Z28x

Most people just fill up with what is cheapest, and that is 87. I bet 90% of car owners don't read the manual and don't even know what octane is.

to get 300HP out of a 3.5L timing and compression need to be set high. The higher it is set, the more 87 chokes it off. Also more fuel = worse milage.

bottom line is that unless the Lexus can get better milage and put out more HP than the HF 3.6L V6 on 87 it is not a "superior" engine. lets not forget the torque curve. I drove a 333HP M3 while I owned a 320HP Camaro and the Camaro engine felt A LOT stronger, thanks to our old friend torque.

also, the T-56 used in the CTSv is not the same one used in the Camaro. It is MUCH smoother. same goes for the GTO & Vette T-56, very smooth.

WJH'sFormula

Eh, I don't really want to get into a pissing match over which engine is "superior". I was only bothered by the suggestion that because an engine requires premium, it is inferior. Only from my personal observation, most people who drive cars that require premium fuel know damn well what to put in the tank. Of course, I couldn't speak for the public in general but if I had to guess, the typical buyer of a more highly tuned vehicle would know which gas to put in. Only a guess.

It is the same basic transmission, and that basic transmission is hardly refined. Much like the old 700R4/4L60E which was used in several different applications from trucks to Corvettes; the T56 is used in a ton of different applications, most notably high(er) hp American RWD offerings. Aye, I've read that they've made changes to get shifts smoother in the Caddy and Goat, but it is still indeed the same basic Borg Warner/Tremec T56. I hope you're referencing C6 Vettes b/c the linkage in the C5 gives you a workout, hardly Viper stiff, but not accurately described as refined.

IMO, the ZF 6spd found in 89-96 Vettes is far more refined than the T56 derivatives albeit at significantly higher cost. Personally, I like the T56. It's a tried and true design that holds its own in some very high HP applications. It doesn't bother me that it's a relatively crude 6spd when compared with the competition, nature of the beast I suppose.

redzed

The IS250 is a replacement for the Euro spec IS200 that never came to the USA. I'm not sure the U.S. is getting this model, but it does make some sense in Europe and a whole lot of sense in Japan. In Japan, Nissan has 2.5 liter 215hp versions of the Infiniti G35 (Nissan Skyline) and the Infiniti M-series (Nissan Fugo), so the 2.5 liter Toyota Altezza (aka Lexus IS250) will make tremendous sense.

I've always wondered why BMWs seem to be quicker than they should be for the indicated power-to-weight ratio. Part of it comes down to well chosen gearing, but there's still an element of mystery to me.

96_Camaro_B4C

I too have wondered about this for years and years. It seems to be primarily with their bread-and-butter six cylinder engines, too, though their V8s aren't exactly slouches relative to their rated power. I always thought the ~225 hp 330i (or the 328 or the 189 hp 325 prior to that) seemed too quick for their engines. They always were among the quickest in a given test, even if Infinity or Acura (260 hp 3.2CL Type S, for example) had much more power on paper.

Of course, it can go the other way, too. Take the 3.5L Chrysler 300, which supposedly makes 250 hp, yet it gets demolished by the "only" 255 hp CTS (indeed, the N/A 200 hp 3800 in the W-cars runs right with the 250 hp 3.5L in the 300/Magnum). *shrug*

Z28Wilson

The LX cars are pretty heavy, I believe the 300C is 4100 pounds. Cut a couple hundred off when you substitute the Hemi for the 6, but you're probably still quite a bit heavier than a GM Sigma car.

96_Camaro_B4C

Road&Track Data

Weight will partially account for the N/A Impala LS keeping up (I think they are around 3500 lb empty), but in the test above, the LX weights were close:

300 = 3860 empty / 4040 driver
CTS = 3730 empty / 3910 driver

So the CTS was 130 lbs lighter and has (on paper) only 5 more horsepower. That translated into 1.4 seconds to 60 and over a second / 4.7 mph in the quarter... Only the awd Audi was heavier than these two, and not by a lot. The other cars were a little lighter than the CTS, yet only the turbocharged Volvo (268 hp) really came close (and in fact had a higher trap speed).

