GS450h Gen 3 vs Gen 4

[Drb80]

Having recently sold my gen 3 GS450h I am soon to be buying a gen 4 GS450h F sport.

I notice the gen 4 emissions are down, economy is up and the official 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds is 0.4 slower than the gen 3.

I can understand why it's a little slower to 60 now but wondered if there's anything else that I might need to be aware of? 

[royoftherovers]

7 minutes ago, Drb80 said:

Having recently sold my gen 3 GS450h I am soon to be buying a gen 4 GS450h F sport.

I notice the gen 4 emissions are down, economy is up and the official 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds is 0.4 slower than the gen 3.

I can understand why it's a little slower to 60 now but wondered if there's anything else that I might need to be aware of? 

Mark,

In my book, the GEN3 450h,0-60 time was 5.9, thus making the GEN4 faster (if that is important to you) !

 

Regards

John

[Drb80]

2 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

Mark,

In my book, the GEN3 450h,0-60 time was 5.9, thus making the GEN4 faster (if that is important to you) !

 

Regards

John

That 5.9 figure is officially incorrect : http://www.lexus.com/pdf/models/GSh_driving_performance_guide.pdf?utm_source=LexusOwnersClubUK&utm_medium=ForumLinks

It might be a 0-62 figure that gives a 5.9 time and that's why it's confused but I doubt it, anyway the gen 4 0-60 is not that important, I just wondered if others were aware of it or any other differences and advantages that the gen 3 might have over the gen 4.

[AmbroseJohn]

Quoted acceleration time these days are 0-100 km/h or 0-62 mph and the GS is 5.9 seconds. For the US market they use 0-60 mph figures and quote 5.2 seconds.

Hence the confusion.

If the Gen 4 is 0-62 in 5.6, it is indeed quicker than the Gen 3 but you'd probably never notice the difference anyway so don't panic. :)

[Drb80]

37 minutes ago, AmbroseJohn said:

Quoted acceleration time these days are 0-100 km/h or 0-62 mph and the GS is 5.9 seconds. For the US market they use 0-60 mph figures and quote 5.2 seconds.

Hence the confusion.

If the Gen 4 is 0-62 in 5.6, it is indeed quicker than the Gen 3 but you'd probably never notice the difference anyway so don't panic. :)

I don't want to get hung up on the 0-60 times because like I said it's not important but lets have it right fellas. I know a cars 0-60 time isn't a totally linear progression though I'm sure the CVT makes it more linear than most but 2 (mph) goes into 62 (mph) 31 times, if you divide 5.9 by 31 you get 0.19, that would make a 0-60 time that was formerly a 0-62 time - 5.690 seconds which seems to be supported by this : http://www.lexus.com/models/GS/specifications/gs-450h-f-sport-rwd which suggests officially that the gen 4 is slower.

Is there anybody here that's gone from a gen 3 to a 4? it seems the gen 4 shares nothing with the gen3 other than the engine and a few switches, quite a rare car the F sport, less than 240 F sports sold in the UK since 2012.

[AmbroseJohn]

On 24/01/2017 at 1:27 AM, Drb80 said:

I don't want to get hung up on the 0-60 times because like I said it's not important but lets have it right fellas. I know a cars 0-60 time isn't a totally linear progression though I'm sure the CVT makes it more linear than most but 2 (mph) goes into 62 (mph) 31 times, if you divide 5.9 by 31 you get 0.19, that would make a 0-60 time that was formerly a 0-62 time - 5.690 seconds which seems to be supported by this : http://www.lexus.com/models/GS/specifications/gs-450h-f-sport-rwd which suggests officially that the gen 4 is slower.

Is there anybody here that's gone from a gen 3 to a 4? it seems the gen 4 shares nothing with the gen3 other than the engine and a few switches, quite a rare car the F sport, less than 240 F sports sold in the UK since 2012.

But the acceleration curve is not constant. There's a huge difference in the time taken for 0-2 mph than 60-62 mph. The formula is far more complicated than the one used in your calculation.

[rayaans]

On 1/24/2017 at 1:27 AM, Drb80 said:

I don't want to get hung up on the 0-60 times because like I said it's not important but lets have it right fellas. I know a cars 0-60 time isn't a totally linear progression though I'm sure the CVT makes it more linear than most but 2 (mph) goes into 62 (mph) 31 times, if you divide 5.9 by 31 you get 0.19, that would make a 0-60 time that was formerly a 0-62 time - 5.690 seconds which seems to be supported by this : http://www.lexus.com/models/GS/specifications/gs-450h-f-sport-rwd which suggests officially that the gen 4 is slower.

