Lexus IS-F Gets LSD

[330CIZHP]

No way! M3 has proven to be faster than cars that ran 8:10 - 8:12 such as, M5, M6, RS4 around just about every single race track. There is no way it will run the same as M5 and M6, which the M3 was built to be faster than.

As per the chief testing engineer of the M3 while talking to Motor Trend in October 2007 edition during M3 launch (while comparing to M5) "I can run an 8:10 while talking to you simultaneously in this new M3. As usual our latest M car is our fastest and best, the M3 is the fastest out of all M cars right now".

Originally Posted by shift@red

the m3 was test and got the 8:05, it was on 19" Michelin Cup+ tire, which is good for about 5 seconds or more on the nurburgring.

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showt...ht=nurburgring

On standard PS2's, the m3 would prob not have even broken 8:10 and would have prob been more in the 8:10-8:13 range.

[xquizit]

Originally Posted by roller

The ISF didn't have a LSD before? wow..

+1

[330CIZHP]

You keep telling yourself that. I have posted enough proof right from BMW M Division Chief himself that they developed tuned the car to be faster than the typical 8:10 M5/M6 and comparable cars like the RS4 were running. If M3 runs only a 8:10 then all these cars should be much slower than the 8:10 - 8:12.

M3 has tested faster around just about every track than RS4, M5, M6 etc. so Nurburgring should be no different.

If these cars run 8:10 - 8:12 around Nurburgring on what seem standard tires, like the M division chief said, M3 can run a few tenths quicker around 8:08 or so even on the standard PS2 tires (around 0.2 - 0.3 slower than the PSC+ cup tires).

Originally Posted by shift@red

If the m3 was run with PS2s rather than the Pilot Sport Cup+ tires, it would have been around 8:10, that is a fact. You have to compare on equal tires.
Walter Rohl could run a 7:40 in the GT3 and still talk to someone while doing it. Despite what the chief engineer says, saying something and doing something are two different things. So until I see it, I have a hard time believing it as running on the ring isnt as easy as just saying a time and running it. Its a challenging course that even if you loose focus for a split second that can reverberate through the rest of the track and put you easily off pace.
Fact is, the m3 ran 8:05 on a Cup+ tires. On PS2s, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SLOWER.

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

You keep telling yourself that. I have posted enough proof right from BMW M Division Chief himself that they developed tuned the car to be faster than the typical 8:10 M5/M6 and comparable cars like the RS4 were running. If M3 runs only a 8:10 then all these cars should be much slower than the 8:10 - 8:12.

M3 has tested faster around just about every track than RS4, M5, M6 etc. so Nurburgring should be no different.

If these cars run 8:10 - 8:12 around Nurburgring on what seem standard tires, like the M division chief said, M3 can run a few tenths quicker around 8:08 or so even on the standard PS2 tires (around 0.2 - 0.3 slower than the PSC+ cup tires).

You are quite about this. But the problem with the N-ring is that it is so long that you really never get a true comparison between cars, plus it's like no other race track because of it's surface and how bumpy it is that basically looking at how cars perform else where and expecting the same results to hold true there is not possible.

I honestly don't know whether on the N-ring that the M3 would be that much quicker than an RS4 on the same day, I'm of the belief that the worser the surface the more the advantage should be handed to the car equipped with AWD and there is quite a few areas that are important to a decent lap time that aren't really that great.

I also happen to agree with the head of M-Division that CUP+ tyres would be less important there than on other track, how much of a difference per mile/minute than difference would be I honestly couldn't say but I doubt it would amount to anything more than 3-4 seconds per lap.

Maybe if manufacturers were more open with the data they get around the N-ring then we all could get a clearer picture as to the ultimate potential of every car instead of a quick 3 lap snap shot that Sportauto give us which is very dependent on the weather at the time.

[330CIZHP]

I agree with most of what you said. All evidence points to the fact that all things being equal, there should be no more than 0.2 - 0.3 secs difference between PSC+ Cup and PS2 tires. That is how far the difference will go between extreme performance summer tires and competition tires. Let's not forget some cars come standard with PSC+ cup tires like Porsche GT3 997 911. The CSL M3 ran a 7:50 on extreme racing slick tires almost without any tread.

If M5 ran a 8:10 on standard tires and M3 is designed, engineered and consistently tested to be quicker than the M5 and M6 according to M Division Chief himself, the best lap time on PS2 tires would be around 8:08 or maybe 8:07 at best. About 0.2 - 0.3 secs slower than what it ran with the PSC+ cup tires.

