"Fantastic 4" ~ e92 M3 vs RS4 vs C63 vs IS-F
#46
08-26-2008, 09:19 AM
In reality guys, we are talking about roll-on/street races here. The M might be a marvel at the tracks, which has been proven for many many years and a fact that no one debates, but in the streets it really doesn't matter how well your car handles or how balanced it is. It's all about how effectively/sooner you can put the power in your car down. In this game with IS-F and M3, the edge goes out to the IS-F; larger motor, more power, more tq. Not only that, Lexus has one of the lowest cD of any car. That paired with one of the quickest shifting tranny, quick revving engine, and similar weights is almost a no brainer. Just like how a C63 would blow both cars out.
#47
08-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Are you a used car salesman? 
LOL Your new nickname is going to be "side-step" as you continue to divert the attention off your hypocracy so as not to look like such an _ _ _. I need to keep it simple for you as it seems like earlier in the thread when I used CAPS to respond, it only confused you. Let me try another method.
Wrong, that is the EXACT methodology you've employed. When you realized you couldn't find anecdotal proof to prove your point, you chose to start diverting the attention so as not to make you look as bad as you do.
PM's - from 6 other members on this board who have chosen not to post but are LOL at you. They have the intellect to see through your "let me muddy the waters" strategy. I don't think I'm the one with trouble staying on topic.
My pictures represent me LOL behind the computer as you've made this entirely toooooooo easy.
Agreed, not to mention you've been outmatched here so pack your bags and don't let the door hit you on the way out!
WRONGGGGGGGGGG, let's recap, the IS-F is faster, has better brakes, argueably handles better (although both cars are very close here), has a tranny on par with the M3 (if not better, shift times at 100ms vs the M3 which is documented in the 50-200 ms range), and BLOWS the M3 away when it comes to reliability and quality. If you'd like I can quote the JD Power survey that shows Lexus ranked #1 in the world for the 14th year in a row for quality.
WRONGGGGGGGGGGG again! This is becoming a habit for you! I do understand that there are several different trim levels...for example, I haven't even brought a convertible into this conversation as I know it's a pig... You are also wrong in that the IS-F should be compared to an auto M3 SEDAN (not coupe). Use your own logic here genius!!!!
Biased? No, just realistic. I know the cars make "similar power" and have not said anywhere in this thread that they don't. I simply said that the IS-F makes more power. As for the IS-F motor being a joke...I will only say that this "joke" is engineered in such a way that I get better gas economy and actually have TQ! The M3 motor, while it is an engineering marvel, is akin to an S2000. Can you say no TQ?
Again, great motor, if you enjoy having to rev to the sky to have any giddyup...again, where is the TQ?????
Is this even worth a response? No, not really...
I recommend you stick to the M3, you've got that BMW mentality...
LOL Your new nickname is going to be "side-step" as you continue to divert the attention off your hypocracy so as not to look like such an _ _ _. I need to keep it simple for you as it seems like earlier in the thread when I used CAPS to respond, it only confused you. Let me try another method.Wrong, that is the EXACT methodology you've employed. When you realized you couldn't find anecdotal proof to prove your point, you chose to start diverting the attention so as not to make you look as bad as you do.
PM's - from 6 other members on this board who have chosen not to post but are LOL at you. They have the intellect to see through your "let me muddy the waters" strategy. I don't think I'm the one with trouble staying on topic.
My pictures represent me LOL behind the computer as you've made this entirely toooooooo easy.
Agreed, not to mention you've been outmatched here so pack your bags and don't let the door hit you on the way out!
WRONGGGGGGGGGG, let's recap, the IS-F is faster, has better brakes, argueably handles better (although both cars are very close here), has a tranny on par with the M3 (if not better, shift times at 100ms vs the M3 which is documented in the 50-200 ms range), and BLOWS the M3 away when it comes to reliability and quality. If you'd like I can quote the JD Power survey that shows Lexus ranked #1 in the world for the 14th year in a row for quality.
WRONGGGGGGGGGGG again! This is becoming a habit for you!
I do understand that there are several different trim levels...for example, I haven't even brought a convertible into this conversation as I know it's a pig... You are also wrong in that the IS-F should be compared to an auto M3 SEDAN (not coupe). Use your own logic here genius!!!!Biased? No, just realistic. I know the cars make "similar power" and have not said anywhere in this thread that they don't. I simply said that the IS-F makes more power. As for the IS-F motor being a joke...I will only say that this "joke" is engineered in such a way that I get better gas economy and actually have TQ! The M3 motor, while it is an engineering marvel, is akin to an S2000. Can you say no TQ?
Again, great motor, if you enjoy having to rev to the sky to have any giddyup...again, where is the TQ?????
