking out about C"63" with Inline-4. I look forward to their reaction to its weight.

I fully expect the next C"63" to be a flop, because it tries to be 'green' with a laughable ICE. People have no reason to buy it over a TM3 Performance. The IS500 on the other hand is a unique product with no direct competition.

My gut says that they will undo their mistakes (like Porsche did) and slap in the V8 back into the C63 or even put an amped up version of the inline-six.
 

Faisal Sheikh

Follower
Messages
377
Reaction score
650
Seeing the 2UR-GSE rev makes me even more impressed by the LFA's 1LR-GEU. The 2UR is already a very responsive engine, yet it could only rev to 5k rpm in the same time the 1LR revs to its 9k redline!

That depends on how hard/fast the driver is stabbing the throttle. The 2UR internals were signfiicantly lightened to make it rev higher more easily than in the 1st gen 2UR. Just saying that the video is probably not full illustration of how quickly it could rev. I do hear the driver hitting the rev limiter a few times, which is not matching the picture.

Having said that, a lot of that comes down to throttle position sensor programming on how quickly the throttle body is going to open up for a given throttle input. I have a SprintBooster v3 on my RCF. In race mode 9, it revs a lot faster than stock. I am not claiming it will rev as quickly as the 1LR, but it revs up and down much faster than stock. However, it makes the car very jumpy/jerky and touchy on the road.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3
Reaction score
6
I’m ecstatic about this reveal. I’m not a car enthusiast but I love a v8 and a great growl. I’m in the market for this bad boy for the right price. I’m on the fence with how much I’m willing to spend on this. But this is my chance to finally grab a v8 sedan.

Like donut media mentioned, it’s a sleeper car. I can drive chill to work in this and then suddenly surprise the road with performance. I would grin and chuckle doing that every time.

it’s just odd timing on release with the push to EVs and the possibility of gas prices skyrocketing.
 

Sulu

Follower
Messages
389
Reaction score
583
LOL. RCF chassis is much stiffer than the IS. IS and GS chassis are soft and not rigid enough, if I were to be perfectly objective. Good or bad, the flex a lot under high torsional stress situations like hard turning. RCF has no noticeable flex and I have seen it almost go tripod on steep approach angles. That is why all of that effort went into making RCF have all of the constructed as a unibody construction using laser screw welding rather than the traditional welding method. It has braces and rigidity beams in the doors , underbody, trunk, in the hood and the sills for added rigidity that the IS or the GS platform does not have. Anyone could tell that by looking at the size of the doorsills and the weight of the doors because of the rigidity beams running through the door. The handling numbers also agree with me.

Frankenstein formula is used by all of the leading brands. Porsche uses it, BMW uses it. Look up how 1M was built. Lexus is not the first. It is not as optimal as building a brand new chassis like they did for the LC, but it is the next best thing they could do. You are showing your lack of knowledge based on what Matt Farrah said. That chassis wins races and used in all of Lexus racing. I can post interview of the chief engineer's interview explaining why the 3IS chassis was not sufficient for their RCF racing homologation aspirations and why they needed to build a new chassis. They even were testing the RCF chassis in the ISF CCSR guise in racing. They could have made a 2 door coupe easily out of 3IS chassis for much cheaper, if it was better for racing.

I don't doubt IS500 F-Sport would be a phenomenal car. With a narrower axle width/track and less mechanical grip with the same amount of power, it would be easier to break the rear loose making it a hooligan's car. Some people might finding it more engaging, but it is back to the purpose of the two cars.

If you dlslike the RCF, that is your choice and I would not say anything about that. However, when you trash a car based on viral reviews then you are going to get the facts thrown back at you.

If you are thinking IS500 F-Sport is going to outhandle the RCF without the suspension/chassis hardware RCF has, that is your own subjective opinion.
The RC's frankenstein chassis is only on the drawing board, not how it is built in the factory. It is not like Lexus actually cuts up a GS platform, an old IS Convertible platform and an IS platform, and then welds them together on the assembly line.

Designing the RC platform as a combination of 3 platforms is what gives it the unique abilities -- GS front end to carry a V8 and IS Convertible in the middle for torsional strength -- but actually cutting and welding together bits and pieces from 3 different platforms would have defeated the purpose. Cutting and welding is weaker than actually building it all as a single platform.
 

