A's F-word

That's ok questions been answered by Pete... this was RR racing's question to me haha

Hi guys pick your brains quickly... Does the UK require al OBD monitors to be in a ready state or emissions, or do they require not to have CEL on?

Yea there is those annoying wear marks and bumps. RC is a better place to sit over the C63 I think... and the Merc does not outperform so really it's the badge and crap fuel economy that you pay for... they do sound good though but as you said they are way too common like a dine a dozen as the RC stands out from being rare in comparison. Test drive them all again just to be sure in your own heart and mind.

Then if i am honest go for the one that gets your heart to beat a bit quicker everytime you sit in the drivers seat. If your mileage is low you couI'd even get an average mileage one a bit cheaper and by the time you sell it the mileage will be below average making your loss even less once you sell it. But these are V8 babies so mileage isn't like buying a 2 litre car... 100k is deemed as good it's just our OCD that wants below 50k haha

Isf is a bit more nimble and lighter on her feet compared to the Merc, as for holding value the isf never got replaced unlike the RC that got hammered by pundits and the the LC hailed as the one to have even though the RC was mainly attacked due to not out doing the M4. Unfortunately these critics do have some influence on immediate prices but long run prices tend to balance themselves out. As mentioned previously RC is more modern looking over isf and if it's a coupe you are after it's the next best option... a true Lexus lover appreciates the cars worth so you would probably get roughly your money back (minus petrol and tyre consumption haha).

Hahaha says the man who recently fitted the RR racing charger...

I put in simple terms and oil feed is simple to make including creating pressure situations using a pump or oil feeder line from the bay.... a oil feed isn't the hardest task for a professional race car builder to create so I don't need to worry he does lol... it's more the factual pros to cons known

Hello mate A rear mounted turbo setup has no heat issues and I think you get oil cooled turbos feeding from the sump with just the filters tucked away and a wastegate.. by the time the gas flow gets to turbo I think most built up pressure will just dissipate there for no need for blow off valve... Will need a piggy back ecu and either electronic boost controller or spring boost valves.... I spend most of my driving on the motorway or at least a roads very rarely am I doing winding roads which if you have street raced as a youngster in turbo cars (guilty lol) is all about gearing with engine revs to keep turbocharger spooled.... there a few Americans that have done it and seems very rapid on take off but I don't actually know anyone who has done it to ask them the highs and lows other than cost. Must mean something when 98 percent of performance v8s or turbo now and only really jag sticking to S/C... Pete swears by his S/C conversion but my Mrs just swears when she hears the cost hahaha Andrew

Hey all I know there has been many arguments regarding this topic but things have moved along since the first test pilots. With at least a 5k price difference... lag is dependant on the size of the turbo but only 200 rpm or so... yes true supercharger is more instant power but turbo is less invasive to the engine and being recommended by a few tuners especially due to there being no heat related issues or blow off valve requirement. What's the people in the know opinions?

I also have owned the 2 and had the Mercs 55 amg S/C beast and yea they've had issues but I've had a gtr 2.6 and they spun cranks and my Aristo had niggly issues. What I'm saying is they could have achieved better power at the same cost with no threat to it's reliability.

The Merc guilty of bhp hold back made up for it with it's torque... and for BMW the m3 out does the isf on the track it's true but I'm not fussed about that but Lexus were out to prove a point.... if they wanted to by 2010 they could have done more than just the LSD and freed up more of the engines potential to walk over the German super saloons.. Sadly it's left to us enthusiastic boys to do trial and error tuning lol

The difference is the same as saying when the 2jz went vvti of course they progress otherwise we need to revolt against them lol but it is restrictive in the isf otherwise why would you automatically gain so much more power and rev range from a N/A car... simple question is why can BMW achieve similar power from a 4 litre and from a 5 so much more. This was nothing to do with emissions was simply the boat was not entirely pushed out. I know the engines have a difference my point is from a performance aspect... My Japanese has slipped slightly lol but I have built my fair share of grey imports to know where they hold back but usually it's a simple improve to make the engine and car a thing to make the Germans tremble... sadly not anymore.

Don't get me wrong I love my little V8 and I have owned many high performance cars but you would hope that companies would look to at least achieve near as 100 bhp per litre and healthy torque through the rev range especially when the company has a history of achieving it.

GSf not GET lol stupid auto correct haha

You can not honestly believe that the GET was the after thought when throughout it's history the GS range has always had the daddy engine like is300 was non turbo 2jz and the GSV300 aka Aristo had the most famous and desirable engine.... if aftermarket headers and systems gain more performance do you seriously believe that Lexus and Yamaha did not also know this... but if the isf and GSF had the exact same power but being the GSF is heavier they would be heavily cricised for it and would have been made to do what Merc did and slap a s/c on it do separate big and little brother. (C class and e class or clk and cl). Manufacturers always think about the next sale as they should but being the isf was a flagship all the guns should have been out.