Is this even worth a response? No, not really...
I recommend you stick to the M3, you've got that BMW mentality...
It is cute how you declare some sort of victory for yourself as if typing on the internet is some sport. I am sure you have a collection of trophies for it.
Where is the TQ? Have you taken a look at the curve? Looks to me the motor gets stronger, and stronger toward redline. It is like a work of art to have that long and flat of a curve. In reality the M3 is making plenty of power the only place it isn't making torque is on paper. In practice, it pulls down low and up top.
If you think the ISF handles as well as an M3 or brakes as well we might as well stop. The bull**** has reached ridiculous levels. At first I thought it was funny but now I just see you don't know these cars anywhere near the level you would hope others believe. The M3 is on another level, why don't you read that test of the ISF vs. the sedan. The M3 outhandled, outbraked, and spanked it around the road course. Not to mention beating it in the 1/4
It is as if you sat on a Toyota badge and it is cutting off circulation.Haha, the Lexus auto is on par with the DCT and manual options? When has someone EVER said they would rather have an automatic than manual and DCT options? The fact you don't even get the option shows the market the car is going to. Even Porsche finally got with the times and dumped their auto to offer a DCT and manual. This point is not even worth addressing, it is just ignorance at its best. The auto having faster shift times than DCT? Just know that I am laughing hard, I don't need to put in a million smileys.
What you said was the ISF was faster and made more power than the M3. Now you believe it should only go up against the sedan. Which is it? If we are talking about the M3 and performance, I did not know the coupe was off limits. Perhaps it is that the coupe with DCT is superior in every measurable aspect?
You aren't half as good at this as you would like others to believe. Maybe you should spend some time arguing on the IS forums and step up when you are ready?
#48
08-26-2008, 02:03 PM
...and the ******baggery continues...this is fun, you're only 1/2 as intelligent as I thought... (by the way, that is NOT a good thing!!!!)
I have decided to keep you waiting an extra day. Then again, all you had to do was search 6speed as it's been posted 2 times already (let alone clublexus and supraforums). Since I've deduced that your intellect is on par with the "kids in the sand box" I guess I'll go ahead and post it for you right here where it's EASY for ya...
Actually, continuing to make you look like a fool has been more of a "fun break" from the real world for me. Thank you!
Hahahahahahahahahah, oh ****, I fell out of my chair on this one. The M3 makes 260 rwtq to the tires and it's only on paper... LOL, you crack me up bud! TAKE A LOOK AT THE IS-F TQ CURVE, IS THERE ANY RPM AT ALL WHERE THE M3 MAKES MORE TQ THAN THE IS-F??? HINT: the answer is no...
In that case, you might as well call it quits!!!!! You call the puny binders on the M3 brakes fit for a $75k car????? Paging CURI0, reality is calling!!!! The IS-F brakes are top of the line, period...they tried to cook them at Laguna and all they managed to do was catch them on fire with not a sign of fade. Oh, and do we have to keep bringing up subjective points from a magazine that does nothing but ride BMW sack? Didn't all magazines already prove the IS-F is indeed the faster car? Remember, the WHOLE point of this discussion???
The F tranny is a 100ms tranny, the M3 tranny, well, it depends, anything from 50-200ms...do I need to link the M3post thread? Naw, then again, that thread might be too hard for you to understand and "get".
...and here you go again, you stipulate the importance of comparing apples to apples and when I do just that, you try to use it against me. Are you a lawyer????? The mixing/mincing/confusing method doesn't work with people that have an IQ worth quoting, the forum isn't fooled! Again, back to your example...the next thing you're going to want to do is compare the F to the 997TT and somehow justify how that is an apples to apples...
You know, that MIGHT just be true...but then again, all the matters is that I'm better than you! Which by the way, I think I've proven...over...and over...and over...and over...and over....and over
p.s. I would LOVE to personally invite you to TX2K9 in March 2009. I will gladly spank your M3 and post the vids for the world to see. HINT: search the forum for TX2K8
Toodles!
I have decided to keep you waiting an extra day. Then again, all you had to do was search 6speed as it's been posted 2 times already (let alone clublexus and supraforums). Since I've deduced that your intellect is on par with the "kids in the sand box" I guess I'll go ahead and post it for you right here where it's EASY for ya...
Where is the TQ? Have you taken a look at the curve? Looks to me the motor gets stronger, and stronger toward redline. It is like a work of art to have that long and flat of a curve. In reality the M3 is making plenty of power the only place it isn't making torque is on paper. In practice, it pulls down low and up top.
