Hey guys, i was going thru the IS300 Forum and this is what they've been discussing:
mickey513 wrote:
"The IS300 defintely needs a restyling and soon. Even the TSX outsold the Is for the year and the TSX been out not even half a year. thats only cause it just debuted, wait till dudes relize it sucks"
Another guy wrote:
"I haven't driven a V6 Accord, but the TSX sucked, and felt damn slow."

Pisses me off.

 

Nah, it's great.

When people like that start saying how much we suck, we know we've made it.

 

That's ok. I think the IS300 is ugly and probably the last car in larch's poll that I'd go for... I doubt they'd agree with that.

 

look at it this way. every car, house, shirt, shoes movie, tv show , whatever thing that you liked someone else thinks is horrible, ugly, slow, stupid, too big, too small etc. then stop caring what they think as long as you like it.

 

the reason people say these things is they lack self confidence . they need to justify to themselves why they paid more than we did and make it right in their mind. in a place like the IS300 board they also get a lot of people agree with them because they are in the same situation.
my personal opinion, i considered the IS300 i think the exterior looks awsome in many ways, i absolutly hate the insturment cluster!
the interior is very classy in fact my mom has a blask IS with tan interior and my TSX is exactly the same. i couldnt say for sure which one i liked better they are both very nice.
the I-6 of the IS has more torque and that is a definite plus and both handel very well. but i live in colorado and i absolutly wouldnt think buying a RWD car here is smart. in fact since the IS came out i bet you i have seen less than 8 on the road in colorado in the past what? 3 years?
i havnt driven the manuel but i think it was a 5 speed.
now lets compare cost and features, the TSX has a better nav system but the IS has a hide away screen but you cant program it while driving.
feature wise i think the TSX has a few more and definitly for less money all around if you equip an IS the same as a TSX.

there is a reason the TSX outsells the IS its simply because you get a better value overall. i can personally say that including the carwash owner i met today that every single person i show my car to cannot belive i paid less than 30 k for it having so many features and so well refined.
never had anything but a totally shocked reaction for anyone that has seen it.
its obvious why it outsells the competition. in fact if you look at the tract record of acura and honda how many new model cars has anyone seen that havnt been sold befor ethey hit the dealer?
the odyssey, pilot, acura TL , TSX, MDX are all hard to get your hands on to buy. most are sold months before they arrive.

it's the same reason consumer guide car and truck magazine rates all but i think 1 honda vehicle as a best buy rating.
you can look at any other manufacturer and i belive honda is the only manufacturer that has over 90% of its cars whos models make the best buy rating.
its not about price exactly but its about best value for your money.
not saying lexus or any other brand is bad but at any price point there is a matter of what did you get for your money.
anyone who says thats only cause it just debuted, wait till dudes relize it sucks"
is obviously a fool because anyone that makes a 30K purchase im sure found the car to be adequet on many levels before putting their john hancock on the paper to claim ownership.
just because a car lacks a few foot lbs of torque and HP doesnt make it suck by any means. the person that is more worried about how fast it goes should be more worried about their driving prevledges rather than the proformance of the car.

 

well...they are right about the TSX feeling and being slow.

 

Right on cue. You never disappoint.

 

You are so predictable. And wrong (but that's also predictable.)

 

Also getting very boring and old.

 

<--------------------------------------


Gibo sometimes you just say things that make people want to you

The IS300ers can say whatever they want about the TSX, who cares. Much like Gilbo only RWD cars with I6's matter to them and we all know theres no convincing ignornat people.

Yes the IS300 is quicker than a TSX and probly handles better at the limit, but it loses is every other conceivable category.........period.

 

Tell that to IS300 at my office that gets his ass handed to him every day he tries to beat me to the light

 

This is the first we've heard of a TSX beating an IS300 Jab. Is he Auto or Manual?

Please, we all I think want to hear this story and you better tell is quick before the Gilbo's of the world start calling BS.

 

Honestly, I would also have preferred the TSX tagged 1500$ higher and with the Accord V6 engine.

 

everyone has their opinion...i say leave it up to the automotive 'experts' to decide which vehicle is better...did IS300 make Car and Drivers '04 10 BEST LIST? umm let's see...

Acura TSX
Audi S4 Quattro
BMW 3-series/M3
Cheverolet Corvette
Ford Focus
Honda Accord
Honda S2000
Infiniti G35
Maxda RX-8
Toyota Prius

NOPE...was IS300 even one of the 57 cars nominated? i would think so, at least give the I300 owners 'something' to cheer about

 

To be nominated, doesn't it have to be a new model, new design, or past winner? The IS300 is none of these.

 

according to this lexus post a auto IS300 is 7.5 secs and manual would be 7.0 secs.

http://us.lexusownersclub.com/forums...t=ST&f=2&t=63&

C&D ran 7.2 secs for 6MT so if 'Jab31169' has 6MT and IS300 was an auto then this should be possible. of course the driver is a factor as well

 

I think your right, but I also don't think it was ever placed on the Top 10 list

 

From day 1, it was always ranked behind the 3-Series, despite being RWD, I6, short wheelbase; whatever BMW had, the Lexus also had, except for style (way too 1990s) and though the plastics used are typical Toyota/Lexus standard, it's still too much plastic for a car that costs as much as the IS300. Though I've read that its biggest shortcoming was actually its transmission, and the same was said of the Toyota Celica, which also never made the Top 10 list

 

Sometimes you are so ignorant it hurts. I went from a CL-S to the TSX and I'm happy. Get your head out of your arse.

