Can John Hennessey Succeed Where Lexus Fell Short On The IS-F?

Shows you who lives in Santa Monica

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:02:23 PM | | Votes: -3   

Not quite so sure of that comment. The Germans tend to wring out far more hp per liter and the IS-F motor.

It accomplishes it's HP by displacement and is lazy in comparison in power per liter. If Hennessy can make it even match BMW's or Audi's bhp/liter then you will see 525 hp. The tables are turned.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 1:59:19 PM | | Votes: -2   

"Mercedes has some of the lowest hp/L in business"

Compared to what, exactly? Among luxury makes:

Power per Liter (hp/L)

1st 83.86 Mercedes
2nd 83.25 Audi
3rd 82.64 Jaguar
4th 81.79 Acura
5th 80.64 BMW
6th 80.04 Volvo
7th 78.27 Lexus
8th 76.94 Infiniti

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 3:51:48 PM | | Votes: 0   

You mean this:

M3 (new body style)
420 hp/ 3700 lbs(est.)= .11351 hp/lb => 8.8095 lb/hp
*Weight from Autoweek

IS-F
416 hp/ 3780 lbs =.11005 hp/lb => 9.0865 lb/hp
Edmunds Inside Line Full Test

RS4 (2008)
420 hp/ 3957 lbs =.10614 hp/lb => 9.4214 lb/hp
*Audi USA website

C-AMG (2008)
450 hp/ 3800 lbs= .11053 hp/lb => 9.0476 lb/hp
*Motor Trend Review, although car an ddriver cites 4034 lbs for the C63 so= .11155 hp/lb or 8.9644 lb/hp.

That is second of four.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:08:49 PM | | Votes: 0   

"but about some models with the lowest hp/L in class. Heck, how about the topic-related C63?"

Your the one who talked about the C63- there is the information! Anything else you would like to pull out of your A$$ simpleton?

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:17:05 PM | | Votes: 0   

Alright, I will grant you this...I just copied and pasted the second analysis without paying attention to the units. I did it forever and a day ago.

But that does not negate the first anylysis. As far as your little insults I have only this to say- all evidence is to the contrary and if you insits on pushing the subject you won't like the response.

— tresred (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:29:52 PM | | Votes: 2   

...and yet again not paying attention

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:30:45 PM | | Votes: -1   

Well, am I?

— tresred (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:08:52 PM | | Votes: 2   

I am not tresred you fool. My friend Jeffrey is tresred- Wednesday is our day to hang out. I neglected to log him out.

I do have another account by the name of Anataxis, but its purpose is far less nefarious than you might imagine.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:21:28 PM | | Votes: 0   

If you care to know or look it up, I have spoken of Jeffrey on here before. He is a big WASPY black man.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:39:06 PM | | Votes: -1   

"...live in a Foster Home too?"

Its better than the asylum you hail from.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:45:08 PM | | Votes: -2   

"...person I respond to can understand at his level."

Inappropriate. Deary, I started taking college classes when I was 15. I now have an advanced degree (M.E.) in Engineering (Petroleum to be specific).

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 6:53:44 PM | | Votes: -2   

cdoke were talking about HP/L not hp/lb. sort it out

— macker83 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 7:11:35 PM | | Votes: 4   

XeroK00L:

I am unsure what you are trying to prove. You made the blanket statement "Mercedes has some of the lowest HP/L in the business".

It's pretty stupid to even use HP/L since you have FI.

I included the S63 because it IS the C63 engine, w/o it's balls intentionally removed as to not upset its current S63,ML63,E63 etc. owners.
I also included the 335 & S65 to prove to you what FI can do to an engines "efficiency". M5 was placed in there for good measure and the SC430 in there to show you that it is unfair to cherry pick a certain model of a manufacturer and claim that they(as a whole) have the lowest of anything in the business.

CC/HP
CC HP CC/HP
1 E92 M3 3999 414 9.65942029
2 E46 M3 3246 333 9.747747748
3 E60 M5 4941 500 9.882
4 S65 5980 604 9.900662252
5 335i 2979 300 9.93
6 ISF 4969 416 11.94471154
7 S63 6208 514 12.07782101
8 SC430 4293 288 14.90625

CC/ lb/ft
CC Torque CC/Torque
1 S65 5980 738 8.10298103
2 335i 2979 300 9.93
3 E46 M3 3246 262 12.38931298
4 E60 M5 4941 383 12.90078329
5 S63 6208 465 13.35053763
6 ISF 4969 371 13.393531
7 SC430 4293 317 13.54258675
8 E92 M3 3999 295 13.5559322

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 9:36:24 PM | | Votes: 5   

Actually Xero hp/liter is in fact a very accurate way to measure the engineering capability of a manufacturer. If it was easy then a Kia could spit out the horsepower a Porsche can.

You need to compare apples to apples. Since the IS-F is the best shot Lexus has made, then that 5 liter motor needs to be compared directly to the AMG and M motors, not to the mainstream.

Your logic in this manner is flawed.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/17/2008 12:18:42 AM | | Votes: 4   

Agent:

Don't you think a turbo/Supercharger skews that "efficiency formula"?