If you think the ISF handles as well as an M3 or brakes as well we might as well stop. The bull**** has reached ridiculous levels. At first I thought it was funny but now I just see you don't know these cars anywhere near the level you would hope others believe. The M3 is on another level, why don't you read that test of the ISF vs. the sedan. The M3 outhandled, outbraked, and spanked it around the road course. Not to mention beating it in the 1/4 It is as if you sat on a Toyota badge and it is cutting off circulation.
It is as if you sat on a Toyota badge and it is cutting off circulation.Haha, the Lexus auto is on par with the DCT and manual options? When has someone EVER said they would rather have an automatic than manual and DCT options? The fact you don't even get the option shows the market the car is going to. Even Porsche finally got with the times and dumped their auto to offer a DCT and manual. This point is not even worth addressing, it is just ignorance at its best. The auto having faster shift times than DCT? Just know that I am laughing hard, I don't need to put in a million smileys.
What you said was the ISF was faster and made more power than the M3. Now you believe it should only go up against the sedan. Which is it? If we are talking about the M3 and performance, I did not know the coupe was off limits. Perhaps it is that the coupe with DCT is superior in every measurable aspect?
You know, that MIGHT just be true...but then again, all the matters is that I'm better than you! Which by the way, I think I've proven...over...and over...and over...and over...and over....and over
p.s. I would LOVE to personally invite you to TX2K9 in March 2009. I will gladly spank your M3 and post the vids for the world to see. HINT: search the forum for TX2K8
Toodles!
#49
08-26-2008, 02:21 PM
...and the ******baggery continues...this is fun, you're only 1/2 as intelligent as I thought... (by the way, that is NOT a good thing!!!!)
I have decided to keep you waiting an extra day. Then again, all you had to do was search 6speed as it's been posted 2 times already (let alone clublexus and supraforums). Since I've deduced that your intellect is on par with the "kids in the sand box" I guess I'll go ahead and post it for you right here where it's EASY for ya...
Actually, continuing to make you look like a fool has been more of a "fun break" from the real world for me. Thank you!
Hahahahahahahahahah, oh ****, I fell out of my chair on this one. The M3 makes 260 rwtq to the tires and it's only on paper... LOL, you crack me up bud! TAKE A LOOK AT THE IS-F TQ CURVE, IS THERE ANY RPM AT ALL WHERE THE M3 MAKES MORE TQ THAN THE IS-F??? HINT: the answer is no...
In that case, you might as well call it quits!!!!! You call the puny binders on the M3 brakes fit for a $75k car????? Paging CURI0, reality is calling!!!! The IS-F brakes are top of the line, period...they tried to cook them at Laguna and all they managed to do was catch them on fire with not a sign of fade. Oh, and do we have to keep bringing up subjective points from a magazine that does nothing but ride BMW sack? Didn't all magazines already prove the IS-F is indeed the faster car? Remember, the WHOLE point of this discussion???
The F tranny is a 100ms tranny, the M3 tranny, well, it depends, anything from 50-200ms...do I need to link the M3post thread? Naw, then again, that thread might be too hard for you to understand and "get".
...and here you go again, you stipulate the importance of comparing apples to apples and when I do just that, you try to use it against me. Are you a lawyer????? The mixing/mincing/confusing method doesn't work with people that have an IQ worth quoting, the forum isn't fooled! Again, back to your example...the next thing you're going to want to do is compare the F to the 997TT and somehow justify how that is an apples to apples...
You know, that MIGHT just be true...but then again, all the matters is that I'm better than you! Which by the way, I think I've proven...over...and over...and over...and over...and over....and over
p.s. I would LOVE to personally invite you to TX2K9 in March 2009. I will gladly spank your M3 and post the vids for the world to see. HINT: search the forum for TX2K8
Toodles!
I have decided to keep you waiting an extra day. Then again, all you had to do was search 6speed as it's been posted 2 times already (let alone clublexus and supraforums). Since I've deduced that your intellect is on par with the "kids in the sand box" I guess I'll go ahead and post it for you right here where it's EASY for ya...
Actually, continuing to make you look like a fool has been more of a "fun break" from the real world for me. Thank you!
Hahahahahahahahahah, oh ****, I fell out of my chair on this one. The M3 makes 260 rwtq to the tires and it's only on paper... LOL, you crack me up bud! TAKE A LOOK AT THE IS-F TQ CURVE, IS THERE ANY RPM AT ALL WHERE THE M3 MAKES MORE TQ THAN THE IS-F??? HINT: the answer is no...
In that case, you might as well call it quits!!!!! You call the puny binders on the M3 brakes fit for a $75k car????? Paging CURI0, reality is calling!!!! The IS-F brakes are top of the line, period...they tried to cook them at Laguna and all they managed to do was catch them on fire with not a sign of fade. Oh, and do we have to keep bringing up subjective points from a magazine that does nothing but ride BMW sack? Didn't all magazines already prove the IS-F is indeed the faster car? Remember, the WHOLE point of this discussion???