Anyway, not trying to divert back to this comparison test (it has already been discussed in this forum), but just pointing out that this 3.5L doesn't seem to keep up with other engines of similar power...it seems like I remember this being the case even when it was in the FWD LH cars (300M, Intrepid R/T, etc.).

*shrug*

EDIT: One significant factor could be the 4 speed auto in the 300. The CTS has a 5 speed (as does the 300C "hemi"). But still, the similarly sized Pontiac Bonneville can probably keep up with the 300 in N/A trim, and certainly can in 240 hp S/C 3800 trim. Also with a 4 speed auto...

redzed

We're talking about the upcoming Lexus IS350, not the leftover last generation car you'd find on Lexus lot currently. Do you understand the concept of a new car introduction?

I hate to break it to you, but the Lexus is going to be competitive with a $31K Infiniti G35 w/leather.





1. I've always filled my LS-1 with 93 octane.

2. Why would someone driving a Lexus fill their tank with 87 octane? Of course, why would 87 octane fill-ups be important to someone who's spent $40K on a Cadillac? If you can afford to buy a prestige brand, the difference between regular and premium gas is economically irrelevent.


No, the Nissan Titan and Armada DON'T REQUIRE PREMIUM FUEL.

My 5.6 liter Nissan Armada requires only 87 octane, but still puts out more torque (385lb/ft!) than the premium burning 6.0 liter Cadillac Escalade (380lb/ft) and Silverado SS.

The weak and wimpy 5.3 liter "small block" (emphasis on "small" ) puts out 295-300 horsepower and 325-330lb/ft of torque - 5 to 10 horsepower less and 55 to 60 lb/ft of torque less that the mighty, mighty Nissan 5.6 liter in Redzed's ride.

http://media.gm.com/division/2005_pr...specs.html#lm7

redzed

1. The T-56 would have never found its way into a Cadillac if GM Powertrain had been able to offer a suitable automatic transmission. With the coming of the 6L80E, the T-56 will be eventually be dropped from the CTS-V.

2. The 6-speed ZF unit was very pricey. Other than the C4 Corvette the only other cars that used it were European exotics like the supercharged Aston Martin Vantage - a 550hp car that never made it to the USA.

Still, GM had no choice other than the ZF gearbox at the time. I mean seriously, the "Doug Nash 4+3" manual was a very bad joke.

redzed

The Chrysler 300 is a larger, more spacious car than the CTS so you'd expect it to be heavier (although a weight comparison between the iron block HEMI 300C/SRT-8 and the alluminum block LS-6 CTS-V is far closer). You also have to remember the tired old 4-speed slushbox and the never-very-impressive SOHC 3.5 liter really hold the 300 back.

I hate to say it, but the V6-engined Chrysler 300s don't have the right powertrains to be described as luxury or even near-luxury cars. Having said that, we should remember that the 2.7 liter V6 is going away soon and the 3.5 liter/4-speed will be replaced by something far better sooner than you think.

Darth Xed

Umm.... oups!!!

I thought you had a 1996 Z28???



Boy, your credibility is just TOTALLY gone.

MissedShift

Hearing things like that from redzed makes me think DCX just signed a big deal with Nissan for engines and trannys...

WJH'sFormula

I know. That's what I said; it was really slick gearbox, just too expensive.

Bad joke doesn't begin to describe the 4+3.

I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or refuting me...

redzed

I've always said I have a LS-1 Camaro. If you don't know what that means its your problem.

Darth Xed

Riiiiiight.

Hey, how about a picture of your Z28 and your Armada?

redzed

I was agreeing and adding a bit about how tough the ZF box was - the Virage based Aston Martin Vantage was a real beast when it came to torque.

Personally, I think that GM's decision to put the ZF gearbox in all C4s - not just the ZR-1 - saved the Corvette. If GM had persisted with the 4+3, I doubt that we ever would have seen a C5 Corvette.