So What Would You Sell Your Lexus For?

[matt-c]

I'm not usually one to gush about a particular car, or be of the "this is the best car/brand ever", etc - however the IS200 I currently have, IS actually the best/nicest car I've ever owned, and I really enjoy driving it and owning it (so far, as it hasn't cost me any money yet, haha!)

However, was in the pub earlier this eve and a friend and I were talking about what car he should get next; he is on his second Golf, and really likes them (both mk4's; one a V5 and the current one a GTi) so should he look at newer VW's or Audi's etc. Got me thinking about what I'd sell the Lex for, and what I'd move upto/onto if I did sell

And I'm really not sure! First thing would be an IS300 - just for the extra bit of power/torque, plus I'm getting lazy and the auto box with tiptronic sounds appealing, along with the bunch of little extra's it has over the 200 would be nice. But that kinda defeats the purpose really, as essentially it's the same car...

My car history has been a little biased towards Ford in the past; started out as a fresh driver with a dinky 1100 Fiat Uno - as you do - then got an '87 XR3i, and subsequently two RS Turbo's (S1 of course), then after my boy-racer phase I got a 1600 mk5 Escort saloon (basically an Orion, but they renamed it to include in the Escort range by this point), then a mk6 Escort hatch (1800), and when that died I tooled around in a 1400 Rover "bubble" 200 series hatch till I got the IS. I've always like German cars, although never owned any, like E46 BM's and Audi A4's, but, and maybe I'm getting old (not even 31 yet!!!) recently I've been looking more and more at the Jag XF! Naturally I'd want the XFR, with it's 5.0L supercharged 510 bhp V8 (wouldn't we all), but there's just something about the shape and looks of the XF that's really beginning to appeal to me - and it's not the sort of car I'd have been attracted to in the not too recent past....

I'm not really a fan of Merc's to be fair - I've just never really "got" them, as such. That said, I've never really been interested in Jap cars either, except of course the mental performance cars they've put out over the years such as the Skylines, Lancer Evo's, Imprezza's and Supra's, but that's more of a power-lust thing than anything else - just something the Jap's have always been good at is making standard family cars into bonkers lunacy machines!

I'm still tempted by an E46 Beemer - I've liked those since the day they came out, and still do; I just like their lines, their shape, I think their interior is fairly nice and tasteful, they are built well; the fit and finish on nearly every one I've worked on has been good, and they do drive and handle very nicely. But they are getting on a bit now (oldest is 2004/5 IIRC, although same can be said for the IS200/300). Likewise, the Audi A4's are very similar; and of course my dream one of those would be the 2007-ish RS4 saloon; beautiful lines and shape, lovely interior and spec, and of course the super thirsty 4.2L 420 brake V8 and Quattro 4WD (massively out of my price range, but surprisingly not too expensive these days at £16k for a high miler, and in the low £20's for a low miler)

Just wondered where you guys would be looking to go next, and why?

[noby76]

must admit i used to be a beemer man aswell and had a 520i briefly but over heated on me ounce on the motor way being a high mileage 180,000 miles cost me lots of money that time to put things right and didnt enjoy driving it since then, as i kept on thinking something might go wrong again! but then again it was 180,000 miles so things were bound to go wrong. my mate has the 330i E46 coupe and i must say the OEM exhaust on that car is sweet the start up and moving from a stop is superb you feel like you driving a sports car. i have driven it a couple of times and even drove it yesterday to town with him. and there are a couple of differences compared to my IS3 firstly every thing feels kinda heavy from opening and closing the doors, inside feels good but nothing special and the steering feels like its connected to the front tires so gives good feedback to the driver than my IS3 but i get in my IS3 after driving his and mine feels lighter the strange thing is his 330i Coupe weighs lesser than my 1500kg IS3 so my guess will be Lexus went for overboosted steering design compared to the BM. also raced a guy a while back in; you guessed it, a 330i coupe and that car handled like a go cart round corners I was behind so saw the handling for my self. for the first time i couldt keep up round bends but was not using M mode to pick and select the right gears round bends but now i know how to use it . the E46's both saloon and coupe sit even more lower than IS200/300 sport so that always gives them superior handling in very tight corners than IS's but drop the IS300 another 15mm to match the 330i ride height and thats handling sorted but will spoil ride comfort.