The F tranny is a 100ms tranny, the M3 tranny, well, it depends, anything from 50-200ms...do I need to link the M3post thread? Naw, then again, that thread might be too hard for you to understand and "get".
...and here you go again, you stipulate the importance of comparing apples to apples and when I do just that, you try to use it against me. Are you a lawyer????? The mixing/mincing/confusing method doesn't work with people that have an IQ worth quoting, the forum isn't fooled! Again, back to your example...the next thing you're going to want to do is compare the F to the 997TT and somehow justify how that is an apples to apples...
You know, that MIGHT just be true...but then again, all the matters is that I'm better than you! Which by the way, I think I've proven...over...and over...and over...and over...and over....and over
p.s. I would LOVE to personally invite you to TX2K9 in March 2009. I will gladly spank your M3 and post the vids for the world to see. HINT: search the forum for TX2K8
Toodles!
Sorry I did not go searching for your graph which you said you would go post in this thread. My sincerest apologies for not doing your research for you.
From your graph, gasp, it would appear your power is up top and that your torque falls off pretty quickly toward redline. All your power is from 5-6500, I don't see anything from that motor that impresses me, sorry. It looks like a motor they put in a trucks or suvs, oh wait, they do.
260 wheel torque is weak? Yet the power numbers are virtually the same if not higher? You do know power is torque multiplied by revs right? I can shift my car into 7th at 40 mph and drive in the city. Oh ya, lacking torque in the real world.
So the M3 beats the ISF around laguna seca, huge surprise I know, and that is Car and Drivers fault. How about the ISF running 8:30 ring times? Is that Car and Drivers fault too? Seriously, stick to the one thing the ISF might come close on, straight line speed. Funny how people talk down on the BMW brakes yet they outpeform the brakes on the ISF each and every test. I know, Car and Drivers fault.
Regarding the thread on M3post, the shift times vary from 30 to 200 ms. Read that again. Then what I need you understand is that there are 11 DIFFERENT modes for shifting. Do you get that? You put the M3 in the slowest mode, IT STILL SHIFTS FASTER THAN THE ISF. Damn, this is getting sad. Those times were also measured by an individual, not by professionals, even more impressive.
If you think comparing the coupe M3 to the ISF isn't fair, you missed the whole thread. Do you know what an E92 is? Did you read the title? GET IT YET?
The pleasure of oblitering that ISF might be enough to just trailer my M3 to TX2K9. Might not be a fair comparison because it is a coupe M3.
Last edited by CURI0; 08-26-2008 at 02:35 PM.
#51
08-26-2008, 02:58 PM
1. You don't have the ***** to show up at TX2K9, so I won't hold my breath.
2. Again, let's reiterate - the IS-F makes MORE TQ at every single RPM depicted on the graph than the M3 makes PEAK. And yes, 260 rwtq is WEAK. Next thing you're going to tell me is that your S2000 engine....errr, M3 engine is a "monster". LOL
3. The shift speeds as measured independently vary by that large margin in the same setting based a variety of factors, including which gear the car is in and which gear it's going into.
4. Wow, you managed to quote F&F, that wins you "sandbox" points!
5. Oh, and this might be beyond your comprehension but the actual equation is HP=TQ*RPM/5252 (let me know if you need help applying it)
6. LASTLY, please do notice that your M3 graph starts at 0 whereas mine starts at 100. Let's put both on the same graph and see how they compare...
Anything else....oh, and yes, again, 260 rwtq is pathetic...
2. Again, let's reiterate - the IS-F makes MORE TQ at every single RPM depicted on the graph than the M3 makes PEAK. And yes, 260 rwtq is WEAK. Next thing you're going to tell me is that your S2000 engine....errr, M3 engine is a "monster". LOL
3. The shift speeds as measured independently vary by that large margin in the same setting based a variety of factors, including which gear the car is in and which gear it's going into.
4. Wow, you managed to quote F&F, that wins you "sandbox" points!
5. Oh, and this might be beyond your comprehension but the actual equation is HP=TQ*RPM/5252 (let me know if you need help applying it)
6. LASTLY, please do notice that your M3 graph starts at 0 whereas mine starts at 100. Let's put both on the same graph and see how they compare...
Anything else....oh, and yes, again, 260 rwtq is pathetic...
I'm familiar with the TX2KX events thanks, I was on supraforums back in the day. I guess I just grew up out of Toyotas once the whole Fast and Furious culture subsided.
Sorry I did not go searching for your graph which you said you would go post in this thread. My sincerest apologies for not doing your research for you.
