IS F Sport 500

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, ColinBarber said:

seems money is being saved over an F,

As well interior is just simple IS, no bucket seats like GS-F or RC-F, no carbon inlays...

On flip side - cheaper to maintain as well, standard pads, standard discs, standard panels (less the bonnet). 

Somewhat unrelated question - but what are the other differenced between AA81E and AA80E? I always have a feeling like AA80E shifts quicker as well and I feel final gear ration is shorter?

53 minutes ago, Flytvr said:

I can’t see it coming to the UK

That is like 100% guaranteed! They don't bring "cheap and cheerful" cars to UK...

[ColinBarber]

17 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Somewhat unrelated question - but what are the other differenced between AA81E and AA80E? I always have a feeling like AA80E shifts quicker as well and I feel final gear ration is shorter?

The 80 runs higher pressure. Not sure if that is just due to the extra fluid and cooling system or allows the faster changes. The 80 seems to have a larger fluid pump.

The 80 also has a fluid recovery system built into the atmospheric vent - higher G forces expected on vehicles with the 80 means it is more likely fluid is pushed up against the vent and could escape so it is recirculated back. The 81 doesn't have this.

The forward gear ratios are the same, but the 80 has a much lower reverse ratio. Final drive ratio is at the differential and would be different on the specific vehicle rather than a difference at the transmission.

 

There seem to be more differences between variants of 81 than between an 81 for an IS350 and 80 for an RC F. The 81 for the 200t has different pressures, different design of torque converter with a different stall speed, different valve body design when compared to an 81 for the 350.

[C.B]

I like the sound, I like the willingness to rev, I like the availability of high revs, I like the availability of torque with zero hint of turbo lag and i like to feel power build. These are the reasons I want a V8 over a modern turbo engine, yes some of them are emotive rather than just being about whats fastest, but if I didnt have that connection why not just go electric and be done with it. 1000bhp instantly availabile!!

[Linas.P]

16 minutes ago, C.B said:

I like the sound, I like the willingness to rev, I like the availability of high revs, I like the availability of torque with zero hint of turbo lag and i like to feel power build. These are the reasons I want a V8 over a modern turbo engine, yes some of them are emotive rather than just being about whats fastest, but if I didnt have that connection why not just go electric and be done with it. 1000bhp instantly availabile!!

I am not sure if that is best comparison to make, but if Lexus idea of turbo charging the same same as going from e9X BMW V8 to G2x/8x L6T... than no thank you.. I rather have V8.

This says nothing about how fast and great new M cars are and on paper they are indeed amazing, but pure speed does not translate into same experience as V8. Sure on track new M3 probably drives circles around old one, but roads are not tracks and once can have more fun in V8 car whilst still staying "close" to legal limits.

[Flytvr]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I am not sure if that is best comparison to make, but if Lexus idea of turbo charging the same same as going from e9X BMW V8 to G2x/8x L6T... than no thank you.. I rather have V8.

This says nothing about how fast and great new M cars are and on paper they are indeed amazing, but pure speed does not translate into same experience as V8. Sure on track new M3 probably drives circles around old one, but roads are not tracks and once can have more fun in V8 car whilst still staying "close" to legal limits.

Sorry, don’t agree. Having covered a lot of miles in my previous F cars, to really get enjoyment out of them, they have to be spanked. This is mainly down to the lack of low down torque, something that the likes of M and AMG cars have in abundance.

[Linas.P]

8 minutes ago, Flytvr said:

Sorry, don’t agree. Having covered a lot of miles in my previous F cars, to really get enjoyment out of them, they have to be spanked. This is mainly down to the lack of low down torque, something that the likes of M and AMG cars have in abundance.

It is simply subjective, so I don't think we need to agree about this - maybe I am enjoying "spanking" the cars and I don't like to shift just after 4000RPM to keep them in "optimal" boost. 

For me this seems to be the case of different people having different values and liking different things.