Is there anybody here that's gone from a gen 3 to a 4? it seems the gen 4 shares nothing with the gen3 other than the engine and a few switches, quite a rare car the F sport, less than 240 F sports sold in the UK since 2012.

Essentially, what you need to know is the 4th gen GS450h feels about the same as the 3rd gen in terms of performance

Its also better insulated and the rear wheel steering on the 4th gen is something surreal. Lane changes on the motorway feel like they're from another dimension.

The interior quality of the gen 4 is much improved but something to note is that the F-Sport is moderately firm compared to the 3GS so its worth a test drive. 

The 4GS and 3GS had identical 0-62mph times in the UK but the 4GS is certainly better in every way including driving dynamics.

[Drb80]

22 minutes ago, AmbroseJohn said:

But the acceleration curve is not constant. There's a huge difference in the time taken for 0-2 mph than 60-62 mph. The formula is far more complicated than the one used in your calculation.

I did say that it's not a totally linear progression (acceleration curve) and I didn't claim my calculation to be precise. It was just an attempt to make clear that the idea that a 450h takes the best part of a second (0.7) to get from 60-62mph is a ridiculous claim. I find it a bit odd that you and others stand by that. 

[Drb80]

16 minutes ago, rayaans said:

Essentially, what you need to know is the 4th gen GS450h feels about the same as the 3rd gen in terms of performance

Its also better insulated and the rear wheel steering on the 4th gen is something surreal. Lane changes on the motorway feel like they're from another dimension.

The interior quality of the gen 4 is much improved but something to note is that the F-Sport is moderately firm compared to the 3GS so its worth a test drive. 

The 4GS and 3GS had identical 0-62mph times in the UK but the 4GS is certainly better in every way including driving dynamics.

I've been told about the rear wheel steering and I've also been told it makes the car more nimble and handle better than a 5 series, that would be nice.

[AmbroseJohn]

10 hours ago, Drb80 said:

I did say that it's not a totally linear progression (acceleration curve) and I didn't claim my calculation to be precise. It was just an attempt to make clear that the idea that a 450h takes the best part of a second (0.7) to get from 60-62mph is a ridiculous claim. I find it a bit odd that you and others stand by that. 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it not unreasonable to accept the stats, however ridiculous you may think they are. Does it really matter anyway, it's certainly not worth starting an argument about. 

[Drb80]

15 hours ago, AmbroseJohn said:

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it not unreasonable to accept the stats, however ridiculous you may think they are. Does it really matter anyway, it's certainly not worth starting an argument about. 

I accept the varied stats but what I don’t accept is your claim that it takes 0.7 seconds to get from 60-62mph and it does matter because you are still trying to convince me and anybody who reads this thread that you are correct when you are wrong, whilst taking the moral high ground in what I suspect is an attempt to conveniently end this debate, anyway here’s another explanation with evidence which I feel is more than enough for anybody to understand:

0.7 seconds represents 8mph in a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds when the linear curve is straight. The first graph shows an almost straight yet accelerating linear curve for the 450h which proves that 0.7 seconds represents approximately 8mph from start to finish and not as slow as 2mph at any point. The other graph relates to a Kia deceleration curve that does show 0.7 seconds from 60-62mph and the final graph explains both curves.

 

 

 

I hope you got something from that John because I certainly did, Honda S2000’s are a lot quicker than I would have guessed.

[Zotto]

I traded my gen. 3 GS 450h for a gen4 GS 300h, and 300h is better in all , except on acceleration of course. A friend of mine bought a new 450h, and while performance is the same, compared my former 450h mpg are better, gaining about 3 mpg (you can see difference looking on spritmonitor or fuelly different figures selecting before and after 2012 models). Best improvements had been made in electronics , active cruise control is that one I like more.

[Shahpor]

10 hours ago, Drb80 said:

I accept the varied stats but what I don’t accept is your claim that it takes 0.7 seconds to get from 60-62mph and it does matter because you are still trying to convince me and anybody who reads this thread that you are correct when you are wrong, whilst taking the moral high ground in what I suspect is an attempt to conveniently end this debate, anyway here’s another explanation with evidence which I feel is more than enough for anybody to understand:

Mark, are you trying to start an argument?

The reason I ask is that John has said nothing that warrants this kind of response.  Saying it's not worth arguing about is not 'taking the moral high ground', it is just good sense.

I have had several debated in my time here (a couple of them quite lengthy!), and I have generally found the people on here laid back and respectful.

