2008 Lexus IS-F Dyno Run

Ironman273 submitted on 03/01/2008 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 11:36 AM
from: www.automobilemag.com

Tags: Lexus, IS-F

Tag Links:

Lexus

IS-F

2008 Lexus IS-F Dyno Run

You're in a compact sedan with a 5.0-liter, 416-hp V-8 with four-valve Yamaha heads that contain titanium intake valves. Where do you head? The dyno, of course.

And so we did. The fellas at Ralph Willis Automotive in Salinas, California cleared their schedule for us to sneak the IS-F onto their DynoJet dynamometer. The results, as you can see from the chart below, are impressive. The IS-F is rated at 416 hp and 371 lb-ft of torque at the engine - and it delivered 333 of those horses and 318 lb-ft of torque to its rear wheels.

Those are impressive numbers given that the engine's output is funneled through an eight-speed automatic transmission. And how do they compare to the competition?

An RS4 we tested (see the link below to the full story) put out a very close 331 horsepower (and 276 lb-ft of torque) to its wheels. We should mention that the RS4 was tested on a Dynapack, which may be calibrated differently than the DynoJet model used for the Lexus.

As always, it's not the peak numbers of a dyno graph that are important, it's the shape of the torque curve. The Lexus' torque builds in a linear fashion as revs rise, but then things get a little hairy. Torque dips slightly between 4500 and 5000 rpm, and then peaks at 5200.

What happens afterward is disappointing - the curve drops off steeply, confirming our seat-of-the-pants impression that the engine is running out of breath. If you compare the shape of the curve to the RS4's, you'll notice that the RS4's V-8 doesn't make as much peak torque (it is, after all, 800cc smaller) but its twist is distributed much more evenly over a long rpm range. And from 6500 rpm up, where the Lexus is simply done, it continues pulling - all the way to over 8000 rpm.

The IS-F's V-8 certainly produces a lot of power and torque. We wish, however, that it didn't have such a steep dropoff in torque at high revs - that kind of rev-happy motor would suit the IS-F's track-star personality much better. Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

henbmw - 3/1/2008 5:04:25 PM

+7 Boost

At least the M3 can rev well beyond 6800 rpm

reply to this comment

Htay7500 - 3/2/2008 8:57:21 AM

0 Boost

and apparently, theres no stick in the ISF.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 3/2/2008 11:32:52 AMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

"at least it has torque, unlike the M3"

And yet, somehow, the M3 is not only quicker, but it has a much higher redline, more than one gearbox and better handling to boot. For less money.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 3/3/2008 12:19:44 AMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Please, don't go by manufacturer's estimates. That just makes you look even more stupid.

M3's quickest time: 4.1

IS-F's: 4.2

And don't forget that the seven-speed M-DKG is on its way, only to make the M3 even quicker.

reply to this comment

kablaam - 3/4/2008 5:37:15 AM

0 Boost

E92 M3 on a dynojet = 350 hp. That along with lower weight = faster car.

What's all the fuss about?

reply to this comment

kthor - 3/1/2008 12:56:22 PM

+4 Boost

"What happens afterward is disappointing "

Having the torque fall off at higher RPMs will only be disappointing to enthusiasts. The Lexus fan base will likely be happy with this Yamaha motor. Who actually revs their engine to 8000 RPMs on their commute? I am sure there are people who appreciate the visceral thrill of one of those responsive high revving engines, but for the uninitiated the Lexus will be very capable.

reply to this comment

JRobUSC - 3/2/2008 9:06:05 AM

+4 Boost

You say "only be disappointing to enthusiasts" like that's a good thing. Hello, the IS-F is supposed to be an enthusiast car. That's why they built it, to compete with the M3, C63, RS4, etc. You know, "enthusiast cars". Things that will "only be disappointing to enthusiasts" will "only be disappointing to the exact people Lexus is trying to sell this car to".

bulldogz - 3/3/2008 12:25:04 PM

0 Boost

"...You know, "enthusiast cars". Things that will "only be disappointing to enthusiasts" will "only be disappointing to the exact people Lexus is trying to sell this car to"."

