Saw two at the dealership. Good looking car. I like it.

FYI - The quad exhaust tips on the rear bumper are not attached to the actual exhaust.

 

Having driven both (https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=306269 and https://www.evolutionm.net/features/article.php?id=105) on street and on track I can tell you that both are completely different cars.

The Evo X handles really really well on the track. Very responsive car and has one of the best handling characteristics I've seen. If you directly compare the two, the Evo has the ISF beat, but you are forgetting about all the other aspects. The ISF has more hp, is more luxurious, and costs more money. Plus the ISF looks better to me then the Evo but that's just a matter of personal opinion. On track the ISF was more fun to drive (even though it doesn't handle as well as the Evo) because it is a RWD setup and personally I like coming out of a turn sideways occasionally.

Bottom line is if you have to spend the money to buy either, the Evo X is a better car for the $$.

 

The ISF I drove didn't do that. Shifts were pretty normal. My only complaint was the redline. I wish it was 8,000rpm.

 

Here's the video I took driving the ISF on street and track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpR0rxBTZaw

 

I agree with spt, not really. even on normal and sport mode, the shifting wasn't cumbersome. although when I did drive it manually in the interstate, at 75-80mph, you still have 3 gears left! no wonder it has an easy 175mph speed limit. it does sound like a hemi truck when pushed though not the metallic raspy sound of the IS300, BMW or Ferrari

 

08 M3 > Isf

 

what it needs is a tweaked suspension by robi but I think it(lexus isf) does have those magneto(electronic) suspension aids.

 

it is really hard to say since the M3 is manual and the ISF is auto and I believe they tested it with traction control off with the tester doing the manual shifting. Comparing it with the upcoming DCT 09 M3 which replaces SMG, I think the ISF will beat it. with gas prices too the 14/20 of the M3 vs the 17/24 of the ISF is a plus.

 

Yep, it has already shat on everything around NUR....

Id love an ISF, they are a truely sweet car.

 

the new isf is sick i test drove one at the dealership today. too bad they are so expensive

 

The fake cheesy exhaust holes and the fact that it is only auto-tragic kills the car for me. The end.

 

the IS-F has been review by many magazines and has come very close to the M3, i believe C&D only scored it one point behind the new M3 coupe.

it is a excellent first attempt by lexus. I don't know who said the M3 has the same low end as the Lexus because the newest Road and Track test said the exact opposite and complained about having to wind out the M3 to get it really moving.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6696

the X and IS-F are in two different categories. Both great cars but cannot be compared.

P.S. the Bugatti Veyron has a "fake" exhaust tip but no one complains about that. so do a lot of other high priced car, but if you want to reach for something to complain about hold onto that one.

 

+2.7 better than adding unecessary extra weight by putting actual big exhaust tips... Or, like a certain car, putting a HUGE rear muffler on with two exhaust tips. I'd prefer fake good looking bits that weigh next to nothing any day of the week.

But I can't believe the OP even asked this. The ISF isn't an AMAZING car, like, say, the GTR. Even if the car (which, as said before, costs 20k more) is faster than the Evo, it won't take much to make the Evo faster... It never has, and that's where the Evo truly shines.

 

To be honest some of these magazines really don't do the ISF any justice (or some other cars reviewed in the past, but I won't get into that). It just seems like the tests they setup are not ideal. For example putting the ISF in full manual mode is simply retarded if you are not a pro driver. Sure it's a lot more fun to drive in full manual but it doesn't mean you would be faster. The aids are there for a reason.

I know I sound bitter, but it really makes me mad when these credited magazines setup tests that clearly have one car setup to win before the test even started. It really doesn't give the reader a true idea of what the car is capable of. I'm not saying the ISF should have won, but what I'm saying is at least give it a fair chance. Also none of these magazines really translate the whole picture for each car. For example, the m3 may be faster around the track then the ISF, but how hard was it to get the M3 to turn faster laps. Did the driver have to hold on to dear life or was it really easy to do consistently.

Now bringing it back to the evo X. I can tell you this, the Evo X was very easy to pull consistent lap times with and I never had a confidence issue with it (it was also really fun to drive). As for the ISF, it was hard to pull consistent laps times because it took more driver involvement to make sure it happened (it was fun to drive as well). Someone like Scott Pruitt (who was there during my test) was pulling consistent lap times, but take a look at his resume and you'll know why. My basic point is, if I were to compare the two and I wrote for someone like Car and Driver and I posted my lap time results, the Evo X would have won because it was the car that was easier to get fast times out of compared to the ISF. Is that giving the reader a clear picture of the ISF, not really.

 

The M3 is clearly better is what i took from the car & Driver article. didnt expect the isf to come out of the box and put a beat down on the m3.