IS F Sport 500

[Linas.P]

58 minutes ago, Flytvr said:

Interesting. I'm hoping for a smaller capacity forced induction. Maybe they'll go the NSX hybrid route.

That is all what is wrong if modern cars, making engines smaller and turbocharging. They look good on the paper, sucks to drive thought- no relation between your foot and what engine is doing and fuel economy in reality is tragic. 

8 hours ago, Fair and square said:

Heaven behold, see the below

www.motor1.com/news/489896/2022-lexus-is-500-explainer/amp/

So if this article is true, then maybe the "F range" is about to up its game more than what we are currently used to.

"Up the game" with what car? IS-F? maybe LC-F? Because RC-F and GS-F are going... As I said it makes no sense what they doing. So they were happy to take punches from germans all along when they had full line-up of performance cars and they didn't think of upping the game then and now they going to up the game with one semi-refreshed EOL model and flagship which will be like $150k if they make F version of it.

I am not trying to shoot the messenger, just saying this speculation makes no sense.

[C.B]

I really have no desire for 500BHP+ or a forced induction engine. The F car experience is centered around that engine and its noise, its their USP so why get rid and join the pointless power race. Which is now at the point where 4wd is necessary only thsat makes cars heavier and worse to drive unless you are actually lapping a ciruit.

Updated styling, newer interior, better ride, known reliability, take my money!!! Only they wont as its US only apparantly 😞 

[Linas.P]

Exactly, besides 4WD is not good even for track!

If one just wants a nice driving car I cannot see any better engine than NA 4-5L V8 or 3L V6, could be 3L L6 as well. I guess ideally manual, but reality is quite sad with manual on our crooked roads and traffic.

If there is any area where Lexus could do better job is keeping the weight down and delivering power more efficiently... I do not expect 800kg Lotus like car, but something like 1300kg should be achievable even whilst keeping sufficient sound isolation and comfort. As well it seems something is wrong with Lexus drivetrain, because competitors can do same speed with 100 less HP. Perhaps trusty 8 speed needs updating, I know horrors of dual-clutch, but maybe there is way to make auto more efficient... although who am I kidding from when ~4s to 60 is not enough? RC-F track edition could do 3.9s by just having launch control. I think that is good enough for luxury car and not outright track weapon. 

[4969_LXS]

@Linas.P What do you mean by same speed with 100 less hp? Most German cars a limited to 155mph unless you pay for it to be raised. Our cars are limited to 168ish. With it removed they easily get into the 180's. Acceleration comes down to weight, traction and power curves. Modern turbo engines make a lot of torque from only 1500rpm. Our NA power is 4000rpm onwards and our 8 speed trans has a locking torque converter for efficiency. There are several ways to change the powertrain for quicker launches. Use an IS350 rear diff which has a shorter final drive ratio, go forced induction, and use a high stall torque converter that will launch at 4000rpm no-one has made one for our car. Wider rear tyres and the cheapest, weight reduction. When testing against a friend's 140i the power to weight is similar. 0-60 he is ever so slightly quicker due to torque curve and less weight. In theory anything after 60 the ISF top end comes to shine.

I completely agree with you on reducing the weight, but our powertrain is pretty epic as is, only upgrades for me using the parts bin, would be using the IS350 diff with the 10 Speed trans. With NA cars, gearing plays a big part. 

I'm the same as @C.B, I'm not in the power race, modern cars like that have no soul and I'm not a fan of all intrusive electronics like lane departure etc. The experience you get from our F cars is Unique, from the noise to throttle response and linear power delivery. It's addictive 😈

[Linas.P]

Just now, 4969_LXS said:

@Linas.P What do you mean by same speed with 100 less hp? Most German cars a limited to 155mph unless you pay for it to be raised. Our cars are limited to 168ish.

With it removed they easily get into the 180's. Acceleration comes down to weight, traction and power curves. Modern turbo engines make a lot of torque from only 1500rpm. Our NA power is 4000rpm onwards and our 8 speed trans has a locking torque converter for efficiency. There are several ways to change the powertrain for quicker launches. Use an IS350 rear diff which has a shorter final drive ratio, go forced induction, and use a high stall torque converter that will launch at 4000rpm no-one has made one for our car. Wider rear tyres and the cheapest, weight reduction. When testing against a friend's 140i the power to weight is similar. 0-60 he is ever so slightly quicker due to torque curve and less weight. In theory anything after 60 the ISF top end comes to shine.