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/17/2008 9:25:01 PM | | Votes: 1   

cdoke, where did you get that hp/L information? Is that including engines we don't get in the U.S.? Because there's no way it's accurate for BMW if it doesn't.

BMW's lowest scoring engine in specific output would be the 4.8L X5 at 72.92, then the 6.0L V12 out of the 760 at 73hp/L. The 5-Series/7-Series 4.8L V8 is next at 75, and the 3.0L N/A engine from the 328/528/Z4 3.0i is 76.67. After that there's a pretty big jump, to 85 for the Z4 3.0si, 86.67 for the X3 3.0si and X5 3.0si, 90.9 for the 4.4L V8TT, 100 for the 3.0TT and M5/M6, 103.13 for the Z4 M, and 103.5 for the 4.0L M3.

Adding up all the different models BMW puts those engines in (41 models) results in a combined score of 88.83 hp/L, which would put BMW at the top of your list.

— JRobUSC (View Profile)

Posted on 4/18/2008 2:50:40 PM | | Votes: 2   

Other than losing several objective tests and being slower than its German counterparts, you are correct!

— henbmw (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 4:06:10 PM | | Votes: 2   

slower? it beats the audi and matches the m3. it has so much potential compared to those two (which are already almost maxed out)

— stash84 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:30:27 PM | | Votes: 0   

Edmunds.com Comparison Test:

Audi RS4 vs. Lexus IS-F

"Try this with your friend's RS4. At full stop, engage 1st gear, keep the clutch depressed and push the accelerator pedal until the tachometer registers 5,500 rpm. Then remove your foot from the clutch. All four wheels spin for a moment and then the RS4 digs its claws into the pavement and catapults forward to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and on through the quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 108.5 mph. The all-wheel-drive Lamborghini Gallardo posts better numbers, but not by much.

The 3,780-pound IS-F gets to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and does the quarter-mile in 13.2 seconds at 109 mph, trailing the RS4 to 60 mph by about a half-second and to the quarter-mile by almost as much. This is with the stability and traction control systems off (yes, Lexus actually allows such a thing, a policy initiated for its performance cars for 2007) and the transmission in Drive. Later we made our runs and manually shifted the IS-F's transmission, which feels fast but predictably isn't, especially since the launch is better in Drive."

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 6:41:07 PM | | Votes: 2   

In addition, the M3's upcoming M-DKG, which would be even more evenly matched with the IS-F's eight-speed transmission, will only widen the gap further.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 6:42:17 PM | | Votes: 2   

edmund? lol he doesnt know how to drive..everyone else gets lower numbers for the isf..even me..and not anything close to being a pro. also..if you step on the gas from a rolling start, the isf pulls more. it has more "potential". 0-60 with one good launch and a bad one says nothing. 0-60 isnt everything..but i think it is usually where lexus' cars excel

— stash84 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/17/2008 2:00:29 PM | | Votes: 1   

I would usually agree that Edmunds gets slow times, but 4.3 sec is a pretty good time for the RS4, and the fact that they couldn't get as good a time from the IS-F in the same conditions makes it pretty clear.

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 4/18/2008 12:13:20 AM | | Votes: 2   

I did notice in one of the recent Neiman Marcus catalogues that they are selling a special NM version to of the Hennessey Viper. It was about $180K.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 6:27:19 PM | | Votes: 0   

Are you talking about me? I have been part of theseboard for a long time, and I daresay am relatively well respected.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:25:38 PM | | Votes: -1   

im pretty sure hes talking about john

— stash84 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:31:17 PM | | Votes: 5   

Oh. Nothing like being defensive.

— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 5:35:15 PM | | Votes: 0   

True but it can also be said, Lexus has the upper hand since it already had a standard and basis to begin with. The whole genre was created by the M3 and thus far held as the standard. Who knows it may change one day. Lexus in the game only creates a more consumer friendly market. A base M3/C63 sedan is going for about 53k, that's insane. Lexus should have undercut both makers, since it is trying to make its mark.

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 9:44:09 PM | | Votes: 0   

Well in that case you have to look at the options available for both cars most people enjoy the little luxurys in life a fully loaded ISF has an MRSP of 60,970 which inc nav, reversing camera, bluetooth, XM radio, leather, moonroof, heated seats, Mark levinson surround sound basically a car with everything(which includes delivery transporting costs and dealer fees). what does a fully loaded M3 cost!

— macker83 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/16/2008 10:29:33 PM | | Votes: 1   

why does macker get deboosted? if there is anything that is true and can be proven, it is that. in general, the isf is less expensive..and it comes better equipped. if u option up the m3 or c63 to the level that the 60k isf is, its alot more money. im not saying its not worth it because it is..but the isf costs less period.

— stash84 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/17/2008 2:04:29 PM | | Votes: 3   

When you start talking options, there are options in the BMW that are not available in the ISF, visa versa. Does the ISF even have a LSD?

M Drive is amazing on the M5 and pretty sure it's the same on the M3.

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/17/2008 9:43:47 PM | | Votes: 1   

OK we get it, do you want his phone # too?

j/k

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/18/2008 7:04:07 AM | | Votes: 1   

Well said.

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 4/18/2008 7:10:59 AM | | Votes: 1