well, I thought "enthusiasts" need a stick in these types of cars. right? I mean, that's why everyone is basically picking the M3 over the ISF (oh, and it's "cheaper price", which we all know is BS considering that you'll find neither in stock form and that the M3 is significantly higher when both are optioned evenly), yet here is the AMG in ONLY 7 speed auto, why isn't anyone crying about that?? That's not a true enthusiast's car, yet I bet you'll hear everyone here say they'd be happy with either an M3 or C63...but not an ISF.

dimitri_010 - 3/1/2008 1:01:37 PM

+15 Boost

yes but you need to understand that the people buying these cars are generally not using them to commute. The people buying these cars are looking more for the thrill rather then the ride to the grocery store...hoping to save some gas along the way. If your reaching over 5,000 rpms anyways, I'd say that your not really trying to be to conservative, as you are trying to push your engine ;)

reply to this comment

autopro - 3/1/2008 1:06:41 PMView My AgentSpace

-13 Boost

When you drive it you don't feel that,its a blast to drive.Go to a lexus dealer,you can drive it for yourself.If it doesn't put a big smile on your face somethings wrong with you.In 1994 I had a 911 twin turbo for a demo that car was 100k back then.Now you can get the same performance less the AWD for 61k.Life is good!

reply to this comment

autopro - 3/1/2008 6:53:05 PMView My AgentSpace

-8 Boost

You gays just an stand the bmw killer!!!!!!

bulldogz - 3/3/2008 12:28:42 PM

+1 Boost

I'd only take an RS4 for the AWD, otherwise you honestly can't justify spending almost $20k more for minimal performance differences.

autopro - 3/3/2008 7:21:39 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

I think your wrong people are more willing to pull the trigger on the MFG with the best reputation for reliability.I know of alot of engine failures on previous M series cars,either your too young, or your memory is bad.

theoptimisticpessimist - 3/1/2008 1:29:51 PM

+8 Boost

BMW 335i

Engine 300 BHP (horsepower)
300 lb-ft (torque)

Dyno results at the rear wheel
275.89 BHP
299.81 lb-ft
Loss
-24.11 BHP
- .09 lb-ft

Lexus IS-F
416 BHP
333 lb-ft
Dyno results at the rear wheel

333 BHP
318 lb-ft

Loss -83 BHP
-53 lb-ft

First, turbo engine are famous for short over- boosts to provide more short term power increase, I wonder if the efficiency of a manual transmission comes into play.

I expect the M3 result to be closer to the IS-f in power loss.

reply to this comment

jeeka715 - 3/1/2008 2:10:06 PM

+6 Boost

theoptimisticpessimist,
Those 335 numbers, based on STATED factory specs, would make the drivetrain the most efficient ever created. It's generally accpeted that the 335 makes WAY more power than BMW states. They make very efficient drivetrains, but not THAT efficient. Losing only 24hp via drivetrain loss, would be astonishing. I'm not saying it can't be done, but not likely....

You are right, though, the M3 will probably have more realistic drivetrain loss numbers. I think that 335 is excellent, but I also think that BMW almost made too good of a car, so they had to dumb the stats down with a *wink *wink.

Weird numbers on that IS-F though. I love it still.

Is there any simple aftermarket bolt on (intake system/exhaust) that might help it breathe up top?

I wonder if it matters in the end? Almost very indication that I have read up on (like all you guys here too) has been that it pulls like a mother up until redline. I think that only one article concluded that the IS-F felt like it was running out of air when wound up.

I guess that is what 5.0L does do ya! :)

theoptimisticpessimist - 3/1/2008 2:18:35 PM

+9 Boost

Both Lexus and BMW results are from Automobile Magazines dyno test.

JRobUSC - 3/1/2008 3:28:21 PM

+13 Boost

I assume that's the same article where Automobile concluded the 335i was probably really making 330-340hp and 340-350lb-ft.

That engine is underrated pretty substantially so
a) they didn't step on the toes of existing M3 owners, and
b) they didn't make the 550i completely unsellable.