I completely agree with you on reducing the weight, but our powertrain is pretty epic as is, only upgrades for me using the parts bin, would be using the IS350 diff with the 10 Speed trans. With NA cars, gearing plays a big part. 

I'm the same as @C.B, I'm not in the power race, modern cars like that have no soul and I'm not a fan of all intrusive electronics like lane departure etc. The experience you get from our F cars is Unique, from the noise to throttle response and linear power delivery. It's addictive 😈

Sorry, not speed, I meant acceleration. 155 or 168 is pretty much irrelevant unless you living in Germany. Besides removing speed limiter is fairly simple.

And comparison was made against Audi S5 or BMW 340i, both around 380hp and both does the same 0-60. I guess you right - their turbo engines means more low down torque and l thus better acceleration. In other hand, would Audi and BMW have dual-clutch boxes? 

As I said, it is kind of moot point... if they can get the car to the level of RC-F Track Edition 3.9s 0-60 I don't see the problem with that.

However, I don't agree that I would want to see 10-speed box in the car... 8 are already far too many to make sense out of it. 10 would be just literally leaving car to do it's thing, no point in trying to change them with paddles. I tried it in LC and car feels great on auto, but manual changing makes no sense. 

[4969_LXS]

@Linas.P Ahh got you now. There are a few things I think that are relevant, looking at dynos of stock cars it would appear BMW and Audi quote there hp figures as horsepower at the wheels. Our cars' horsepower is measured as crank horsepower so that plays a part. What seems like 380hp is most definitely higher at the crank. 

It is kind of a moot point, I was just sharing what you can do to make it accelerate faster. 

With regards to DSG vs our gearboxes, our boxes change up in 0.1s of a second in sport and manual mode. Modern DSG's tend to be 0.05s, even though it's 50% faster, you wouldn't notice the difference. I certainly haven't. But the advantage of our locking torque boxes is it's smoother cruising around when it's unlocked and you won't wear out clutch packs in traffic. All the new high performance Audi's and BMW's such as RS6, M5, have moved from DSG to ZF's 8 Speed locking torque box.

Interesting to see your view on the 10 speed, as all the reviews I've read and seen about the 10 speed state they really like it, and say it's better than the 8 speed. The shifts have been designed to be rhythmic in manual mode. Our box is set up as a 6 speed+2 (top speed is reached in 6th) for overdrive/cruise. I'd take a punt that the 10 speed is a 7+3. They're like this so you haven't got lots of short ratios to flit between like a truck for example.

[Linas.P]

I liked 10-speed box, I have no complains about it, smooth and relatively responsive, but as I said it is better left to do it's thing.

Is that really a problem in LC (big GT car) - no I think it is fine. But is it a problem in sporty sedan or coupe... it may be. Just for example - if you cruising @10th gear and you need to downshift to 4th it is little bit pointless to do it with paddles. And ratios are so short and so close, tat again trying to change them yourself would be confusing.

For LC the saving grace is the engine - it has long power band from ~2000RPM all the way to what... like 7500... and you can really rev it out (I guess not that much different from IS-F). Give same 10-speed box to turbo car which only has power between 1500-4000RPM and you will never stop shifting.

[Flytvr]

4 hours ago, Linas.P said:

That is all what is wrong if modern cars, making engines smaller and turbocharging. They look good on the paper, sucks to drive thought- no relation between your foot and what engine is doing and fuel economy in reality is tragic. 

Obviously I’m swimming against the flow here with a lot of NA type fanboys o frequenting this forum.

However, don’t believe all the hype about NA engines. Yes, they are suited to balls out driving and on the boil they are great. However, F cars (exception of the LFA) are not balls out racers - they are more GT. Having a high revving engine in a GT car - frustrating.

FI engines - ‘suck to drive’, not sure about that..... really not sure about that at all. They allow you to utilise torque and make easy progress. The argument of ‘turbo lag’ is very 1980s. Hand on heart, as an F driver, get caught in the wrong gear and you’re going to get toasted by a Lupo GTi (if such a car exists).

I’m a big Lexus fan, but I wouldn’t return to the Lexus V8. 

[Linas.P]

@Flytvr - strange, you see I have turbo car now and I absolutely hate it, is worst of both world. And I was going between NA and turbo cars and I hated all turbo cars. To be fair new MB E300 does not feel bad, but it just waffles around anyway, but that is different car for different people.