From your graph, gasp, it would appear your power is up top and that your torque falls off pretty quickly toward redline. All your power is from 5-6500, I don't see anything from that motor that impresses me, sorry. It looks like a motor they put in a trucks or suvs, oh wait, they do.
260 wheel torque is weak? Yet the power numbers are virtually the same if not higher? You do know power is torque multiplied by revs right? I can shift my car into 7th at 40 mph and drive in the city. Oh ya, lacking torque in the real world.
So the M3 beats the ISF around laguna seca, huge surprise I know, and that is Car and Drivers fault. How about the ISF running 8:30 ring times? Is that Car and Drivers fault too? Seriously, stick to the one thing the ISF might come close on, straight line speed. Funny how people talk down on the BMW brakes yet they outpeform the brakes on the ISF each and every test. I know, Car and Drivers fault.
Regarding the thread on M3post, the shift times vary from 30 to 200 ms. Read that again. Then what I need you understand is that there are 11 DIFFERENT modes for shifting. Do you get that? You put the M3 in the slowest mode, IT STILL SHIFTS FASTER THAN THE ISF. Damn, this is getting sad. Those times were also measured by an individual, not by professionals, even more impressive.
If you think comparing the coupe M3 to the ISF isn't fair, you missed the whole thread. Do you know what an E92 is? Did you read the title? GET IT YET?
The pleasure of oblitering that ISF might be enough to just trailer my M3 to TX2K9. Might not be a fair comparison because it is a coupe M3.
Sorry I did not go searching for your graph which you said you would go post in this thread. My sincerest apologies for not doing your research for you.
From your graph, gasp, it would appear your power is up top and that your torque falls off pretty quickly toward redline. All your power is from 5-6500, I don't see anything from that motor that impresses me, sorry. It looks like a motor they put in a trucks or suvs, oh wait, they do.
260 wheel torque is weak? Yet the power numbers are virtually the same if not higher? You do know power is torque multiplied by revs right? I can shift my car into 7th at 40 mph and drive in the city. Oh ya, lacking torque in the real world.
So the M3 beats the ISF around laguna seca, huge surprise I know, and that is Car and Drivers fault. How about the ISF running 8:30 ring times? Is that Car and Drivers fault too? Seriously, stick to the one thing the ISF might come close on, straight line speed. Funny how people talk down on the BMW brakes yet they outpeform the brakes on the ISF each and every test. I know, Car and Drivers fault.
Regarding the thread on M3post, the shift times vary from 30 to 200 ms. Read that again. Then what I need you understand is that there are 11 DIFFERENT modes for shifting. Do you get that? You put the M3 in the slowest mode, IT STILL SHIFTS FASTER THAN THE ISF. Damn, this is getting sad. Those times were also measured by an individual, not by professionals, even more impressive.
If you think comparing the coupe M3 to the ISF isn't fair, you missed the whole thread. Do you know what an E92 is? Did you read the title? GET IT YET?
The pleasure of oblitering that ISF might be enough to just trailer my M3 to TX2K9. Might not be a fair comparison because it is a coupe M3.
#52
08-26-2008, 03:16 PM
^ I tried an IS-F from a roll on the highway, that car just never stops pulling with those 8 gears. I don't see how an M3 would do any better than my RS4 does, in anything BESIDES a road course.
#53
08-26-2008, 06:11 PM
Curio, why do you have such a hard time admitting that the ISF just maybe faster than the M3 and it just may brake better and it just might handle as well on the street. You sound worse than I did back in 1997 when I was 18 yrs old and got my first new M3, I thought it was the sh$t back then but I still gave respect to the rx7's supra turbos and 300z's. Even when I had my Porsche turbo I gave respect to evos and stis, you just sound like a badge snob riding BMW's c#ck. No one is saying the m3 isnt a hot car, especialy with the Dual clutch tranny, but it isnt an 430 scuderia my friend, cheer up and give some respect to the ISF.
#54
08-26-2008, 07:17 PM
Curio, why do you have such a hard time admitting that the ISF just maybe faster than the M3 and it just may brake better and it just might handle as well on the street. You sound worse than I did back in 1997 when I was 18 yrs old and got my first new M3, I thought it was the sh$t back then but I still gave respect to the rx7's supra turbos and 300z's. Even when I had my Porsche turbo I gave respect to evos and stis, you just sound like a badge snob riding BMW's c#ck. No one is saying the m3 isnt a hot car, especialy with the Dual clutch tranny, but it isnt an 430 scuderia my friend, cheer up and give some respect to the ISF.
Did you miss where I said they were all great cars? You just don't know anything about the cars, pull your head out from in between HoustonT's legs and you would see the ISF is a one trick pony.