So, let me add to what John has said and say relax, it doesn't matter.

[rayaans]

The 0-62mph values are incorrect as well.

In the UK both cars are measured at 5.9s 0-62mph so there's no difference whatsoever on paper.

[GSLV6]

21 hours ago, rayaans said:

The 0-62mph values are incorrect as well.

In the UK both cars are measured at 5.9s 0-62mph so there's no difference whatsoever on paper.

Debates of this kind are pretty pointless when they start to get dogmatic.  As Rayaans says, the UK specs are 5.9 seconds for both. (power to weight is presumably the same).

As with all these figures, they are seldom repeatable and only accurate for the day measured in those environmental conditions, with that driver behind the wheel, with those same tyres fitted, inflated to the same pressures on the same surface.  Good luck trying to emulate it.  You might be quicker or slower.  It's certainly no proof that the Gen 3 is faster than the Gen 4 or vice-versa.

The book figures for my GS300 were 7.1 and that seemed about right although when I tried testing myself in as controlled conditions as I could, it varied between 6.8 and 7.7 seconds between runs.

I have tried with my RX450h (book gives around 7.7) and averaged 6.7, a full second faster with a fastest run of 6.5.  Independent tests seem to bare out a high 6 second figure (eg autotk.com figures are 6.8s @15.2 1/4 mile and Zeroto60times.com give 6.7s &14.9 1/4 mile).

It's just not worth people getting their knickers in a twist over 

[Drb80]

On 28 January 2017 at 1:14 PM, Shahpor said:

Mark, are you trying to start an argument?

The reason I ask is that John has said nothing that warrants this kind of response.  Saying it's not worth arguing about is not 'taking the moral high ground', it is just good sense.

I have had several debated in my time here (a couple of them quite lengthy!), and I have generally found the people on here laid back and respectful.

So, let me add to what John has said and say relax, it doesn't matter.

 

So somebody tries to convince me of something that I know not to be true and suggests I have no evidence, I supply the evidence and slightly indirectly I am told I’m being argumentative, over excited, disrespectful, without good sense and have things in a twist.

Anybody would think I had been abusive or had not ended this debate with what I think is an interesting and at least evidential reply.

 

John is an advanced member and known to some of you here so gets preference over myself and that’s fine but I think it’s unfair to suggest that I have no right to an opinion or challenge to a claim within my own thread and if I do I’m being unreasonable and whatever my concerns are they are unimportant. 

 

Read the title of the thread and you should understand that it is somewhat important because I am questioning and bringing into debate the differences between the gen 3 and 4 no matter how small or unimportant they are to anybody else.

 

[Shahpor]

*sigh* Ok, so apparently this is important since you used a bold font.

Shall we take this point by point?

8 minutes ago, Drb80 said:

So somebody tries to convince me of something that I know not to be true and suggests I have no evidence

John didn't try to convince you, just stated his own opinion on the matter.  Also, you may have noticed that he has made no comment on your evidence now that you have produced it.

9 minutes ago, Drb80 said:

slightly indirectly I am told I’m being argumentative

Slightly?  I thought I made myself pretty clear.

9 minutes ago, Drb80 said:

John is an advanced member and known to some of you here so gets preference over myself

Not true.  I don't recall having any direct discussions with John before, but if I thought he was wrong, I would say so just the same.

11 minutes ago, Drb80 said:

I think it’s unfair to suggest that I have no right to an opinion or challenge to a claim within my own thread

Who said you couldn't have any opinion?  My concern was with the specific part I quoted, which I thought was argumentative and unnecessary.

 

So, having said all that, my question is what you hope to achieve by continuing this?  I don't mean your original question, just the manner of your responses since.

3 different people on this thread have told you it is not worth getting into a fuss about, so perhaps that should tell you what the people on this forum are like?

Maybe we can put this to one side now and carry on discussing what is important to you in this thread?

[Drb80]

2 hours ago, Shahpor said:

*sigh* Ok, so apparently this is important since you used a bold font.

Shall we take this point by point?

John didn't try to convince you, just stated his own opinion on the matter.  Also, you may have noticed that he has made no comment on your evidence now that you have produced it.

Slightly?  I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Not true.  I don't recall having any direct discussions with John before, but if I thought he was wrong, I would say so just the same.

Who said you couldn't have any opinion?  My concern was with the specific part I quoted, which I thought was argumentative and unnecessary.

 

So, having said all that, my question is what you hope to achieve by continuing this?  I don't mean your original question, just the manner of your responses since.

