A New Lexus SUV/Crossover Coming: Called "NX"

[ifcar]

Yes, it can join the long list of cars with soulless Euro approved 2.0Ts

Tragically supplanting the soulful 200-horsepower V6, yes.

[Xer0]

Yes, it can join the long list of cars with soulless Euro approved 2.0Ts

Dude, we're not talking the S4's V8 to V6T transformation here.  The IS250's engine has always been a sore spot for the car and its always needed something better.

[12,000 RPM]

Tragically supplanting the soulful 200-horsepower V6, yes.

Soulful indeed. Find me a modern 2.0T that sounds like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVeWg38nQtQ

Or anything, for that matter

Yes a turbo 4 will make for better bench racing, get better gas mileage, will pull harder on the highway etc. But lets not act like they won't lose anything in this change. Im so tired of these damn 2.0Ts.

[MrH]

Tragically supplanting the soulful 200-horsepower V6, yes.

Lol.  That engine is such a turd

[12,000 RPM]

It's a good engine in the wrong car. A better motor than the FA20

[CALL_911]

Lol.  That engine is such a turd

But dude it's got "soul"

[ifcar]

It's a good engine in the wrong car. A better motor than the FA20

A V6 with 184 lb-ft of torque is a good engine in a 2003 Hyundai.

[12,000 RPM]

A V6 with 184 lb-ft of torque is a good engine in a 2003 Hyundai.

There is no correlation between cylinder count and torque. However there is a correlation between displacement and torque... 184lb-ft out of 2.5L is right up there with any NA performance engine. Not to mention the IS250 6MT is faster than the IS300, which people thought was a great + quick car.

Don't get me wrong.... I would love for my wife to have a 9-5 Aero or Passat 2.0T wagon. Good gas mileage and low/mid range torque for the highway. But for something "sporty"? Something I am supposed to enjoy driving? I can't do this. High performance 4 bangers should sound like this.

[CALL_911]

Okay dude, the IS250's motor was always an anchor. Maybe it was smooth, but the IS250 was always slow as shit.

[12,000 RPM]

Its not much slower than a 320i, which you deemed comparable to a much faster WRX & 228i.....

Or for that matter, an FR-S/BRZ or Miata, which are full blown (well not blown) sports cars.

And it runs smoother + sounds better than all of those motors (besides the WRX).... as a luxury car's engine should.

[MrH]

But dude it's got "soul"

A V6 with 184 lb-ft of torque is a good engine in a 2003 Hyundai.

  It's a "soulful" turd of an engine.

There is no correlation between cylinder count and torque. However there is a correlation between displacement and torque... 184lb-ft out of 2.5L is right up there with any NA performance engine. Not to mention the IS250 6MT is faster than the IS300, which people thought was a great + quick car.

Don't get me wrong.... I would love for my wife to have a 9-5 Aero or Passat 2.0T wagon. Good gas mileage and low/mid range torque for the highway. But for something "sporty"? Something I am supposed to enjoy driving? I can't do this. High performance 4 bangers should sound like this.

Nobody has considered an IS300 quick in ages.  Your brain is stuck in the 90's, kind of like the performance of this 2.5 V6.

[2o6]

Since when are 2.0T's not "soulful"?


Since when are turbo motors not soulful?




My friends turbo Nissan VG Z31 is 'soulful' as anything else. I feel like you're just talking shit

[CALL_911]

Nobody has considered an IS300 quick in ages.  Your brain is stuck in the 90's, kind of like the performance of this 2.5 V6.

Even when it came out, the IS300 wasn't quick compared to its competitors.

[ifcar]

Its not much slower than a 320i,

"Not much slower" than a car that gets 17 percent better gas mileage -- woohoo!!! Engine of the year!

[Raza]

Its not much slower than a 320i, which you deemed comparable to a much faster WRX & 228i.....

The IS250 is about a full second slower to 60 than a 320i.  The IS250 is slower than my ancient and heavy E320 was. 

If you want to call the IS250 a luxury car, that's fine, but deep down we'll all know it's supposed to be a sport sedan--at least that's how they marketed it. 

[Raza]

Since when are 2.0T's not "soulful"?


Since when are turbo motors not soulful?