Originally Posted by footie

You are quite about this. But the problem with the N-ring is that it is so long that you really never get a true comparison between cars, plus it's like no other race track because of it's surface and how bumpy it is that basically looking at how cars perform else where and expecting the same results to hold true there is not possible.

I honestly don't know whether on the N-ring that the M3 would be that much quicker than an RS4 on the same day, I'm of the belief that the worser the surface the more the advantage should be handed to the car equipped with AWD and there is quite a few areas that are important to a decent lap time that aren't really that great.

I also happen to agree with the head of M-Division that CUP+ tyres would be less important there than on other track, how much of a difference per mile/minute than difference would be I honestly couldn't say but I doubt it would amount to anything more than 3-4 seconds per lap.

Maybe if manufacturers were more open with the data they get around the N-ring then we all could get a clearer picture as to the ultimate potential of every car instead of a quick 3 lap snap shot that Sportauto give us which is very dependent on the weather at the time.

[footie]

I just thought I would inform you the the offical time for the M5 is 8:13 and not 8:10, the M6 did 8:09 on CUP tyres, the RS4 did 8:09 on Pirreli Corsa and the M3 was 8:05 with CUP+ and racing pads.

[xxe92xx]

Originally Posted by footie

I just thought I would inform you the the offical time for the M5 is 8:13 and not 8:10, the M6 did 8:09 on CUP tyres, the RS4 did 8:09 on Pirreli Corsa and the M3 was 8:05 with CUP+ and racing pads.

according to what source?

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Where are you getting 8:10 for the M5? Did you make that up? Because last time I checked it ran 8:13 (ps2s i believe). The M6 ran 8:09 (cup tires).
My point was strictly more than anything that the m3 is slower than 8:05 if on PS2 tires. So I still stand by my judgement that on a regular PS2, the m3 would be hovering right on the 8:10 mark. Not to mention that the m3 didnt have standard brake pads either, which you can bet made up for some time as well.

How could I have made it up when I quoted the exact source.

I quote exactly what the M Division chief said. For the third time, in October of 2007 while interviewing with the Motor Trend magazine at launch time, BMW M division chief Gerhard said that M3 consistently runs "under 8:10 secs" in all-out runs and about 3:54 faster than the M5 and that he could run 8:10 "while talking to the you as I drive."

He clearly stated "our latest M car is our best and fastest M car around Nurburgring" and that M3 was the "fastest M car around Nurburgring", which means it bests M6's 8:09 like it does in all these race tracks:

M3:

Auto Zeitung: 1:38.7
Vairano Handling Course: 1:20.2
Tsukuba: 1:06
Top Gear: 1:25.3
Kyalami: 2:05

M6:

Auto Zeitung: 1:40
Vairano Handling Course: 1:22.1
Tsukuba: 1:07.4
Top Gear: N/A
Kyalami: 2:06

[footie]

Originally Posted by xxe92xx

according to what source?

Sportauto, they are the official source though someone may very well beat their time.

[330CIZHP]

OK show me the proof where it says the M6 ran around Nurburgring on cup tires? Even if it were on cup tires, it will not make a 4 - 5 seconds difference between PS2 and PSC Cup tires. Looks like you are the one here who buys all the marketing bullsh*t!

Anyway, put up the proof of where it says sport auto put optional PSC cup tires on the M6. I strongly believe the 8:09 was completely on standard trim. I found another 8:07 Nurburgring lap time of M6, which I believe is with modifications.

Just by your sheer thought that M6 and M5 with same engine, power and transmission are equally fast at 8:13 despite M6's much higher level of suspension tuning, 300 lbs lighter weight and wider track shows how ignorant and stup*d you are!

Originally Posted by shift@red

I am going by documented times by Sport Auto. Not what some an engineer is 'saying'. Nissan engineers did the same thing re: the GTR, remember? Do you believe everything you hear? if so, i have a bridge in brooklyn id like to sell you.
You dont get it. See if you can follow: The m6 ran 8:09 on Cup tires, thus it would prob be right around the same 8:13 the m5 ran if it were on PS2s. The m3 on PS2s would be right around 8:10 on ps2s and normal brake pads.

So given that: all on ps2s

m3: 8:10
m5/m6: 8:13

Can you follow my logic there. I am not saying the m3 isnt the fastest M car, just that on PS2 tires it would be about 8:10.

Get it, or do you

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

OK show me the proof where it says the M6 ran around Nurburgring on cup tires? Even if it were on cup tires, it will not make a 4 - 5 seconds difference between PS2 and PSC Cup tires. Looks like you are the one here who buys all the marketing bullsh*t!