3 different people on this thread have told you it is not worth getting into a fuss about, so perhaps that should tell you what the people on this forum are like?

Maybe we can put this to one side now and carry on discussing what is important to you in this thread?

 

Oh dear, look who’s the argumentative one making a fuss now! and to think you’re the one who told me to relax and that it doesn’t matter.

 

John did try to convince me so don’t say he didn’t, read his replies and anyway stop bringing John back into this, this is about your feelings now, not that I’m interested. 

 

I managed to prove my challenged point and that was the end of it until you got yourself involved, all because you didn’t appreciate the manner of my response to another member, or so you say. I was well within forum guidelines and didn’t get personal so I don’t get what it’s got to do with you, I don’t know who you think you are trying to police a thread for specific manners and politeness, you’re acting like an oversensitive renegade moderator.

 

You didn’t make yourself clear either because you asked if I was the one trying to start an argument. I didn’t answer that silly question because there was nowhere further an argument or debate could go, so it was finished until you hijacked the thread and started your own argument which really is a pointless waste of time, though you seem to be getting some kind of enjoyment from it.

 

Anybody can see that all this after the event bickering is not necessary and I’m sure most people have refrained from contributing here because it’s just embarrassing, I’m actually ashamed of myself for allowing you to pull me in this far.

 

You don’t have anything to contribute to this thread so how about putting yourself to one side and allowing anybody with knowledge of the GS to contribute if they wish, you’re boring and if you think you’ll have any success in dictating to me you are very wrong, your gold member supporter status has clearly gone to your head.

[Shahpor]

Well, I am sure other members on here will make what they will of what you say.

As for me, I am going to take my own advice, relax, and let it go.

[bagpus]

On 30/01/2017 at 5:07 PM, Drb80 said:

 

Oh dear, look who’s the argumentative one making a fuss now! and to think you’re the one who told me to relax and that it doesn’t matter.

 

John did try to convince me so don’t say he didn’t, read his replies and anyway stop bringing John back into this, this is about your feelings now, not that I’m interested. 

 

I managed to prove my challenged point and that was the end of it until you got yourself involved, all because you didn’t appreciate the manner of my response to another member, or so you say. I was well within forum guidelines and didn’t get personal so I don’t get what it’s got to do with you, I don’t know who you think you are trying to police a thread for specific manners and politeness, you’re acting like an oversensitive renegade moderator.

 

You didn’t make yourself clear either because you asked if I was the one trying to start an argument. I didn’t answer that silly question because there was nowhere further an argument or debate could go, so it was finished until you hijacked the thread and started your own argument which really is a pointless waste of time, though you seem to be getting some kind of enjoyment from it.

 

Anybody can see that all this after the event bickering is not necessary and I’m sure most people have refrained from contributing here because it’s just embarrassing, I’m actually ashamed of myself for allowing you to pull me in this far.

 

You don’t have anything to contribute to this thread so how about putting yourself to one side and allowing anybody with knowledge of the GS to contribute if they wish, you’re boring and if you think you’ll have any success in dictating to me you are very wrong, your gold member supporter status has clearly gone to your head.

Lets conclude: they are very smooth, rapid beasts that's all that should matter. Oh and just for the record do you not think you are being a little over-reactive?

[bagpus]

On 30/01/2017 at 5:18 PM, Shahpor said:

Well, I am sure other members on here will make what they will of what you say.

As for me, I am going to take my own advice, relax, and let it go.

Yes totally agree.....bet you wished you had never asked...........................

[Shahpor]

@bagpusWhile I appreciate what you say, I am not sure it warranted bumping a 7 month old thread.

[peachy]

Your a fine one to talk @Shahpor as soon as someone posts something to your disliking about the is220d the toys soon come out the pram.

[Bluesman]

Come along gentleman lets keep things friendly. Mike.

[Shahpor]

20 minutes ago, peachy said:

Your a fine one to talk @Shahpor as soon as someone posts something to your disliking about the is220d the toys soon come out the pram.

Where did that come from?

My toys come out of the pram?  Perhaps we are biased in different directions?  After all, I seem to recall you posting your dislike of it on more than one 220d thread?

And how many arguments have I started about it?  I do what everyone else does, and that is state my opinion.

It is very hard to get things across on a forum sometimes.  I have very specific objections to certain things about the 220d on here, so it is not just anything that I dislike.  If you are wondering what they are, I have handily mentioned them all 10 months ago here:

Are we going to see eye to eye on this subject?  Unlikely, since we have had different experiences, but I do think that you are overstating the issue a bit.