I do not say NA cars are better, I am just saying that I find them more enjoyable to drive with more natural feeling response from engine. Or at least my definition of "enjoyable", "natural" and "response" 😁

[ColinBarber]

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

maybe I am enjoying "spanking" the cars and I don't like to shift just after 4000RPM to keep them in "optimal" boost.

No idea why you think you need to shift at 4,000 rpm for optimal boost. That isn't really true in your engine and certain isn't true for a generic turbo engine. Optimal shift point vary but normally into 3rd gear and onwards it is near the redline of the engine.

[Killysprint]

2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It is simply subjective, so I don't think we need to agree about this - maybe I am enjoying "spanking" the cars and I don't like to shift just after 4000RPM to keep them in "optimal" boost. 

For me this seems to be the case of different people having different values and liking different things.

I do not say NA cars are better, I am just saying that I find them more enjoyable to drive with more natural feeling response from engine. Or at least my definition of "enjoyable", "natural" and "response" 😁

Think you must be driving the wrong turbo cars.

Personally I have to agree with @Flytvr, my last 3 daily drivers - GSF, ISF and M5 v10 you have/had to rev the nuts of them to make them move. 
A colleague in the same period has had an A45, RS3 and the new RS5. All turbos. 

The all 3 would leave all of my cars for dead unless you were really on it, high up the Rev range. And their turbo motors certainly didn’t / don’t run out of breath at 4000rpm. All 3 pull/ed hard to the red line. The RS5 is laugh out loud fast.

I like the idea of the IS500. Sneaky, proper Q car. It’ll be a s quick as the current F cars, someone said without the f brakes - I think not. 480hp and the best part of 2 tonne with “std” brakes pull the other one.

As for an new potential F range - where are they going to pitch the power levels 550? 600??hp more??? The rs5/m/AMG HP War  is crazy -  the cars are becoming muscle bound, too heavy, too complex and hence dynamically numb. I hope that Lexus don’t join in the battle, but put a competitive, well thought out and built alternative, and a bit quirky to the anodyne germans.

[Linas.P]

Just now, ColinBarber said:

No idea why you think you need to shift at 4,000 rpm for optimal boost. That isn't really true in your engine and certain isn't true for a generic turbo engine. Optimal shift point vary but normally into 3rd gear and onwards it is near the redline of the engine.

That was just example... point I am trying to make - on NA engine most likely your optimal shift point is going to be as close to redline as possible, on FI engine that shift point maybe somewhere else. Perhaps not 4000RPM, but neither it is at redline.

If we look specifically at 8AR-FTS, it has tiny turbo and reaches max torque at 4000RPM, it reaches top power at 4800RPM and just plateaus to 5600RPM. In short optimal shift is between 4000RPM and 4800RPM, past 4800RPM there is no point revving the engine higher as it does not produce any more power.

Again, I am not trying to specifically discuss my engine, nor I imply that you have to shift all FI engines at 4000RPM, it is just example to highlight the point that unlike NA engines, FI engines may have optimal shift point well before redline.

[ColinBarber]

21 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

past 4800RPM there is no point revving the engine higher as it does not produce any more power.

there is a point because once you change gear you don't want the power to have dropped too much, so you should rev to at least the point where the revs don't fall below 4800 after the change, probably 5300

[Killysprint]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That was just example... point I am trying to make - on NA engine most likely your optimal shift point is going to be as close to redline as possible, on FI engine that shift point maybe somewhere else. Perhaps not 4000RPM, but neither it is at redline.

If we look specifically at 8AR-FTS, it has tiny turbo and reaches max torque at 4000RPM, it reaches top power at 4800RPM and just plateaus to 5600RPM. In short optimal shift is between 4000RPM and 4800RPM, past 4800RPM there is no point revving the engine higher as it does not produce any more power.

Again, I am not trying to specifically discuss my engine, nor I imply that you have to shift all FI engines at 4000RPM, it is just example to highlight the point that unlike NA engines, FI engines may have optimal shift point well before redline.