Last edited by CURI0; 08-27-2008 at 03:31 AM.
#55
08-26-2008, 07:24 PM
1. You don't have the ***** to show up at TX2K9, so I won't hold my breath.
2. Again, let's reiterate - the IS-F makes MORE TQ at every single RPM depicted on the graph than the M3 makes PEAK. And yes, 260 rwtq is WEAK. Next thing you're going to tell me is that your S2000 engine....errr, M3 engine is a "monster". LOL
3. The shift speeds as measured independently vary by that large margin in the same setting based a variety of factors, including which gear the car is in and which gear it's going into.
4. Wow, you managed to quote F&F, that wins you "sandbox" points!
5. Oh, and this might be beyond your comprehension but the actual equation is HP=TQ*RPM/5252 (let me know if you need help applying it)
6. LASTLY, please do notice that your M3 graph starts at 0 whereas mine starts at 100. Let's put both on the same graph and see how they compare...
Anything else....oh, and yes, again, 260 rwtq is pathetic...
2. Again, let's reiterate - the IS-F makes MORE TQ at every single RPM depicted on the graph than the M3 makes PEAK. And yes, 260 rwtq is WEAK. Next thing you're going to tell me is that your S2000 engine....errr, M3 engine is a "monster". LOL
3. The shift speeds as measured independently vary by that large margin in the same setting based a variety of factors, including which gear the car is in and which gear it's going into.
4. Wow, you managed to quote F&F, that wins you "sandbox" points!
5. Oh, and this might be beyond your comprehension but the actual equation is HP=TQ*RPM/5252 (let me know if you need help applying it)
6. LASTLY, please do notice that your M3 graph starts at 0 whereas mine starts at 100. Let's put both on the same graph and see how they compare...
Anything else....oh, and yes, again, 260 rwtq is pathetic...
2. To reiterate, horsepower is torque divided by 5250 (5252 to be exact) as I mentioned EARLIER in the thread. I can make more power with less torque, that is what high rev motors do, simple.
3. If you think an auto is matching DCT this is getting sad. The data you provided obviously shows the DCT reaching shift times that are simply impossible for an automatic tranny due to the limitations of the design.
4. Where was an F and F quote? The quote was regarding the influence of the Fast and Furious culture boom especially in the supra world. Come on buddy, not everything is an attack.
5. I mentioned the equation earlier, short term memory issues.
6. Overlay the graphs, or I guess I can do it when I get home if you would like. You are not making any more power and actually I am rather dissapointed with how quick the torque drops off. If the heads flowed a bit better and perhaps with an improved valve train that motor could make some serious power up top.
The torque per liter numbers show you the M3 is more efficient for the torque it produces
Last edited by CURI0; 08-27-2008 at 03:32 AM.
#56
08-26-2008, 07:47 PM
Hahahahhahah, thank you so much, you have people in fits over here!!!
1. Hahahah, yes, I would do that for you! My point is that you are a TYPICAL KEYBOARD WARRIOR, one out of the many I've dealt with over the years that has no ***** when it comes to putting up rather than mouthing off. Come to the biggest sports car gathering for us enthusiasts and I'll place a $1,000 bet on my STOCK IS-F against your STOCK M3. We can do a 1/4 run and a rolling start 60-150. How does that sound?
2. I already mentioned that in my last post.
3. 100ms is a direct quote from Lexus on the IS-F...not a made up number by me...
4. Not worth a response.
5. You couldn't solve a 5th grade math equation let alone decipher the complexity of this one. Need proof? Just re-read the thread.
6. Another "genius" post! How about this, YOU get me the RAW data from the run....it's called a DBN file (since I'm sure you have no clue)...I will overlay them using the DynoJet software. Using your estimation I can already see the M3 graph.......5k rpm...yup that looks like 400 rwhp, 6k rpm, 450 rwhp sounds about right... LOL As for TQ dropping off...are you serious, the LEAST amount of TQ the IS-F makes is MORE than the PEAK TQ of the M3. Lay off the TQ, you look more and more ignorant when trying to debate the TQ superiority of the M3...
As for your last comment, WOW, isn't that amazing!!!!!!!!! S2000 here we come! Rev that sucker to 10k rpm baby...this isn't Formula One my friend, this is REAL WORLD STREET driving...
"...more efficient for tq it produces.." Hahahhahah, are you for real man?
1. Hahahah, yes, I would do that for you! My point is that you are a TYPICAL KEYBOARD WARRIOR, one out of the many I've dealt with over the years that has no ***** when it comes to putting up rather than mouthing off. Come to the biggest sports car gathering for us enthusiasts and I'll place a $1,000 bet on my STOCK IS-F against your STOCK M3. We can do a 1/4 run and a rolling start 60-150. How does that sound?
