A's F-word

That's ok questions been answered by Pete... this was RR racing's question to me haha 

Hi guys pick your brains quickly...

Does the UK require al OBD monitors to be in a ready state or emissions, or do they require not to have CEL on? 

Yea there is those annoying wear marks and bumps. RC is a better place to sit over the C63 I think... and the Merc does not outperform so really it's the badge and crap fuel economy that you pay for... they do sound good though but as you said they are way too common like a dine a dozen as the RC stands out from being rare in comparison. Test drive them all again just to be sure in your own heart and mind.

Then if i am honest go for the one that gets your heart to beat a bit quicker everytime you sit in the drivers seat. If your mileage is low you couI'd even get an average mileage one a bit cheaper and by the time you sell it the mileage will be below average making your loss even less once you sell it. But these are V8 babies so mileage isn't like buying a 2 litre car... 100k is deemed as good it's just our OCD that wants below 50k haha

Isf is a bit more nimble and lighter on her feet compared to the Merc, as for holding value the isf never got replaced unlike the RC that got hammered by pundits and the the LC hailed as the one to have even though the RC was mainly attacked due to not out doing the M4. Unfortunately these critics do have some influence on immediate prices but long run prices tend to balance themselves out. As mentioned previously RC is more modern looking over isf and if it's a coupe you are after it's the next best option... a true Lexus lover appreciates the cars worth so you would probably get roughly your money back (minus petrol and tyre consumption haha).

3 hours ago, Peter P18 said:

I’d sum it up like this, no one has successfully fitted and run a turbo setup that has been as reliable or generated as much horsepower as the RR-Racing supercharger kits. 

Simples! 

Drop the microphone! 

Hahaha says the man who recently fitted the RR racing charger...

I put in simple terms and oil feed is simple to make including creating pressure situations using a pump or oil feeder line from the bay.... a oil feed isn't the hardest task for a professional race car builder to create so I don't need to worry he does lol... it's more the factual pros to cons known 

7 hours ago, Jgtcracer said:

I don't know the specifics of the ISF conversions but generally I would think you would have more heat issues compared to a supercharger due to increases in boost temps and because it's driven by exhaust gases.  Turbos generally need oil/coolant supply also and they will add heat to the respective systems.

With regard to a blow off valve, you will either need a dump valve to atmosphere or a recirculating type but without either then compressor stall can occur when coming off throttle.  This increases wear on the turbo.

Superchargers tend to run lower boost that turbo set ups so may be a little more gentle.  Similarly, the install can be a little less complicated to complete.  Running higher boost tends to need a change of compression and block work which isn't needed for the supercharged route initially.

We all know you can get 600bhp+ from supercharger set up so can't see you needing much more than that.  Added to the fact it's proven reliable then your can't go wrong.  The 420bhp the car already has is more than enough for me where I live, any more is a waste.  A guy I that lives near me had a C63 with around 500bhp and he can't catch me on the back roads as he just wheel spins.

All just my opinion obviously but I bet you bust the car somehow if you try to turbo.

Marcus

Hello mate

A rear mounted turbo setup has no heat issues and I think you get oil cooled turbos feeding from the sump with just the filters tucked away and a wastegate.. by the time the gas flow gets to turbo I think most built up pressure will just dissipate there for no need for blow off valve... Will need a piggy back ecu and either electronic boost controller or spring boost valves....

I spend most of my driving on the motorway or at least a roads very rarely am I doing winding roads which if you have street raced as a youngster in turbo cars (guilty lol) is all about gearing with engine revs to keep turbocharger spooled.... there a few Americans that have done it and seems very rapid on take off but I don't actually know anyone who has done it to ask them the highs and lows other than cost.

Must mean something when 98 percent of performance v8s or turbo now and only really jag sticking to S/C... Pete swears by his S/C conversion but my Mrs just swears when she hears the cost hahaha

Andrew

Hey all I know there has been many arguments regarding this topic but things have moved along since the first test pilots. With at least a 5k price difference... lag is dependant on the size of the turbo but only 200 rpm or so... yes true supercharger is more instant power but turbo is less invasive to the engine and being recommended by a few tuners especially due to there being no heat related issues or blow off valve requirement. What's the people in the know opinions?