A Dinan software upgrade brings that up to 384hp and 421 lb-ft. I am curious to see how underrated the upcoming twin turbo V8 is. Rated at 400hp and 450lb-ft, is it really making 450hp and 500lb-ft? And how much power is going to be unleased when tuners release ECU updates for that monster?

mkvegas - 3/1/2008 3:10:02 PM

+5 Boost

Lots of power. Awesome. Do we have specs on important things like brakes & weight distribution? Ah, maybe this car will just be bought for Friday nights at the local drag-strip. Wait, then that power loss high-end! Ugh! The bottom line is that there is more to a car than horsepower. Old e30 M3s are still eating vipers and Z06s alive on the track, with a 200 bhp 4-cylinder. Cars, good cars, must have a combination of things to perform well. In addition to a good powerplant, things like weight distribution, brakes, and a good chassis are all equally important. These things will help a vehicle to achieve it's maximum performance, while also being safe, both actively and passively, and being fun to drive.

reply to this comment

AE86 - 3/1/2008 4:54:50 PM

+2 Boost

Word.

mscottc1 - 3/1/2008 5:29:11 PM

+3 Boost

AMEN TO THAT! If sheer HP and torque were all that mattered, BMWs wouldn't be Ultimate Driving Machines.

bmwdrvr - 3/1/2008 11:15:50 PM

+1 Boost

i have that bmw and i love it but seriously eating a corvette zo6 on the track....thats a bit much. The Z06 is not or base corvette for that matter is no mustang, its not some old school muscle car with big power, and cant handle, it can handle, and drive fast. but as far as the isf it appears to not be much of a match for the M3 but hey on its first attempt i really doubt anyone expected it to be, but with as many examples as they had you think they would have gotten closer.

zairnaim - 3/1/2008 7:49:30 PM

0 Boost

no car in this segment is the best at everything i would love to own any. they are ALL very powerful and good fun to drive cars. THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING AS TO WHICH ONE IS BETTER! NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE! everyone has there dislike and likes of a car you cannot make a car that suits everybody! Imagine if the whole world drove BMW's or lexus's it would be so boring!

reply to this comment

theoptimisticpessimist - 3/1/2008 8:33:42 PM

+4 Boost

"Imagine if the whole world drove BMW's or lexus's it would be so boring!"

But everybody would be happier!

BozzorTheGreat - 3/1/2008 8:46:29 PM

+3 Boost

I have driven the 335i and that thing is WAY over 300 hp. It is only a fraction slower than the previous generation M3 off the mark, but once you hit more than 80 km/h, the 335i pulls ahead easily, which is the torque shining through. It really is a case of BMW delivering far more than promised and they should be applauded for it.

reply to this comment

autopro - 3/3/2008 7:18:24 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

You can play with the turbo boost,or get software from the dealer for another 80 horsepower.The 3 series is really a great driving car,but I can be just as happy in an IS350 or a ISF.

RealitySmack - 3/1/2008 9:39:05 PM

+1 Boost

"As always, it's not the peak numbers of a dyno graph that are important, it's the shape of the torque curve."

That's true but, if they knew better, than they'd know that at those high speeds, GIVEN the lower RPM range of the car, one needs to look at the HP graph NOT THE TORQUE! At low RPM, TQ is what's more critical and plays and important role (it's the quantity that shoots you back in your seat during initial acceleration), however, at high speeds HP is what counts. Even though TQ goes down after 5500 RPM, the HP rises for that range until it's max range of 6500 RPM.

"And from 6500 rpm up, where the Lexus is simply done, it continues pulling - all the way to over 8000 rpm."

....DUH!! The engine is DESIGNED for lower RPMs so, one wouldn't expect to STEADILY rise and then decrease the TQ or HP of the car.

I won't go into the detail explanation of how TQ and HP works but, I think I made myself clear couple months ago...

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 3/1/2008 9:49:43 PM

+3 Boost

weird torque curve.
torque dies off at a disappointing 6500rpm.
too much power that doesn't get to the ground.

not good for a serious performance car.

reply to this comment

autopro - 3/3/2008 7:25:35 PMView My AgentSpace

-2 Boost

All your going to see is the ass end of this non-serious performance car.

autopro - 3/3/2008 7:25:36 PMView My AgentSpace

-2 Boost

All your going to see is the ass end of this non-serious performance car.

enthusiastx11 - 3/4/2008 12:06:41 PM

+3 Boost

autopro:

you're right, it does look like ass.

supermoto - 3/4/2008 7:41:43 PM

+1 Boost

I see the ass-end of the IS-Fugly from every direction. Go figure.

RealitySmack - 3/2/2008 8:36:19 AM

+1 Boost

"there could well be a DROP in maximum HP. and a corresponding drop on 0 - 60 and 1/4 times."