2. I already mentioned that in my last post.
3. 100ms is a direct quote from Lexus on the IS-F...not a made up number by me...
4. Not worth a response.
5. You couldn't solve a 5th grade math equation let alone decipher the complexity of this one.
Need proof? Just re-read the thread.6. Another "genius" post! How about this, YOU get me the RAW data from the run....it's called a DBN file (since I'm sure you have no clue)...I will overlay them using the DynoJet software. Using your estimation I can already see the M3 graph.......5k rpm...yup that looks like 400 rwhp, 6k rpm, 450 rwhp sounds about right... LOL
As for TQ dropping off...are you serious, the LEAST amount of TQ the IS-F makes is MORE than the PEAK TQ of the M3. Lay off the TQ, you look more and more ignorant when trying to debate the TQ superiority of the M3...As for your last comment, WOW, isn't that amazing!!!!!!!!! S2000 here we come! Rev that sucker to 10k rpm baby...this isn't Formula One my friend, this is REAL WORLD STREET driving...
"...more efficient for tq it produces.." Hahahhahah, are you for real man?
1. I don't understand it, what does showing up to what is supposed to be an enthusiast meet have to do with *****? Are you planning on branding and ISF badge on my ***?
2. To reiterate, horsepower is torque divided by 5250 (5252 to be exact) as I mentioned EARLIER in the thread. I can make more power with less torque, that is what high rev motors do, simple.
3. If you think an auto is matching DCT this is getting sad. The data you provided obviously shows the DCT reaching shift times that are simply impossible for an automatic tranny due to the limitations of the design.
4. Where was an F and F quote? The quote was regarding the influence of the Fast and Furious culture boom especially in the supra world. Come on buddy, not everything is an attack.
5. I mentioned the equation earlier, short term memory issues.
6. Overlay the graphs, or I guess I can do it when I get home if you would like. You are not making any more power and actually I am rather dissapointed with how quick the torque drops off. If the heads flowed a bit better and perhaps with an improved valve train that motor could make some serious power up top.
The torque per liter numbers show you the M3 is more efficient for the torque it produces
2. To reiterate, horsepower is torque divided by 5250 (5252 to be exact) as I mentioned EARLIER in the thread. I can make more power with less torque, that is what high rev motors do, simple.
3. If you think an auto is matching DCT this is getting sad. The data you provided obviously shows the DCT reaching shift times that are simply impossible for an automatic tranny due to the limitations of the design.
4. Where was an F and F quote? The quote was regarding the influence of the Fast and Furious culture boom especially in the supra world. Come on buddy, not everything is an attack.
5. I mentioned the equation earlier, short term memory issues.
6. Overlay the graphs, or I guess I can do it when I get home if you would like. You are not making any more power and actually I am rather dissapointed with how quick the torque drops off. If the heads flowed a bit better and perhaps with an improved valve train that motor could make some serious power up top.
The torque per liter numbers show you the M3 is more efficient for the torque it produces
#57
08-26-2008, 07:50 PM
That's the best you can do? You really need to retire bud...this is a pathetic attempt. I don't even know this guy yet he's riding my sack? He just isn't an arrogant ***** like you... 
Peter
Peter
#58
08-26-2008, 07:53 PM
OH boy, you ready to get attacked now by fanboy???? LORD forbid you just posted that the IS-F just might hand the M3 its *** on a platter!!!! 
#59
08-26-2008, 09:03 PM
houstonT the comment about the M5 came from your cohort h20tt. This was stated on post #22 on this thread.
Mr. h20tt I definitely would love to run into you in the highway so I can rip your lungs out.
Mr. houstonT I will not apologize because you make statements to me to go and crawl back under a rock, well buddy to heck with you.
I do not know why I should even give a **** about this, but you are wrong.
I have not seen a single believeable / valid video relating to the M3 and IS-F.
houstonT please go ahead and throw your hat in the fray in the Houston / Dallas / Ft. Worth with the forum. You will get competition.
And if you want to challenge an M5 I am more than willing.
There is so much I can discuss but bottomline I do not give a **** what you think.
See ya buddy
Ranger
Mr. h20tt I definitely would love to run into you in the highway so I can rip your lungs out.
Mr. houstonT I will not apologize because you make statements to me to go and crawl back under a rock, well buddy to heck with you.
I do not know why I should even give a **** about this, but you are wrong.
I have not seen a single believeable / valid video relating to the M3 and IS-F.
houstonT please go ahead and throw your hat in the fray in the Houston / Dallas / Ft. Worth with the forum. You will get competition.
And if you want to challenge an M5 I am more than willing.