My friends turbo Nissan VG Z31 is 'soulful' as anything else. I feel like you're just talking shit

Sporty's got beef with turbo motors, this is nothing new.  I think since turbos are becoming more prevalent, there's this idea that they're by default bad.  Whereas in the past, the turbo versions were the absolute best that an automaker could build.  Porsche 911 Turbo, 959, Ferrari F40, 288 GTO , Saab 99 Turbo, Mercedes 300SD, Buick GNX, Toyota Supra, Bugatti Veyron, Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX/STI, Mustang SVO, et al.  But now that you can get a turbocharger on a Hyundai Sonata, it's not cool anymore. 

[SVT32V]

Sporty's got beef with turbo motors, this is nothing new.  I think since turbos are becoming more prevalent, there's this idea that they're by default bad.  Whereas in the past, the turbo versions were the absolute best that an automaker could build.  Porsche 911 Turbo, 959, Ferrari F40, 288 GTO , Saab 99 Turbo, Mercedes 300SD, Buick GNX, Toyota Supra, Bugatti Veyron, Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX/STI, Mustang SVO, et al.  But now that you can get a turbocharger on a Hyundai Sonata, it's not cool anymore. 

inorite, all of the 90s JP supercars (rx7, gtr, 300ZTT, mitsu 3000 among others) were turboed.

[12,000 RPM]

The IS250 is about a full second slower to 60 than a 320i.  The IS250 is slower than my ancient and heavy E320 was.

More like under 1/2 a second with the same transmission.

If you want to call the IS250 a luxury car, that's fine, but deep down we'll all know it's supposed to be a sport sedan--at least that's how they marketed it.

By this logic, a Camry V6 is more of a sports sedan than an IS.... "check your premise".

"Not much slower" than a car that gets 17 percent better gas mileage -- woohoo!!! Engine of the year!

Way to move the goalposts... but yea, being that the BMW's engine is about 10 years younger, and it is turbocharged and hooked up to a transmission with 2 more forward gears, seems rational that fuel economy would be better.

Since when are 2.0T's not "soulful"?

Since when are turbo motors not soulful?

Since, ironically, BMW debuted the N20. They are good functionally, but all the ones I've experienced- N20, VWAG 2.0T, Ford 2.0T- don't make me say 'wow this is fun!'

Turbos went from being the performance choice to the practical choice.... and as the Camry/Accord V6 show, even that aspect is debatable.

Sporty's got beef with turbo motors, this is nothing new.  I think since turbos are becoming more prevalent, there's this idea that they're by default bad.  Whereas in the past, the turbo versions were the absolute best that an automaker could build.  Porsche 911 Turbo, 959, Ferrari F40, 288 GTO , Saab 99 Turbo, Mercedes 300SD, Buick GNX, Toyota Supra, Bugatti Veyron, Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX/STI, Mustang SVO, et al.  But now that you can get a turbocharger on a Hyundai Sonata, it's not cool anymore. 

Yea, in the past. Things have changed. What would you rather have.... 991 Turbo, or 991 GT3 (in the parallel universe where both were available with stickshift)? F40 or F50 (for driving, not looking at as the F50 is hideous)? Turbos were good in the past because we didn't have the means to get the same level of performance out of NA engines. The NA engines of today curb stomp the turbo engines of the past- i.e., a 991 C2S 7MT is as fast if not faster than a 996 Turbo, while having better response, being lighter, more efficient, etc. etc. And the 911 Turbo of today jumps into a realm of performance that you would agree is "beyond the realm of usefulness on the street". SVO was only good because the GT made like 110 HP, as Ford couldn't figure out how to put injectors in a cylinder head or make any horsepower and meet emissions. It was still hilariously laggy and slower than an IS250.

I don't have beef with turbo motors.... odds are high that the next car in the sporty household will be turbocharged. Won't be my car though  But for a car meant for driving pleasure and engagement, I just haven't driven a modern turbo car that does it for me. That includes a 335i, though admittedly that one was pretty close. I think it's GOOD that turbos are coming to mainstream cars, as that's where they make more sense to me now; however again looking at the performance and fuel economy of turbo 2.0Ts vs say, NA 3.5 V6s, there's no benefit... a Camry/Accord/Altima V6 get the same gas mileage as a Sonata/Fusion 2.0T, but are 1-1.5s faster to 60 and through the quarter mile. While being simpler/cheaper to make, and most likely more reliable/cheaper to own in the long run too. So much for that 

[2o6]

This is stupid.

