The new Lexus ISF
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 6
From: chicago, michigan, arkansas
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.
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.
I guess I'll give my two cents about the car. I recently drove an IS-F, just out of sheer curiosity, and the one thing that the car did for me was left me grinning.
This was far different from the feeling I got when I drove the new 08 M3. The new M3 felt soft, numb and I disliked the servotronic steering. The adjustable suspension didn't seem to do much, nor did the different steering settings.
The IS-F however felt 'alive'.. its engine was instantly responsive, the suspension was firm and exhibited little body roll. The tranny actually felt good for an automatic.
The IS-F just felt good to drive, it didn't leave me bored like the M3 did. Perhaps because the M3 is just too good for the street or really needs to be ringed in to get the most out of it.
I currently drive an M Coupe, so I know how M cars feel.. but I think that what the IS-F really gives you is a really combination of luxury, features and a fun factor that the M3 lacks.
This was far different from the feeling I got when I drove the new 08 M3. The new M3 felt soft, numb and I disliked the servotronic steering. The adjustable suspension didn't seem to do much, nor did the different steering settings.
The IS-F however felt 'alive'.. its engine was instantly responsive, the suspension was firm and exhibited little body roll. The tranny actually felt good for an automatic.
The IS-F just felt good to drive, it didn't leave me bored like the M3 did. Perhaps because the M3 is just too good for the street or really needs to be ringed in to get the most out of it.
I currently drive an M Coupe, so I know how M cars feel.. but I think that what the IS-F really gives you is a really combination of luxury, features and a fun factor that the M3 lacks.
did you get better times with sport mode, fully auto vs manual mode? I see tiff drive it with fully manual and with traction off-of course the tires will be spinning taking away the control of the vehicle. but I'm guessing that iwith fully auto and in sport mode with the traction on, there will be better times
When I drove the ISF I did get better times with some aids on (transmission was the only thing set to manual). It didn't feel like I was faster but the stop watch didn't lie. There were other writers there who were getting faster times with full auto mode then any manual setting. It really depends on the driver. Someone like Tiff will probably be slower with aids on (full auto) because he will know how to get more out of the car in full manual mode, on track or at least better then me. I think my point I'm trying to make is "full manual" doesn't necessarily equal fast track times for everyone. It really comes down to the driver doing the test to use the most optimal setting for car that he/she can use to get the best lap times. I'm sure as we get more complicated cars being produced, testing them will be a bigger challenge especially when you are doing comparisons.
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: Ill Noise
good luck finding a gtr for under 90k, to each his own, it depends on preference it depends on the wallet, personally if i had the money i would go isf, wouldnt complain about a stock 12.7 1/4mile and 170 plus top end UNDER WARRANTY
Its bigger in every aspect except height which the Evo stands a bit higher.
ISF
----
Length (in/mm) 183.5 / 4660
Width (in/mm) 71.5 / 1815
Height (unloaded) (in/mm) 55.7 / 1415
Wheelbase (in/mm) 107.5 / 2730
Evo
----
Length (in./mm): 177.0 / 4495
Width (in./mm): 71.3 / 1810
Height (in./mm): 58.3 / 1480
Wheelbase (in./mm): 104.3 / 2650
ISF
----
Length (in/mm) 183.5 / 4660
Width (in/mm) 71.5 / 1815
Height (unloaded) (in/mm) 55.7 / 1415
Wheelbase (in/mm) 107.5 / 2730
Evo
----
Length (in./mm): 177.0 / 4495
Width (in./mm): 71.3 / 1810
Height (in./mm): 58.3 / 1480
Wheelbase (in./mm): 104.3 / 2650
.
The "exhaust tips" on the rear bumper actually act as a rear diffuser. They were designed to reduce drag by letting air pass thru the bumper. I learned about this after talking to one of the techs at Lexus.
Also, the lead engineer on the IS-F, Yukihiko Yaguchi, worked on the Toyota Supra.
Also, the lead engineer on the IS-F, Yukihiko Yaguchi, worked on the Toyota Supra.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post