I agree completely. An IS-F is a very fast car. IS350 is not in the same league. Not even close
The IS350 is quite quick for what it is, that's a very nice engine. And it will pull plenty of sideways g. But it's not really sporting hardware, the chassis setup is okay but the seats are awful.
They've got this interesting seatbelt pretensioner that's supposed to snug the belts when it thinks you're about to hit something, but in my limited exposure to the car it would go off with a big ratcheting noise every time you braked fairly hard. Now, it'd be a great feature if there were a button that allowed you to manually snug the belts and keep them there, but as it is it'd be a hellish thing to try to drive quickly somewhere.
I agree completely. An IS-F is a very fast car. IS350 is not in the same league. Not even close
I'm not sure what the C6 is getting 0-60 or the 1/4 mile - but I thought they were about 4.5 seconds to 60. If the IS350's best time (that I know of) is 5.0, than that's not really all that far behind. I can see where in a street race, for various reasons, the two could be considered close... Especially if the IS350 is lightly modified.
Regardless, it's pretty impressive (to me). Until the new CTS-V is on the streets, the regular IS350 (not IS-F) will be a close race for our Vs. The CTS-V, STS-V and XLR-V all range within the high 4 second range.. 5.0, stock, isn't that far away...
__________________ Please help us keep CadillacOwners.com online.
Become a Site Supporter today. You'll get more than a "thank you" in return.
In loving memory of Angelo Anthony Quagliaralillo... Rest in peace..
I'm not sure what the C6 is getting 0-60 or the 1/4 mile - but I thought they were about 4.5 seconds to 60. If the IS350's best time (that I know of) is 5.0, than that's not really all that far behind. I can see where in a street race, for various reasons, the two could be considered close... Especially if the IS350 is lightly modified.
Regardless, it's pretty impressive (to me). Until the new CTS-V is on the streets, the regular IS350 (not IS-F) will be a close race for our Vs. The CTS-V, STS-V and XLR-V all range within the high 4 second range.. 5.0, stock, isn't that far away...
Half a second 0-60 is a huge difference.
But 0-60 is a measure of low-speed drive-wheel traction anyway, not engine or vehicle performance.
Most high-HP 2WD vehicles are traction-limited off the line, and when you get past 300HP or so with any sort of reasonable torque curve they're severely traction-limited. That was always the funny part about the blower V8 AMG Benzes - the heavier cars are quicker at low speeds, for one the E55 wagon is quicker than the E55 sedan, because of the extra weight on the rear wheels.
0-120 or 0-150 (or distance covered in getting to 120 or 150) is a good measure of overall performance - 'launchability', engine flexibility and drivetrain gearing and gear spacing, aerodynamics, etc.
0-120 or 0-150 (or distance covered in getting to 120 or 150) is a good measure of overall performance - 'launchability', engine flexibility and drivetrain gearing and gear spacing, aerodynamics, etc.
Ah yes, Mercedes and their market-engineered AMG HP numbers, my bet is that you put the '451HP' C63 and the '507HP' (or whatever it is) E63 on a dyno you'll see awfully similar numbers.
I don't think we'll see the CTS-V get under 20 seconds 0-150 but someone could certainly have fun trying
You are probably right. I thought they had gotten the C63's motor straight from the E63, no? Under rating taken to a new low
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEM
Ah yes, Mercedes and their market-engineered AMG HP numbers, my bet is that you put the '451HP' C63 and the '507HP' (or whatever it is) E63 on a dyno you'll see awfully similar numbers.
I don't think we'll see the CTS-V get under 20 seconds 0-150 but someone could certainly have fun trying