You’re comparing the 8AR-FTS which is a run of the mill, mid range slogger, used in mid range saloons and SUVs, To relatively high performance engines used in a totally different sector and class of cars.

The 8AR-FTS wasn’t designed to be a high revver - the turbo is used to downsize the engine, improve torque and to aid with emissions and conform with the ever tighter environment constraints being put on the motor industry. In the past the engine would have probably been multi cylinder (5 or 6) 2.5 L or more, where the red line would have been no more than 6 or 6500. 
 

The V8 red lines at 7100? - peak torque 4800? 470hp and around 385 Ib Ft if torque. And it is a torque peak. And because of this you to make the most of the performance you have to rev the knackers off it to make it move.

Most turbos now have a boost front that grows from idle, plateauing upto and around 4500 revs, then depending on the application in higher performance cars revs keep building, boost flattens the power kicks in and maintains ooomph, or in more mid range boost decreases and they run out of puff, so it’s best to change gear and get back on the torque plateau.

Turbos and superchargers are here to stay until the ICE is replaced with electric. They allow for a more flexible drive, without thrashing the motor, conformity to emissions regulations but not necessarily a better engine or experience.

which do I prefer?

let’s look at the cars on the drive here

GSF, S2000, gt86, 993 3.8, 968CS, dolly sprint notice the trend........

 

[Linas.P]

Colin/Tim - Probably your right, but again that is not the point I am making...

I am just saying, I am ok to rev-out NA engine to the red line... sure if my sole purpose in live would be win race against Audi RS5, then large NA engine Lexus probably not going to be the best choice. But for luxury car, just having "enough" power to effortlessly accelerate and make some nice noise that is perfect option.

As well, just for driving on the road, even fast driving on the road I never felt like 2UR-GSE was ever under-powered. Whole thing about "no power under 4000RPM"... I never experienced. Sure it comes alive somewhere there or there about... but it is not like it lacks power lower in the range. And I drove IS-F, RC-F and LC and all felt amazing... the only 2 performance Lexus I haven't driven are LFA and GS-F.. but I sat in both even revved the LFA 😁

But again even if there is no instant torque at 2000RPM... that is all the better, driving luxury car I don't want it to snap my neck exactly at the moment revs approaches 2000RPM, I want power to boost smoothly and linearly.

[Flytvr]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, Linas.P said:

Colin/Tim - Probably your right, but again that is not the point I am making...

I am just saying, I am ok to rev-out NA engine to the red line... sure if my sole purpose in live would be win race against Audi RS5, then large NA engine Lexus probably not going to be the best choice. But for luxury car, just having "enough" power to effortlessly accelerate and make some nice noise that is perfect option.

As well, just for driving on the road, even fast driving on the road I never felt like 2UR-GSE was ever under-powered. Whole thing about "no power under 4000RPM"... I never experienced. Sure it comes alive somewhere there or there about... but it is not like it lacks power lower in the range. And I drove IS-F, RC-F and LC and all felt amazing... the only 2 performance Lexus I haven't driven are LFA and GS-F.. but I sat in both even revved the LFA 😁

But again even if there is no instant torque at 2000RPM... that is all the better, driving luxury car I don't want it to snap my neck exactly at the moment revs approaches 2000RPM, I want power to boost smoothly and linearly.

I think with F cars, the issue is not just the lack of low down torque, it's the gearbox's insistance on getting into 8th by the time you are doing 6mph (slight exaggeration). Obviosuly this is done for fuel efficiency, but it's PITA when you want to make effortless progress.

Yes, you can stick the box in to manual, but let's not forget that the IS-F, RC-F & GS-F are not balls out sports cars and are arguably every day cars. 

[Linas.P]

Yes you right on above, which in my opinion further support NA V8, If they would be outright sports car like BMW M3/M4 then turbo would probably make more sense.

I would add that beauty of having power high in rev range in real life driving situation where your "time" does not matter... is that you can accelerate without even changing the gear at all (just downshift once and stay in it). On NA car that is probably the fastest way anyway, whereas in turbo car you are better off upshift once car plateaus.