Faisal Sheikh

Follower
Messages
377
Reaction score
650
Exactly,. You are right. It is a unibody construction completely unitized from the ground up. The misconception was created by the media by using words like "cobbled together" as if Lexus was joining three different disjointed pieces together. Then, there is strengthening by using laser screw welding and adhesives, which give it more rigidity than the traditional welding methods.

The RC's frankenstein chassis is only on the drawing board, not how it is built in the factory. It is not like Lexus actually cuts up a GS platform, an old IS Convertible platform and an IS platform, and then welds them together on the assembly line.

Designing the RC platform as a combination of 3 platforms is what gives it the unique abilities -- GS front end to carry a V8 and IS Convertible in the middle for torsional strength -- but actually cutting and welding together bits and pieces from 3 different platforms would have defeated the purpose. Cutting and welding is weaker than actually building it all as a single platform.
 
Last edited:

Madi

Fan
Messages
70
Reaction score
156
because one test drive is not enough. the more you drive it the more you like it. at least that is what owners say. new german cars get boring very fast, that is why they change them so often.

Exactly, that made me recall Chris Harris review from 2017, he said about the GS F "I can't think about any car that would suffer more on a limited test drive like one hour out of the showroom then back test drive than the Lexus GS F, because it just takes so long to reveal it's quite considerable personality" - and that's applies to all F products and answers why some reviewers get it wrong too often because they didn't spend enough time with the car, by the way he found the GS F more enjoyable to drive than an M5,

 
Last edited:
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Anyone who says to read car reviews doesn't actually have any experience buying and appreciating different vehicles.

Car reviews are entertainment for window shoppers and spec sheet warriors.
There are links to car reviews in this thread...
 
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
LOL. RCF chassis is much stiffer than the IS. IS and GS chassis are soft and not rigid enough, if I were to be perfectly objective. Good or bad, the flex a lot under high torsional stress situations like hard turning. RCF has no noticeable flex and I have seen it almost go tripod on steep approach angles. That is why all of that effort went into making RCF have all of the constructed as a unibody construction using laser screw welding rather than the traditional welding method. It has braces and rigidity beams in the doors , underbody, trunk, in the hood and the sills for added rigidity that the IS or the GS platform does not have. Anyone could tell that by looking at the size of the doorsills and the weight of the doors because of the rigidity beams running through the door. The handling numbers also agree with me.

Frankenstein formula is used by all of the leading brands. Porsche uses it, BMW uses it. Look up how 1M was built. Lexus is not the first. It is not as optimal as building a brand new chassis like they did for the LC, but it is the next best thing they could do. You are showing your lack of knowledge based on what Matt Farrah said. That chassis wins races and used in all of Lexus racing. I can post interview of the chief engineer's interview explaining why the 3IS chassis was not sufficient for their RCF racing homologation aspirations and why they needed to build a new chassis. They even were testing the RCF chassis in the ISF CCSR guise in racing. They could have made a 2 door coupe easily out of 3IS chassis for much cheaper, if it was better for racing.

I don't doubt IS500 F-Sport would be a phenomenal car. With a narrower axle width/track and less mechanical grip with the same amount of power, it would be easier to break the rear loose making it a hooligan's car. Some people might finding it more engaging, but it is back to the purpose of the two cars.

If you dlslike the RCF, that is your choice and I would not say anything about that. However, when you trash a car based on viral reviews then you are going to get the facts thrown back at you.

If you are thinking IS500 F-Sport is going to outhandle the RCF without the suspension/chassis hardware RCF has, that is your own subjective opinion.
Nope never said it would out handle the RCF.
 

mikeavelli

Moderator
Messages
4,746
Reaction score
9,510
Exactly, that made me recall Chris Harris review from 2017, he said about the GS F "I can't think about any car that would suffer more on a limited test drive like one hour out of the showroom then back test drive than the Lexus GS F, because it just takes so long to reveal it's quite considerable personality" - and that's applies to all F products and answers why some reviewers get it wrong too often because they didn't spend enough time with the car, by the way he found the GS F more enjoyable to drive than an M5,


This was a great review for the GS F.
 

Levi

Expert
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
1,505
I'm confident that the BMW will wipe the floor with everyone in almost every single comparison test. I think the IS500 will slot in right under the BMW in terms of performance, on par or better than the Mercedes and definitely crushes the S4.

B58 (that's insanely underrated) + ZF8 + xDrive = 👑

imagine a Supra with S58 and AWD. will wipe all the BMW range.
 
Top