Another thing is that 0-60 is NOT ONLY based on the engine output but, the transmission gear ratio, which is what delivering the TQ and HP to the wheels. So, 0-60 is another argument in itself.

reply to this comment

enthusiastx11 - 3/2/2008 1:05:13 PM

-2 Boost

"it is HP that determines ACCELERATIVE ability"

wow...you have no clue. torque at low rpm is ESSENTIAL to off-the-line acceleration. horsepower peak is not available until an engine is revved up. duh.

this is the perfect car for you. the poseur enthusiast who doesn't know or care how an engine even works.

reply to this comment

ghosthunter - 3/2/2008 3:10:29 PM

+2 Boost

enthusiastx11
i am sorry, you are deadly wrong. what you describing is the situation where engine is directly linked to wheels, but obviously, you don't know there is something called transmission.

i won't expect you to know what transmission does since it will be too complicated for your simple mind. but in a nut shell, it is a torque converter (that's the name for most AT), it uses different gear ratio to output whatever torque it desires. so in theory, as long as you have input torque, even if only 0.01 ft·lb of torque, you can get 10000 ft·lb wheel torque if you set your gear ratio correctly. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE OFF THE LINE OR RUNNING AT 100 MPH.

what really determines a car's potential at any given speed is horse power. granted, horse power is a result of torque and rpm. but as long as you have a transmission (especially a CVT), you cannot link torque to the performance.

reply to this comment

S4cabriofoxone - 3/2/2008 11:34:46 AMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

The initial numbers are impressive, but they mentioned the RS4, and (this was before I got to the fifth paragraph) I was confused as to how the RS4 is quicker if it has less power/torque at the dyno and more weight. Then I get to the fifth/sixth paragraph. Hm, interesting. I guess an 8000RPM redline and a flat torque curve can go a long way (-:

reply to this comment

RealitySmack - 3/2/2008 12:47:10 PM

+1 Boost

"I was confused as to how the RS4 is quicker if it has less power/torque at the dyno and more weight. Then I get to the fifth/sixth paragraph. Hm, interesting. I guess an 8000RPM redline and a flat torque curve can go a long way"

At this point it mostly comes down the gear ratios of the transmission. A car being quick (i.e. 0-60 test) for a few seconds depends on the first few gears so, a dyno isn't the best tool to measure how "quick" a car can be. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to judge how a car can be quicker based on dyno results than the other, even if the RS4 MAY BE quicker. The 8000 RPM rev line is not the best variable for explaining it's quickness. The transmission among few other things is the key. The MAIN purpose of the 8000RPM is to deliver more power given smaller displacement, hence, the reason for M3's and RS4's engine outputs...

enthusiastx11 - 3/2/2008 1:08:16 PM

-2 Boost

"At this point it mostly comes down the gear ratios of the transmission."

um, NO. it comes down to an engine that delivers a torque band that peaks at LOW rpms and is as flat as board waaaay up to 8000rpm+.

RealitySmack - 3/2/2008 1:35:38 PM

+2 Boost

Please explain to me how you can determine the quickness of a car by using a dyno before deboosting me. Quickness of a car can't be tested on a dyno!

And also, please, explain to me how you deliver power/torque efficiently to the wheels by taking advantage of gear ratios to deliver needed TQ or Force to the ground? Don't paste articles from Wikipedia, I want to see YOU explain it. Remember, I didn't say that transmission set-up is the ONLY variable to determine how quick a car is. The Engine obviously is one of the main key variables...

reply to this comment

thisismyname - 3/3/2008 9:02:06 AM

+2 Boost

20% engine loss through the transmission.. that's not something to brag about... Robing/loosing 100hp for every 500hp the engine provides... now we know that the "F" must mean "Failure".

Lexus IS-Failure

reply to this comment

autopro - 3/3/2008 7:31:16 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

I'm sure Lexus cares about your biased,dimwitted opinion,as they sell every copy at sticker price.

reply to this comment

LexSucks - 3/4/2008 5:16:59 PM

+1 Boost

Autopro. You cannot get people to like what they do not like.

LexSucks - 3/4/2008 5:20:29 PM

+1 Boost

Talk about inefficient drive-trains. Why does the Lexus lose so much power from crank to wheels, while the BMW doesn't lose such a large percentage?

Seems like BMW build more efficient drivetrains than lexus? But I already knew that.

reply to this comment

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).