The "turbo lag" is indeed 80's thing, it is still there but it is very small... my problem is not turbo-lag, but "on/off accelerator". With NA engine you can have exactly the right amount of engine input, on turbo car is either nothing or balls the the wall (like you saying). And it is not your foot on accelerator which defines the acceleration, but rather RPM and the gear selection... obviously you don't select gears either when you have 8 of them and all have basically the same ratio. On my car is pretty much no difference if you accelerate from 2nd, 3rd or 4th... they kind of the same.

Must be different values and styles, but I feel much more relaxed driving NA car where I can drive it exactly as fast as I want to, if I want to keep it at 3000RPM for moderate acceleration, I can do that, if I want little bit more, then 4000, 5000... from 5000 VVTi kicks in and you can rev it all the way and hear glorious sound. You can just creep in at 2000 rpm "eco mode"... that is equally fine.

On turbo engine if you want to accelerate at all, turbo has to spool-up and your petrol goes down the drain very quickly. You get hit with the pan over head between 2500 and 4000 rpm and you change gear. Reminds Clarkson here about truck drivers "change gear, change gear, mur*** the p****, change gear". Not sure why would anyone want that... except of racing on the track.

[4969_LXS]

Hmmm, cruising in top gear you'd just mash the pedal to use the kickdown feature to go from top gear to 4th rather than use the paddles ? 

@Linas.P after hearing that it'd be interesting to drive an LC to see how close the ratios are.

@Flytvra Lupo GTi does exist ! Nippy things. I agree FI motors are great for progress, with my friends 140i you can be in a high gear low revs, plant the foot and it just hauls, the amount of torque anywhere is ace. But he does miss the linearity that you get with our cars and the response isn't quite the same, pretty sure a map could sort that. If the new ISF does come about with FI, it'll be a hoot, but not for me, I like a bit of tech with analogue but not loads of tech.

Anyway back onto the IS500, one thing I do like is that it has folding rear seats !

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, 4969_LXS said:

Hmmm, cruising in top gear you'd just mash the pedal to use the kickdown feature to go from top gear to 4th rather than use the paddles ? 

@Linas.P after hearing that it'd be interesting to drive an LC to see how close the ratios are.

Anyway back onto the IS500, one thing I do like is that it has folding rear seats !

That is what I am saying... why have paddles then. It is illusion of choice! I can changed gears fine when it is 6 of them, anything more and there is no point any longer.

Ratios are close, but they are fine 

Rear seats are indeed amazing, my RC is far more practical compared to older IS250 just because of folding seats. 

[4969_LXS]

@Linas.P On the basis of practicality. Complete speculation, but what would you think if Lexus offered the IS500 and a new ISF as an estate option, like a revival of the old IS300 Sport Cross turned up to 11? 

I know a lot of people like the idea of the new M3 estate. As well as existing fast German Estates.

[Linas.P]

@4969_LXS - I am not the guy to ask... I hate estate cars, but I know some people are going crazy about them. To be fair I don't even like saloons - I am coupe person, as well 2 door coupes, not those silly 4 door coupes.

I still think that IS mk3.5 is great looking car for what it is, if somebody asks me to list Lexus IS from prettiest to ugliest I would say this is it - mk3.5 is the best looking, then mk2, followed by mk3 and mk1... and mk1 estate.

So no... no estate for me please, but maybe IS500C our coupe version of it (assuming no RC mk2 will be made).

BUT what an amazing car would be RC500. I would be like "shut-up and take my money!"... but knowing Lexus we won't see it on our shores, not even nearby!

[ColinBarber]

33 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

On turbo engine if you want to accelerate at all, turbo has to spool-up and your petrol goes down the drain very quickly. You get hit with the pan over head between 2500 and 4000 rpm and you change gear. Reminds Clarkson here about truck drivers "change gear, change gear, mur*** the p****, change gear". Not sure why would anyone want that... except of racing on the track.

Not sure what's wrong with your driving technique or your engine if you aren't able to modulate your boost/acceleration. It doesn't behave like an on/off switch.

You seem to suggest all Turbo engines must be bad because your vehicle is. You get good and bad turbo engine, the same as you get good and bad NA engines.

 

I never had any major drivability issues with either my MR2 Turbo or my Supra Twin Turbo. Like any vehicle you needed to understand where the power is and when to change gear - no different from any of my NA vehicles, just different. Pick up is normally always better with a Turbo - as Flytvr stated, get caught in the wrong gear in a Lexus V8 and you will get smoked.

