pth611

I was wondering... from he lexus site the car weighs about 3500 same as Clk500 right? and has 306 horse, but yet is achieves a fast 0-60 quoted from the page "5.3s". How is this so? Then again theres a torgue diff.... but that wouldnt be too much of a factor or would it? Then again i may need soem schooling in performance such as hp and torque @ diff rpms.. Oh and by no means am I "hatin" on lexus cause i have relatives with some and they're nice. I just wanted to know.

C43AMG

I'll believe it when I see it!

pth611

http://lexus.com/models/is/performance.html

The heart of the IS 350 is a potent 3.5-liter V6 that churns out 306 horsepower [1], making it the most powerful engine in its class [2]. With 277 lb-ft of torque at 4,800 rpm [1], the IS 350 can achieve an astounding 0-60 acceleration time of 5.3 seconds [3], which is fastest in its class [3]. The IS 250 is briskly propelled by a 2.5-liter 204-hp V6 [1] with 185 lb-ft of torque [1].

C43AMG

I am aware of the numbers Lexus has published.What I want to know is how bad the professional driver destroyed the driveline to get it to produce those numbers...if it did those numbers.

RJC

QM trap speeds and times are not as good as the CLK 500 according to R/T from what I recall.

Can Drive 55

I have driven both and there is no comparison. The CLK is superior in every way. It is a solid, precision engineered work of art. The Lexus feel like a cheap piece of tin. BTW, I owned a Lexus LS430 for a year and although it was a nice quiet, smooth car, it was pale in comparison to MBZ's.

clkcadet

i dunno maybe its fast but it looks kinda weird my neighbor has a red one

Chi500

I think the Lexus claims are BS. There's a huge torque difference, 339 lb/ft for the CLK. Maybe the IS had a manual transmission, but I still dont believe those numbers. R/T did say that they have a 5.2 0-60 time for the CLK500.

ItalianStallion

I remember reading that the new IS350 will only come in an automatic transmission. I also remember reading in other car magazines that the new IS350's 0-60 time is 5.5 seconds, 5.3 seems to be pushing it. What are the quarter mile times for the IS350? I know the CLK500 got a 13.7 from Road and Track.

pth611

The new 3.5 is a great engine with enough power to make the IS 350 a very quick car, able to hit 60 mph in 6.0 seconds flat and consume the quarter mile in 14.5 sec. at 98.6 mph thats from r/t

AmSFighter

This is like comparing apples to oranges. The clk is a luxury gt coupe, the IS is a luxury sport sedan. Of course the CLK is far better, it costs a significant amount more! You get what you pay for. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that the IS350 is a "cheap piece of tin." I personally think it's a great value and alternative to any c-class (minus the c55) and 3-series.

I agree, in terms of design and materials used, Japanese cars are mediocre (compared to German cars), but far better than American cars. (IMHO). The only reasons I like Japanese cars has to do with the fact that they are simple, reliable, and cheap. They're also easy to mod.

I had the opportunity to test drove an IS350 for a day and it's comfortable and deceptively quick. I was a skeptic of the acceleration numbers when I read the C&D comparo, but after test driving one, I think it's plausible. Did you turn off the traction control and switch the ect to power when you test drove it? Handling is bleh, most likely due to the electronic nannies that can't be turned off. Car constantly understeers and since it cuts throttle, you can't really rotate the car with the throttle. Brakes are good, but don't have as good of a feel as a mb or bmw. Steering is okay, too light for my taste (like any luxury Japanese car). The inside felt too tight and the seats were too mushy for spirited driving. Styling is a little awkward, reminds me of a door stop, but a huge improvement on the previous design. In regards to pure acceleration, the is350 felt quicker (with traction off and ect on power) up to ~80, then it seemed to plateau. I think if a clk500 and is350 were to race (both with good drivers), the is350 would take the clk from a dig, from a roll, the clk would win hands down.

Anyhow, I've been lurking on the is350 forums and see that people have been dragging this car with similar results to magazines, a few guys hitting high 13's stock and trapping around 95-104. Impressive for a "luxury" sedan that's only 38-45k.

If I want ***** to the walls performance/handling/braking, I track my 405whp sz49'd sti. My clk is a daily driver and cruiser and my s/c'd 4runner is a winter beater/hauler. Although the sti and 4runner are modded, they've proven to be far more reliable and cheaper to maintain than my clk.

Just my opinions.

RJC

And the CLK 500 times also from road and track are: 5.2 0-60 and 13.6 @ 104.5 in the quarter mile...

Can Drive 55

I totally agree with you. They are 2 different vehicles. The original post was about a comparison of the 2. I was basing my comparison from a short test drive in the IS. I was at the Lexus Taste of Luxury event in Dallas in November. They had a course marked off with cones in the parking lot of Texas Stadium. My comment "cheap piece of tin" was referring to the way the car seemed to flex and pop under high stress cornering. I drove it about as hard as humanly possible. I thought the car was going to break a couple of times. It felt like the tires were going to roll off the wheels when I was experiencing a case of understeer as it was going straight after I turned the wheel about a quarter to a half a turn. On the other hand, the CLK and my E class have a totally different feel/sensation when driven hard. They feel much more solid. They remind me of the quality of the case of a Rolex watch that is machined from one block of stainless steel. My $.02 worth.

pisces777

Get a CLK mate.