Anyway, put up the proof of where it says sport auto put optional PSC cup tires on the M6. I strongly believe the 8:09 was completely on standard trim. I found another 8:07 Nurburgring lap time of M6, which I believe is with modifications.

Just by your sheer thought that M6 and M5 with same engine, power and transmission are equally fast at 8:13 despite M6's much higher level of suspension tuning, 300 lbs lighter weight and wider track shows how ignorant and stup*d you are!

I'm sure that Southlight will be able to supply the proof as to which tyres the M6 was tested on, I do know that in the UK the M6 was supplied standard with this rubber so I doubt Europe or Germany are any different.

You are that the M6 is lighter and equipped with a different suspension tuning, but why assume it's not logical to expect the M6 to drop the 4 seconds if on PS2 rubber? The M6 has a shorter wheelbase and is stiffer, both things that might very well hinder it on a track like the N-ring compared to other more normal tracks and my opinion of this does seem to hold water based on their respective times else where.

[southlight]

I had to edit some comments and remove some noise. Please try to keep it civil-headed guys. Thanks!


Best regards,
south

[southlight]

Back on topic: Like shift@red said, the M6 was on P Zero Corsa. Does the 1s per minute benefit apply to these either, footie?


Best regards,
south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

Back on topic: Like shift@red said, the M6 was on P Zero Corsa. Does the 1s per minute benefit apply to these either, footie?


Best regards,
south

I don't think the P Zero Corsa rubber is quite as good as the Michelins but it's close enough. But I wish the usually the rule of thumb of 1s per minute wasn't used because it doesn't apply to the N-ring in the same way as normal race track.

I also don't now what everyone is complaining about as with the head of M-Division's words if all things were indeed equal the M3 would still be the quickest. The end.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by footie

You are that the M6 is lighter and equipped with a different suspension tuning, but why assume it's not logical to expect the M6 to drop the 4 seconds if on PS2 rubber? The M6 has a shorter wheelbase and is stiffer, both things that might very well hinder it on a track like the N-ring compared to other more normal tracks and my opinion of this does seem to hold water based on their respective times else where.

Sorry footie. I do not buy that. Not withstanding the wheelbase difference, the Porsche GT3 RS has a faster laptime around Nurburgring than the Porsche 997.1 GT3 RS ran a 7:39 (at a weight of 3069 lbs) while the standard GT3 997.1 ran a 7:42 ( at a weight of 3150 lbs). The main difference between GT3 RS and GT3 is a much stiffer suspension in the RS close to the RSR cup race car, a plastic rear window, lighter flywheel and wider rear track/chassis width taken from the AWD Porsche Carrera 4S.

In a nutshell, the GT3 RS 997.1 was MUCH more stiffer than a standard GT3, yet it turned in a faster lap time around Nurburgring.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, M6 has also run 8:07@152.04 KM/H by Auto Build 02/06 on what seems like completely standard trim. That only shows that M6 is capable of running quicker than the 8:09 on standard trim, which is a soild 5 seconds faster than M5's lap time on standard trim.

The 300 lbs weight difference is another HUGE factor working in favor of the M6 that just cannot be ignored. I stand by my argument that running both M5 and M6 back to back with the same driver will yield the M6 besting the M5 time by atleast 2 - 3 seconds.

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Sorry footie. I do not buy that. Not withstanding the wheelbase difference, the Porsche GT3 RS has a faster laptime around Nurburgring than the Porsche 997.1 GT3 RS ran a 7:39 (at a weight of 3069 lbs) while the standard GT3 997.1 ran a 7:42 ( at a weight of 3150 lbs). The main difference between GT3 RS and GT3 is a much stiffer suspension in the RS close to the RSR cup race car, a plastic rear window, lighter flywheel and wider rear track/chassis width taken from the AWD Porsche Carrera 4S.

In a nutshell, the GT3 RS 997.1 was MUCH more stiffer than a standard GT3, yet it turned in a faster lap time.

The 300 lbs weight difference is another HUGE factor working in favor of the M6 that just cannot be ignored.

If you put stiffer suspension on a shell that isn't extremely stiff to start with actually can have a negative effect on handling. Now I don't know, nor do you how stiff either the suspension or shell in the M6 is in comparison to the M5, I do know that the quickest lap for the M3 with was equipped with EDC was achieved in it's softest setting. So where does that left your argument about the GT3 and the GT3 RS?