[CALL_911]

Way to move the goalposts... but yea, being that the BMW's engine is about 10 years younger, and it is turbocharged and hooked up to a transmission with 2 more forward gears, seems rational that fuel economy would be better.

Are you retarded?!?!?

[Xer0]

Sporty, stick with us here man.  Does the IS250 have a good, competitive, engine today?  That's it, that's the question.  Stop going on so many tangents and logical leaps to justify a pretty stupid world view. 

[12,000 RPM]

Sporty, stick with us here man.  Does the IS250 have a good, competitive, engine today?  That's it, that's the question.  Stop going on so many tangents and logical leaps to justify a pretty stupid world view.

Stick with you? For what? Good and competitive are not mutually bound adjectives.... no, the IS250's engine isn't competitive with something like the 328i's 2.0T, but that doesn't make it a bad engine. Hell, the 328i's 2.0T probably puts down more power and definitely gets better gas mileage than my Z's 3.5.... does that make my car's 3.5 a "turd" too? When did gas mileage and 0-60 times become the benchmark for whether or not an engine is "good"?

[Xer0]

Stick with you? For what? Good and competitive are not mutually bound adjectives.... no, the IS250's engine isn't competitive with something like the 328i's 2.0T, but that doesn't make it a bad engine. Hell, the 328i's 2.0T probably puts down more power and definitely gets better gas mileage than my Z's 3.5.... does that make my car's 3.5 a "turd" too? When did gas mileage and 0-60 times become the benchmark for whether or not an engine is "good"?

Good doesn't exist in a vacuum and is determined by what you're comparing it to.  So no, the IS250's engine isn't "good" because almost every other engine in its class is better.  Its acceptable, in the same way that someone will accept an Avenger over a Cam/Cord, but it sure as hell isn't good.

The rest of your post is noise to distract as it usually is.  What Nissan put in a 10 year old Z has no bearing to what BMW is putting into a brand new 3 series since you can't get a Z like yours anymore and they were never comparable in the first place. 

[12,000 RPM]

Good doesn't exist in a vacuum and is determined by what you're comparing it to.  So no, the IS250's engine isn't "good" because almost every other engine in its class is better.  Its acceptable, in the same way that someone will accept an Avenger over a Cam/Cord, but it sure as hell isn't good.

Again, good and competitive are two separate things you are choosing to confound to dump on the IS250. I.e. just because the competition has better engines doesn't make the IS's engine bad.

[Xer0]

Again, good and competitive are two separate things you are choosing to confound to dump on the IS250. I.e. just because the competition has better engines doesn't make the IS's engine bad.

Okay then, we all know what makes this engine not competitive.  But what makes it good?

[CJ]

It has lackluster power and not great fuel economy. It makes an alright sound and is pretty smooth. That's all I can think of.

[12,000 RPM]

It has lackluster power and not great fuel economy. It makes an alright sound and is pretty smooth. That's all I can think of.

Exactly. Reliable and low maintenance too.

We will see about all these 2.0Ts.... my buddy already had to get the intake valves on his MK6 GTI walnut blasted as they were caked over and making the car run like shit. Thanks DI & VWAG.

[Xer0]

Exactly. Reliable and low maintenance too.

We will see about all these 2.0Ts.... my buddy already had to get the intake valves on his MK6 GTI walnut blasted as they were caked over and making the car run like shit. Thanks DI & VWAG.

So all that it takes to make a good engine is if its reliable?  But bro, what about all of that soul that will be lost in the transition to turbo?

You're really grasping at straws here.  And its not like a turbo motor is an all new thing.  Subie and Mitsu have been doing it for decades and find an EVO owner and tell them their engine has no "soul".  But since I guess they aren't reliable they are garbage too.

[CJ]

Exactly. Reliable and low maintenance too.

We will see about all these 2.0Ts.... my buddy already had to get the intake valves on his MK6 GTI walnut blasted as they were caked over and making the car run like shit. Thanks DI & VWAG.

You're really desperate here.  The engine has two shallow pluses. 

[hotrodalex]

Three. Cheap. Ish.