 

Hey muh brothas,
Read the my thread "streetracing anyone" under the performance forum and you'll hear about a couple guys beating the IS300 with thier TSX. That's how we do things in my neighborhood, yo.

Slats

 

every car sucks according to somebody else.

 

I have yet to race an IS300. Im waiting for that day...

 

Well, we are just as biased here as they are there...no big deal. I personally don't care for the IS. I'm not a big fan of it's styling or it's RWD platform. It's just not the car for me, but I know it's a good car and see no need to bash it.

That said, I think these guys are a little jealous. I mean, there's a bit of buzz going on right now in the auto world for the TSX...something the IS300 doesn't have. They pick on it's "short comings" to boost their morale. But I think every comparison I've read puts it pretty close to even with the IS300 in performance.

I like the "wait till dudes relize it sucks"...Like one of those "I can't believe this car is getting so much attention. It can't be that good...there's gotta be something wrong with it, just wait." Well, they can wait as long as they want.

 

Don't know about you guys, but as I always do, I compare the handling of both cars and I say IS300's suspension is just way too soft. The handling feel loose. It's definitely not up to TSX's standard. Just compare the lateral acceleration test result. 0.78g (IS300) vs 0.85g (TSX).

 

The're just a bunch of miserable IS owners justifying their purchase, yep misery loves company.

 

Personally, I like the IS300. My only problem with it is that is is way too small, and it has a so-so interior.

 

And honestly, I want to biggie-size to 500 hp for just 40 cents more. Why do people keep asking for more power and expect not to pay appropriately for it?

Acura does make the car you're looking for. It's called a 2004 TL. It's very nearly the same size. And it's considered a good value for $6k more than the TSX. Ok, it has more gadgets, but let's face it, you're paying for mostly the engine upgrade.

 

I am loyal to Honda/Acura, but there are a couple things I like better about the IS300:
1) Rear wheel drive
2) Shorter BMW-like overhang
3) City lights (those little running lights in the high beam lens)

Other than that, I like the TSX much better. It looks much nicer, has 6 speeds instead of 5, has a higher redline, gets way better mpg, has the cool ambience lighting inside, and the list goes on. Also, I read at least one article that says the TSX runs 0-60 in the same time as the IS. If that's true, it says a lot because the IS is an inline 6 with more hp and way more torque.

 

both are nice cars. Luxury name - Lexus; value - Acura. Nothing wrong with this. I suspect the next version of the IS will be quite a bit larger and probably better equipped for the same price. Love my T however; with winter I have resorted to washing it in the garage.

 

A little off the subject, but..... I've never really known what's the deal about Inline vs. V engines, except just what the configurations are. I mean, what are the functional differences? Is one "better" than the other? Is one of them cheaper or easier to produce or to work into the car? Are there advantages/disadvantages to each? (I know this isn't a difference between these two cars -- they're both inline.) Let's see who knows. I don't.

 

I6's are apparently perfectly balanced. I guess thats why BMW engines receive accolades all over the world for there smoothness. But then I wonder, if I6's are so good why even make a V6?

 

I think space is the issue here when a manufacturer utilizes a V6.

 

I6 configuration inherently smoother than V6 ("V" uses balance shafts to overcome).

 

So, are these two replies basically the whole answer?
Inline is better, but V takes up less space?

BTW I wouldn't have thought that V would necessarily take up less space (other things being equal), just that maybe it's harder to work the rest of the stuff around it. But I woulda thought that was mostly just a geometry issue that carmakers could figure out pretty well.

 

From what I've learned about engines, that's pretty much the general reasons for the use of inlines and V's. The V's save space and also has a lower point of gravity due to their shape. The inline engine gives greater balance for the weight.


Junkster, whose no engine expert.

 

the only new cars on that list are the tsx, s4 (if u can call it new, since the a4 isn't), rx8, and prius

 

The short answer is I-6's are considered "perfectly" balanced because the 6 cylinders are all in a different phase of the stroke. Whereas a V engine is basically 3 + 3 - there are gaps in the power output at any given moment in the stroke that cause vibrations.

V6 is easier to transversely mount, which reduces the length of the engine bay. The form factor allows for better packaging, if not necessarily chasis balance.

 

Right on target Kiteboy, the fuel doesnt have to go in a V it goes straight and in that case the valves are moving at the same beat.

 

A V6 should also be cheaper to manufacture than an inline 6. That's my best guess as to why Mercedes dropped it's I-6s in favor of V6s.

If you're building FWD cars, an I-6 can be a challenge to fit in the engine bay in a transverse configuration. Volvo does it, and Suzuki in the Verona but not too many others. I think when Audi did it, it installed the motors longitudinal.

A well-engineered V6 can be much smoother than a crude I-6, and there are plenty of crude I-6s around, think Ford's famous 300cid I-6 ohv truck motor!

A well-engineered V12, essentially two I-6s on the same crankshaft, can be smooth as glass.

 

tsx is so much hotter then the is300 by far.....