[Killysprint]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:56 PM, Killysprint said:

M3/M4 “outright sports car” - never in a million years. Performance saloon - yes

And again - you’re not driving the right turbo cars. Plateaus then change up - nope. 
In a shopping trolley yes. Not in a proper performance “turbo” like an M, RS, AMG, Porsche etc etc etc. They pull like hell to the red line.

and as @Flytvrsaid the nanny programming on the gearbox wanting to be in the highest gear possible is a problem and does effect ultimate performance. I use mine as a daily, and find it fine for that. Using the paddles in S+ allows the performance to used to the full if required.

 

 

[Linas.P]

Ohhh, c'mon are you telling me now that Audi with it's "wooden" AWD steering/handling is better sports car than M4. I would not agree with that. As well AMG are more Luxurious that they are performance/sport, handling on both Audi and MB is below M-cars, I would argue even below Lexus.

So if we say "sports cars" then M is most sporty from the lot for sure, obviously if we then compare it with Porsche then yes it is not the same, but neither is the price.

I feel like we discussing moot point, we seem to agree Lexus makes luxury cars and not sports cars... and for what it is I consider large NA to be most suitable for Luxury car... and we don't agree what is better and we don't need to agree what is better, I am just saying I prefer the way NA delivers the power as long as there is enough of it... and 470hp is certainly enough and 4s to 60 is enough like wise. Especially if you just want to daily it rather than win competitions on track.

[ColinBarber]

36 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

and for what it is I consider large NA to be most suitable for Luxury car

isn't it more luxurious to effortlessly squeeze the throttle and accelerate at a moderate rpm to overtime something, rather than have to drop down 4 cogs and rev the NA engine to the redline? 😉 

[Linas.P]

Not sure... it isn't for me... not the sound of vacuum cleaner is that satisfactory compared to magnificent note of V8.

The only car where I didn't mind it was new MB E300 (still tiny 2l turbo), somehow 9speed box there managed it in the way that I didn't feel it shifting at all and it was quite effortless. 

On all other cars I just feel them shifting and kind of hunting for gears, not at all luxurious if you ask me.

[Killysprint]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure... it isn't for me... not the sound of vacuum cleaner is that satisfactory compared to magnificent note of V8.

The only car where I didn't mind it was new MB E300 (still tiny 2l turbo), somehow 9speed box there managed it in the way that I didn't feel it shifting at all and it was quite effortless. 

On all other cars I just feel them shifting and kind of hunting for gears, not at all luxurious if you ask me.

The e300 is a POS. We have a e350e estate- same engine with the hydrid, so more combined power and torque and it’s crap. A shopping trolley.

If that’s you’re idea of a good car with a turbo motor - there’s no point in even discussing this further.

[Linas.P]

I didn't say it is good car, nor it is fast of performance car, what I said is that it is smooth - not hunting gears and I didn't feel torque dips or plateaus. It almost feels like electric, as if it pulls from 0 to 200 in single gear. 

Would I buy it, probably not - not my type of car. But was it comfortable, luxurious and effortless to drive - yes it was. And it was the only car with turbo engine and those stupid "million" gear gearboxes, where I didn't mind the set-up, nor noticed any turbo lag, input lag, gear hunting or other hesitation.

[Flytvr]

On 2/27/2021 at 8:52 PM, ColinBarber said:

isn't it more luxurious to effortlessly squeeze the throttle and accelerate at a moderate rpm to overtime something, rather than have to drop down 4 cogs and rev the NA engine to the redline? 😉 

Bang on the money!

[Jezpatel]

Just read this thread.

Interesting to read about differences between na and turbo. For me I'd prefer na all day and I quite like a car that has to be worked to deliver performance, I mean its hardly a chore wringing out a 5 litre v8!

The is500 looks nice to me, such a shame it isn't coming over to the UK, or the is350 for that matter.