Beemers/Audi's are good cars but too common on the roads for me. if you commute on the motorway like i do you will know what i'm talking about. I have only seen 1 IS300 since i owned mine in January so that alone speaks volume as i like something rare but others go for what everyones driving; i don't.

when it comes to tuning you are already aware of the 2JZ's potential under the IS300 the beemers M54B30 engine can be boosted aswell but i think it cost way more and IS300 is Jap so they hardly break even with high mileage tho if one maintaince the BM/Audi they will give the same service and be relaible aswell. I would say drive all three cars IS300, 330i and 3.0 A4 really well and you can decide. was torn between the exact 3 cars and IS300 won for me for the sheer fact that it was Jap(reliability) and wasnt common on UK roads tho I see more IS200's they are still a rare sight compared to BM's and Audi's.

[matt-c]

I don't really buy cars for their potential to tune, nor as to how common or not they are to be fair. And the IS, whilst not as common as Mercs, Audis, BMWs, I see on average 4 or 5 a day, not including my own. They're not as uncommon as people think!

[noby76]

I think it might be where one lives as I could sometimes go for months without seeing an IS and am on about the MK1's ...depends on what one is looking for in a car and in my case was reliability and rareness as the Lexus was a breath of fresh air over the German counter parts and rode more comfortable than my mates 330i which makes me think BM sacrifised comfort for the extra handling dynamics..

go for what ever ticks your boxes

[matt-c]

Sorry I should have been clearer - I'm also on about the mk1 IS' too.

Also to clarify, I'm not looking, at least not actively for the time being, for a replacement for my current car - it's more a hypothetical discussion to see what other owners think is all

[noby76]

if am to upgrade and stay Lexus then MK2 GS430 for me or monster ISF if the budget permits!! if am ever going to go back to a manual car then Mazda MPS AWD with almost 400NM on tap at a low 3000rpm this thing has a grunt of a V8. Jaguar XF's have a presence on the road that BM's and Mercs even Audi's dont have any more but one will always question the relibilty of a Jag which is a personal priority for me when looking for a car.

[ChrisIS200SportTTE]

I'm saving for an IS-F. Should become affordable for me in about 5 years :)

[Tango]

Not fed up with my IS-F yet, but a Audi R8 V10 would tempt me away from Lexus, for a third of the price of an LF-A..

[bluenose1940]

I'm saving for an IS-F. Should become affordable for me in about 5 years :)

Would probably be about 20 years for me!!!!! i sat in a brand new IS-F in the shwroom this morning whilst they were looking at my car, wow what a car!!

I wish that I had studied better when I was at school and had become a vet, I would definitely buy one then!

[mikey's IS]

I was the same couldnt think of anything that i would like to replace my is200, went looking at a few cars and ended up with a E46 320d msport touring with a remap the only thing i can think of now is why didnt i do it sooner but im hungry for more jap rwd got to be turbo this time round.

[matt-c]

I'm still half entertaining a derv E46 (think they did a 3.0L coupe derv) with a remap. What sort of performance you get from a 320d after the map?

[mikey's IS]

320d m-sport standard is around 150bhp 330nm - remaped is around 185bhp 400nm which 400nm is more or less double what the is200 has

[matt-c]

Sounds good!

[noby76]

320d m-sport standard is around 150bhp 330nm - remaped is around 185bhp 400nm which 400nm is more or less double what the is200 has

Chuck a turbo or Supercharger in the IS200 and the remaped 320d will end up back at square one(slow) performance wise. most people forget its not the amount of torque which is generated at the crank of an engine but its the amount of torque generated at high rpms coupled with gear ratios and final drives thats most important. Turbo diesels make astonishing Torque figures but thier gearing and unwillignes to rev quickly hinders them when it comes to top end power. e.g. my IS300 makes only 290NM torque but its able to keep up and pass 3.0 TDI 500NM torque Audi's and BMW's and yes those dudes had thier foot down, the diesels will tend to pull away from around 1500 rpm to about 3000rpm but past that the IS300 catches up when they have run out of puff at higher rpms and pulls away and those drivers wonder why??