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Not sure what's wrong with your driving technique or your engine if you aren't able to modulate your boost/acceleration. It doesn't behave like an on/off switch.

You seem to suggest all Turbo engines must be bad because your vehicle is. You get good and bad turbo engine, the same as you get good and bad NA engines.

My vehicle is extreme example of bad turbo engine - agree, not all of them are as bad, but I had Passat CC with similar issue (2L Turbo engine from GTI). It is combination of very short close ratio gears and very weak engine with very short power band. And indeed I am not saying all turbo engines are bad because of my engine is bad. What I am saying acceleration and accelerator is more progressive on NA engines, the more you push it and the higher you push it, the more power you get. It may not be as fast in any gear, but it is drivable in any gear and it is clear for the driver what they need to do... pretty simple frankly - as long as you in right gear just push-it all the way and change at the top of rev range.

In turbo engines you have peak power at certain point in rev range and you need to keep the car in that particular point, below it no power, above it no point to go further. Now on my car that is 4000RPM and it sucks... car just feels lazy because it does not want to rev past 4000.. I mean you can, but there is no progress after that. Sure if it would be variable geometry turbo, it may be better - it really just kind of lacks top-end.

And yes my comment was mostly related to my car, not all turbo cars, but yes it is on/off - all or nothing.

14 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

no different from any of my NA vehicles, just different. 

well... and that difference is what I don't like.

[F.A.]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

@4969_LXS - I am not the guy to ask... I hate estate cars, but I know some people are going crazy about them. To be fair I don't even like saloons - I am coupe person, as well 2 door coupes, not those silly 4 door coupes.

I still think that IS mk3.5 is great looking car for what it is, if somebody asks me to list Lexus IS from prettiest to ugliest I would say this is it - mk3.5 is the best looking, then mk2, followed by mk3 and mk1... and mk1 estate.

So no... no estate for me please, but maybe IS500C our coupe version of it (assuming no RC mk2 will be made).

BUT what an amazing car would be RC500. I would be like "shut-up and take my money!"... but knowing Lexus we won't see it on our shores, not even nearby!

Wouldn’t an RC500 basically be an RCF readily available over here, looking at the running gear spec?  

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, F.A. said:

Wouldn’t an RC500 basically be an RCF readily available over here, looking at the running gear spec?  

well... the IS500 is basically an IS-F, looking at running gear spec. ... so I guess yes...

My point was that current RC-F is last or penultimate year for the model. Meaning in 2023 there will be no RC or RC-F in range. But If Lexus continues with IS, maybe some day they will make convertible or coupe version of IS, as they did with mk2 IS250/350C... and because now they have 500, so maybe IS500C.

Obviously, if rumours of "true" IS-F are true and if we as well assume that there will be RC mk2 (both are big assumptions), then in theory "future" RC500 will be similar spec as current RC-F, and RC-F will be something even more powerful.  

[dutchie01]

Isnt it ironic that Lexus introduces an "old school" IS with a V8 engine that has been around the block for some time in thesame week that Mercedes is introducing a brandnew C-class where AMG 4 cylinder units replace the worldfamous V8?

I guess it shows the non priority of Lexus for the IS range. No further development thatś it. They had the engine, the parts and with relatively little investment they could do that so lets go. In the states it will still sell i guess, it will be relatively cheap and with petrol for 65 cents the litre who cares.

In most European countries this car will be unsellable. Co2 tax will kill it upfront, for instance in Holland pricing is likely to be around 150k where an M3401 goes for 85k and an M3 for 125k. No businesscase. 

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

Looking at it that way, I guess you right - in countries with undemocratic charges on co2 there is no business case, but not all countries are like that. 

As I always said - I don't mind recycling old tech, especially if it is as good as Lexus V8.. and I would choose V8 any day over some crappy 2l turbo, but the price has to be right... 

[rayaans]

Its clear that the majority of posters on this thread have completely missed the point of the IS500 F-Sport Performance

Its not a true F product, and as most of you know, its a heavy facelift of the 3IS which came out in 2013. The point of it is just to give US/Canadian buyers more performance without creating a true F product and having development costs that go with it as its not a worldwide vehicle. It is only LHD and going to be available across the pond

The new F lineup will come with Turbocharged engines, rumours say a twin-turbo V6 or turbo V8 although information is quite thin on the ground right now. I believe Lexus are working on the 4IS already as its due out in 2023 but I suspect it might be electric only. There are new F models coming. An LC-F for certain but no word on the new ones.