Well did you forget about the roll cage, the stiffness that brings to the shell is vast and ultimately it's affect on the suspension has to be accounted for, so it's reference isn't the right one to chose as a comparison to the M6 vs M5. But I have said this on numerous times yet no one sees to either listen or knowledge the fact, the N-ring is a vast course and day to day, heck hour to hour can effect lap times. A couple of seconds on a 7:40 lap is less than 0.5% of difference, so hopefully you now see that using the ring as a reference of how a car is doing compared to another is very misleading.

[330CIZHP]

Like I mentioned in my post above, the M6 ran a 8:07@152.04 KM/H in AutoBuild test on 02/06 using what appears to be completely stock trim. That is a good 5 seconds faster than the fastest M5 lap time.

Originally Posted by footie

If you put stiffer suspension on a shell that isn't extremely stiff to start with actually can have a negative effect on handling. Now I don't know, nor do you how stiff either the suspension or shell in the M6 is in comparison to the M5, I do know that the quickest lap for the M3 with was equipped with EDC was achieved in it's softest setting. So where does that left your argument about the GT3 and the GT3 RS?

Well did you forget about the roll cage, the stiffness that brings to the shell is vast and ultimately it's affect on the suspension has to be accounted for, so it's reference isn't the right one to chose as a comparison to the M6 vs M5. But I have said this on numerous times yet no one sees to either listen or knowledge the fact, the N-ring is a vast course and day to day, heck hour to hour can effect lap times. A couple of seconds on a 7:40 lap is less than 0.5% of difference, so hopefully you now see that using the ring as a reference of how a car is doing compared to another is very misleading.

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Like I mentioned in my post above, the M6 ran a 8:07@152.04 KM/H in AutoBuild test on 02/06 using what appears to be completely stock trim. That is a good 5 seconds faster than the fastest M5 lap time.

This is the reason why I wished manufacturers would post their official lap times on stock examples because they do hundreds of laps and they stand a better chance of coming across decent track conditions compared to the 3 laps that Sportauto get.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Sorry footie. I do not buy that. Not withstanding the wheelbase difference, the Porsche GT3 RS has a faster laptime around Nurburgring than the Porsche 997.1 GT3 RS ran a 7:39 (at a weight of 3069 lbs) while the standard GT3 997.1 ran a 7:42 ( at a weight of 3150 lbs). The main difference between GT3 RS and GT3 is a much stiffer suspension in the RS close to the RSR cup race car, a plastic rear window, lighter flywheel and wider rear track/chassis width taken from the AWD Porsche Carrera 4S.

In a nutshell, the GT3 RS 997.1 was MUCH more stiffer than a standard GT3, yet it turned in a faster lap time around Nurburgring.

In case you're referring to Sportauto the data for the 997.1 GT3 models is wrong. Both ran a 7:48 around Nuerburgring.


Best regards,
south

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by southlight

In case you're referring to Sportauto the data for the 997.1 GT3 models is wrong. Both ran a 7:48 around Nuerburgring.


Best regards,
south

Yes, sport auto 05/06 for the 997.1 GT3 RS 7:39 and Porsche GT3 997.1 at 7:42 by Walter Rohrl. I am surprised that inaccurate data regarding Nurburgring laptimes is published on track times at supercar webpage. Thanks for letting me know.

My argument still stands that the BMW M6 INDEED ran a 8:07@152.04 KM/H around Nurburgring in a track test conducted by AutoBuild in the 02/06 edition on what seems like completely stock trim (if it comes stock with the P-Zero tires then that is what it used). That is a good 5 seconds faster than the M5 in completely stock trim. I have not found any evidence of modifcations on that M6 when it ran a 8:07.

[kkrBMW3]

I test drove the F before I did the E92 M3. The mufflers, to me, were tuned to sound like a GT Mustang and the faux quads were not a selling point. When I rev the M3, you hear and feel, M-Power.

[M3twins]

I previously owned an '08 ISF and traded up to the ///M3 (e93). After reading this thread and hearing about the new LSD, decided to drive the '10 with my buddy who is a Lexus salesman.

In short, the LSD doesn't make much, if any, difference in the driving or handling characteristics of the car. The F still felt very unsettled in turns, poor steering feedback, way too much understeer, harsh/stiff ride due to suspension settings and the chassis still lacked the refinement and rigidity of the ///M3. In the end it all adds up to a ride that just feels poorly executed and does not instill a feeling of satisfaction and confidence. I state all of this even in comparison to my E93 vert. It just feels so much more balanced and is a much more rewarding driving experience.. And honestly I could really care less how much faster one car or the other could make it around the "Ring".. I want to just enjoy driving the car!!