A 187bhp 180NM torque Toyota Celica will be as fast and will pull as fast as a 187bhp 400nm torque remaped 320d BMW why?? becuase horse power figure is derived from Torque against time(rpm) so to not go into details the Celica will only need 180NM of torque and different gear ratios to make 187bhp at 7600rpm and the 320d BMW will need 400NM of tourque to make the same 187bhp at a low 4000-4500rpm but the 320d driver will feel like he has a fast car from 1500rpm to around 3000rpm until the Celica hits 5500rpm and above.

And what makes it very interesting is the horsepower being generated by the engine at the various rpms. the formula for calculating horsepower is always [ft.lb x rpm / 5252].now lets punch some figures into this formula. so lets say the remapped 320d 187bhp makes 400NM(295 ft.lb) at 2000rpm which is the same rpm as the non remaped version to keep things equal. so power generated at the engine is 295 x 2000 / 5252 = 112 bhp. now a stock 187bhp Celica makes a very very small 180NM(133 ft.lb) at 6800rpm so power generated at engine is 133 x 6800 / 5252 = 172 bhp . all of a sudden a less torquey car is pulling extremely hard from 6800rpm with high bhp being generated by the engine.

[matt-c]

Yes, turbo or supercharge an IS200 and it will have higher figures than a remapped 320d - but that's comparing apples and oranges. You're now talking about a car that has had physical engine modifications to make it produce more power, rather than a car that has had more potential free'd up on it's standard engine.

Next you go on about torque at high RPM - you don't want torque at high rpm; you want it at low RPM. You want bhp at high RPM. BHP is what gets your top speed up, and torque is what pulls you out the bends - I don't want to sit there winding it up waiting for all the torque to come in right at the end of the rev range, only to have to change gear and wait all over again.

Also, why are you so obsessed with quoting power figures on everything?

[noby76]

apples and oranges is when comparing a 1 litre to a 3 litre car a 320d is a turbo charged diesel an IS200 turbo will also be a Turbo charged petrol all having identical cubic capacity(2.0litre) so certainly not comapring apples and oranges here. Like they always say 'It is better to make torque at higher rpms because you can take advantage of (aggresive) gear ratios'. but saying that depends one what one wants from a car some prefer to 'drive the car' i.e rev and hear the engine and others prefer the less revvy but torquey car so both characteristics ve thier advantages and disadvantages. quoting figures is not an obession but is to make things easier for others who might not know and if you do know all you have to do is ignore it thats all. was pointing to the fact that high tourque figure is not everything when it comes to performance of a car but Torque its self is certianly needed when it comes to performance of a car.

[matt-c]

Not, it is apples and oranges. You're talking about completely changing the characteristics of a standard engine by modifying it from naturally aspirated to forced induction, and comparing it to a car that has simply had a remap. The fact the 320d is turbocharged as standard (and no, not all are; the 320d was available as a turbo or non-turbo) is by the by; you cannot expect me to believe, with all the figure quoting and "specs" you constantly point out, that you think a turbo-diesel engine is anything like a petrol engine modified to increase performance with a turbo or supercharger.

How a car performs has WAY more to do than just quoting bhp and torque figures at what rpm, yadda yadda. Cars deliver power in different ways, diffs make a difference, weight, handling/agility, so many other things. So reciting a spec book in every post does not always make it easier to understand, often the contrary. While one car might look better on paper, in real life the opposite may be true.

Oh, and who are "they" ?

[noby76]

show me a non turbo charged 320d which comes from BMW factory.

a 2.0litre 150bhp turbo diesel car is equivalent to a 2.0litre 150bhp turbo petrol car yes thier power, torque and gearing will be delivered differently but they can be classified as all apples and not apples and oranges.

Yes how a car performes is more to do than just the bhp and torque figures at what rpms. Yet, the figures on paper gives one an indication of what to expect of the car performance wise. and I know cars deliver power in different ways hence i gave an example to Mikey's IS comment using the Celica 187bhp and remapped 320d 187bhp to bring to attention that the 400NM on paper torque figure for the remaped 320d doesnt make it superior over a less torquey car; say a 180NM on paper figure of Celica making the same bhp cus once you start disecting the figures and characteristics with ingredients like gearing, diffs, weight and handling dynamics a car which does not look good on paper will end up performing better depending on how or where the car is used. but a 320d sure does make it drivable from low to mid rpms tho not forgetting the fuel efficiency.