A BMW M3 is $70k without any options so realistically an $80k vehicle. I suspect the IS500 will go on for sale fully loaded at $65-66k 

Worth a read:

https://www.motor1.com/news/489896/2022-lexus-is-500-explainer/

[Linas.P]

I am not sure, if you can call it - "missed the point". Rather don't understand the logic behind it. I guess I can agree it seems they want to treat American buyers with something little bit more powerful, since dropping IS-F, GS-F and soon RC-F will leave big gap in terms of performance oriented vehicles. But still timing of this was weird.

The TT V6 rumour was around before even LC was launch, must be floating since 2016 if not before that, so I don't buy into it at all. LC-F rumour was around since the day LC was just announced. Would Lexus really debut LC-F 4-5 years after model launch (unless you are saying LC-F launch is imminent)? What would be point of that? I am pretty sure LC convertible is the last thing we will get from LC.

True IS4 is big question as well, the last thing I heard was that Lexus killing IS altogether, you right saying that new IS is not mk4, I personally call it mk3.5, but it is not facelift either. I would not place any bets, because nobody expected even this IS to debut, so maybe after all Lexus changed the mind about discontinuing IS.

IS500 definitely won't cost $65-66k - that would make it more expensive/same price as RC-F (it sells for $65k). More likely $55k.#

In the end of the day Lexus line-up and model choices around the world didn't make sense for last 8 years or so, and it is getting less sensible every year, especially where UK/EU is concerned. I guess US line-up was better.

[rayaans]

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am not sure, if you can call it - "missed the point". Rather don't understand the logic behind it. I guess I can agree it seems they want to treat American buyers with something little bit more powerful, since dropping IS-F, GS-F and soon RC-F will leave big gap in terms of performance oriented vehicles. But still timing of this was weird.

The TT V6 rumour was around before even LC was launch, must be floating since 2016 if not before that, so I don't buy into it at all. LC-F rumour was around since the day LC was just announced. Would Lexus really debut LC-F 4-5 years after model launch (unless you are saying LC-F launch is imminent)? What would be point of that? I am pretty sure LC convertible is the last thing we will get from LC.

True IS4 is big question as well, the last thing I heard was that Lexus killing IS altogether, you right saying that new IS is not mk4, I personally call it mk3.5, but it is not facelift either. I would not place any bets, because nobody expected even this IS to debut, so maybe after all Lexus changed the mind about discontinuing IS.

IS500 definitely won't cost $65-66k - that would make it more expensive/same price as RC-F (it sells for $65k). More likely $55k.#

In the end of the day Lexus line-up and model choices around the world didn't make sense for last 8 years or so, and it is getting less sensible every year, especially where UK/EU is concerned. I guess US line-up was better.

Why is the timing weird? The vehicle recently came out whilst the GS-F has been retired and the RC-F probably will be soon. The LC-F launch will be soon after the facelift is released most likely. 

There doesnt have to be any logic. If logic was the norm in the car industry, there'd be no such thing as a Merc A class saloon and a CLA at the same time. There wouldnt be a 4 series gran coupe and a 3 series. 

Car manufacturers make vehicles to fill voids. That void was left when the GS-F was removed meaning no sub 5 second saloon in the Lexus lineup for the US. 

 

[Linas.P]

Yes, but IS500 isn't really covering for GS-F, nor RC-F going... I guess you right - it is mild attempt to fill that gap.

Again about LC-F we will see what happens, if the article to be believed then there is something else coming, but then definitely won't be IS-F ... and LC-F would be the only other alternative. I still doubt it... 

[ColinBarber]

2 hours ago, F.A. said:

Wouldn’t an RC500 basically be an RCF readily available over here, looking at the running gear spec?  

Not enough detail to know but seems money is being saved over an F, e.g. the brakes are smaller/cheaper, the wheels cheaper as well.

Language used in the press release also hint at cost savings such as the exhaust sound has been inspired by the F vehicles, not just directly used the F system. The transmission seems to be the AA81E from the IS350 rather than the AA80E from the F (which have higher fluid capacity so I'm assuming more cooling capacity). No mention that the shocks are made by Sachs etc.

[Flytvr]

I can’t see it coming to the UK

If it does however, for those wanting a new, beautifully built, ultra reliable naturally aspirated V8 - a great car.