There is so much I can discuss but bottomline I do not give a **** what you think.
See ya buddy
Ranger
#60
08-26-2008, 11:56 PM
Hahahahhahah, thank you so much, you have people in fits over here!!!
1. Hahahah, yes, I would do that for you! My point is that you are a TYPICAL KEYBOARD WARRIOR, one out of the many I've dealt with over the years that has no ***** when it comes to putting up rather than mouthing off. Come to the biggest sports car gathering for us enthusiasts and I'll place a $1,000 bet on my STOCK IS-F against your STOCK M3. We can do a 1/4 run and a rolling start 60-150. How does that sound?
2. I already mentioned that in my last post.
3. 100ms is a direct quote from Lexus on the IS-F...not a made up number by me...
4. Not worth a response.
5. You couldn't solve a 5th grade math equation let alone decipher the complexity of this one. Need proof? Just re-read the thread.
6. Another "genius" post! How about this, YOU get me the RAW data from the run....it's called a DBN file (since I'm sure you have no clue)...I will overlay them using the DynoJet software. Using your estimation I can already see the M3 graph.......5k rpm...yup that looks like 400 rwhp, 6k rpm, 450 rwhp sounds about right... LOL As for TQ dropping off...are you serious, the LEAST amount of TQ the IS-F makes is MORE than the PEAK TQ of the M3. Lay off the TQ, you look more and more ignorant when trying to debate the TQ superiority of the M3...
As for your last comment, WOW, isn't that amazing!!!!!!!!! S2000 here we come! Rev that sucker to 10k rpm baby...this isn't Formula One my friend, this is REAL WORLD STREET driving...
"...more efficient for tq it produces.." Hahahhahah, are you for real man?
1. Hahahah, yes, I would do that for you! My point is that you are a TYPICAL KEYBOARD WARRIOR, one out of the many I've dealt with over the years that has no ***** when it comes to putting up rather than mouthing off. Come to the biggest sports car gathering for us enthusiasts and I'll place a $1,000 bet on my STOCK IS-F against your STOCK M3. We can do a 1/4 run and a rolling start 60-150. How does that sound?
2. I already mentioned that in my last post.
3. 100ms is a direct quote from Lexus on the IS-F...not a made up number by me...
4. Not worth a response.
5. You couldn't solve a 5th grade math equation let alone decipher the complexity of this one.
Need proof? Just re-read the thread.6. Another "genius" post! How about this, YOU get me the RAW data from the run....it's called a DBN file (since I'm sure you have no clue)...I will overlay them using the DynoJet software. Using your estimation I can already see the M3 graph.......5k rpm...yup that looks like 400 rwhp, 6k rpm, 450 rwhp sounds about right... LOL
As for TQ dropping off...are you serious, the LEAST amount of TQ the IS-F makes is MORE than the PEAK TQ of the M3. Lay off the TQ, you look more and more ignorant when trying to debate the TQ superiority of the M3...As for your last comment, WOW, isn't that amazing!!!!!!!!! S2000 here we come! Rev that sucker to 10k rpm baby...this isn't Formula One my friend, this is REAL WORLD STREET driving...
"...more efficient for tq it produces.." Hahahhahah, are you for real man?
I am trying to be reasonable but you seem to be more interested in being an ******* with a keyboard. Why wait for TX2K9, if you would be willing to meet half way we can run our cars as soon as you would like. But, perhaps YOU would like to hide behind your keyboard instead?
You really should stop running your mouth about torque this torque that. Oh ya, the Lexus peak torque figures look sooo nice on paper. The ISF does not make peak torque until 5200 RPM anyway! The M3 hits its torque peak much lower and MAINTAINS it to redline. That test of the ISF with 114 vs. the M3's 113 trap, which car was faster to 100 and 150? The M3 beat it to both marks, the only reason the IS had the 1 mph was due to the M3's shift. The manual M3 sedan pulled it down low anyway running a 12.6 vs. a 12.8 for the ISF and UP TOP top 150. So much for your from a roll a theory. THE 7 SPEED DCT WILL SPANK IT, enough is enough. The DCT tranny is enough to bridge the gap to the C63, BIG DIFFERENCE. I had a few runs today in my car vs. sturdy competition, I know exactly where I stand and I am calling you the **** out. Lets meet up and do this, I don't care where you are.
As for the guy talking about running an ISF with his RS4 (the redheaded stepchild of the bunch) and somehow relating that to an M3 running get real. You are really reaching for anything you can if you feel THAT is supporting your argument. The RS4 is a fantastic vehicle but straightline speed with this bunch is not what it is about. I would rather have that car than the ISF though.
Last edited by CURI0; 08-27-2008 at 03:14 AM.