[matt-c]

"A 2.0litre 150bhp turbo diesel car is equivalent to a 2.0litre 150bhp turbo petrol car" - even if I give you that (which I don't, because a 2L turbo derv engine is completely different to a 2L turbo petrol engine), which 2L petrol turbo are you comparing it to? A modified IS200? Apples and oranges - as I said before, you're trying to compare a bog standard factory engine against an engine that has been custom modified with aftermarket parts/conversion

I gave up reading the rest of your post when you began quoting pointless figures again...

[noby76]

OK take a factory petrol 1.8t Saab 93 note:(its actually a 1998cc 2.0litre) it makes 147bhp hits 60 in 9secs and top speed is 135mph. and guess what a stock factory diesel 320d (its actually a 1995cc 2.0litre) makes 147bhp hits 60 in 8.6 secs and top speed is 135mph. the saab generates 240nm and the BMW 330nm and regardless of the BM making 90NM more one can say they will perform evenly when put head to head along side one another which makes both cars apples. and every car enthusiast knows petrol always wins so I wont be surprised if the Saab with even a 90NM disadvantage gets to 135mph first.

[matt-c]

*yawn*

[MrW]

Something equal or quicker, I don't ever want anything without this power and punch. :-)

[mikey's IS]

WOW i didnt want to get rid of my lex as i wanted to stay Jap rwd but i was looking for an derv estate (for work and the mutt ). more selection in the European market

I do prefer the BMW over the IS200 i had it has better performance low down which i like instead of screaming round in the 4-6000 rmp range, a lot lot better fuel economy £50 would last me a week in the IS200 now it lasts 2 weeks in the BMW, Tax is cheaper, feels more like a drivers car if you know what i mean.

Matt-c i know i know

Noby on the celica argument buy the time that celica gets to any decent power my derv would be in second gear already whistling its turbo arse off down the road, it don't need the 330nm (standard) to make it driveable it puts the power down very well thank you.

Your welcome to have a go and see what you think as i was supprised when i first bought it, i will be in Nottingham at a Jap car meet on Saturday if any one wants to join in.

[noby76]

Noby on the celica argument buy the time that celica gets to any decent power my derv would be in second gear already whistling its turbo arse off down the road, it don't need the 330nm (standard) to make it driveable it puts the power down very well thank you.

Your welcome to have a go and see what you think as i was supprised when i first bought it, i will be in Nottingham at a Jap car meet on Saturday if any one wants to join in.

BM's do really feel like a drivers car as I have driven a mates 330Ci couple of times but too common on the roads for my liking. and No the Celica wont be trotting behind either we all know the Celica will take a 0-60 shoot out against you due to its light weight. and when it comes to rolling start acceleration, the BM will take the lead with its huge torque but Celica will start catching up slowly with its higher revs and gearing the Celica driver wont feel the torque but will be going just as fast. in a nut shell gearing a car which makes most of its peak torque at higher revs helps it multiply its torque to the wheels because the engine is turning faster at higher revs so its doing twice the work of a lower revving car. I mean think about this, if a diesels high torque figure was soo important Lexus would have given thier F lines big 5.0litre deisel engines, BMW would have given M5 and M3 diesel engines, Audi would have done the same with thier RS's and Mercs with thier AMG lines and the list goes on . there is something about petrol powered cars which gives them an advatage over Turbo diesels regardless of the huge torque they make. dont get me wrong I'm not knocking deisel cars as in the right place and right time(rpm) they can be very very rapid but the fact that they pack huge torque figures does not make them superior over another car making the same bhp.

off topic: but do you know modern day F1 engines make less than 300NM of torque? thier power advantage lies in the 15,000 + rpm they rev to which multiplies the small torque using gearing to get them to pull harder and quicker than a Buggatti Veyron.

[matt-c]

Of course there is something different between petrol and diesel engines - which is why I said it's apples and oranges, which you disagreed with and said they are the same.....

And yes, F1 cars don't make much torque - because they don't need to. Like bikes, they are about top end power, not torque