On 15/01/2018 at 8:04 PM, Big Rat said:

@mrfunex And look at the internal engine problems that both the Mercedes has had C63 stretched head bolts and the M3 spinning crank shells.........

Id be wrong to say either of these engines have had lots of major issues they haven't I've owned the M3 and had access use of a C63 would I buy a product again from either of these companies absolutely not as engines aside they both suffer from numerous other problems niggles...... I want reliability now and @FTBBCVoodoois absolutely right they are reliable all the 'F's have a reliability record the Germans could only dream of...... if they could be bothered that is 

🐀

I also have owned the 2 and had the Mercs 55 amg S/C beast and yea they've had issues but I've had a gtr 2.6 and they spun cranks and my Aristo had niggly issues. What I'm saying is they could have achieved better power at the same cost with no threat to it's reliability.

On 15/01/2018 at 6:54 PM, FTBBCVoodoo said:

I personally think it was built to remain reliable and within the same bhp bracket as it's rivals.

At the time the E90 M3 4.0 produced 400bhp, the RS4 4.2 about 420bhp (claimed before they coked up and were slower than death) and the C63 about 450bhp from a 6.3 (which going on the theory of a holding back an engine is probably the worst culprit and even in uprated form for the SLS had just over 500bhp - I think)

In terms of tuning your ISF.  If the juice is worth the squeeze then go for it.  Just don't break it.

 

 

The Merc guilty of bhp hold back made up for it with it's torque... and for BMW the m3 out does the isf on the track it's true but I'm not fussed about that  but Lexus were out to prove a point.... if they wanted to by 2010 they could have done more than just the LSD and freed up more of the engines potential to walk over the German super saloons..

Sadly it's left to us enthusiastic boys to do trial and error tuning lol

The difference is the same as saying when the 2jz went vvti of course they progress otherwise we need to revolt against them lol but it is restrictive in the isf otherwise why would you automatically gain so much more power and rev range from a N/A car... simple question is why can BMW achieve similar power from a 4 litre and from a 5 so much more. This was nothing to do with emissions was simply the boat was not entirely pushed out. I know the engines have a difference my point is from a performance aspect...

My Japanese has slipped slightly  lol but I have built my fair share of grey imports to know where they hold back but usually it's a simple improve to make the engine and car a thing to make the Germans tremble... sadly not anymore.

Don't get me wrong I love my little V8 and I have owned many high performance cars but you would hope that companies would look to at least achieve near as 100 bhp per litre and healthy torque through the rev range especially when the company has a history of achieving it.

GSf not GET lol stupid auto correct haha

You can not honestly believe that the GET was the after thought when throughout it's history the GS range has always had the daddy engine like is300 was non turbo 2jz and the GSV300 aka Aristo had the most famous and desirable engine.... if aftermarket headers and systems gain more performance do you seriously believe that Lexus and Yamaha did not also know this... but if the isf and GSF had the exact same power but being the GSF is heavier they would be heavily cricised for it and would have been made to do what Merc did and slap a s/c on it do separate big and little brother. (C class and e class or clk and cl). Manufacturers always think about the next sale as they should but being the isf was a flagship all the guns should have been out.

21 hours ago, Jgtcracer said:

Don't bother porting heads, that's something that's fine way down the line once bolt ons are done, I've done it in the past to get small gains but were on smaller higher revving Honda engine!!

Times have moved on, casting techniques are much better and it would cost a fortune but the time there removed, flow tested on the bench then ported before re-fitting.  

Exhaust/manifold mods would be far better.

Obviously all my opinion but kind of makes sense

Marcus

Hey Marcus

I am going to do the headers but was just seeing if there was a point of doing the old school stuff.

You basically confirmed what I suspected but I you don't ask you don't find out.

I had a s2000 amongst my history of jap hi performers... and some German cars of old to recent so different mods suit different engines and set ups.

Just want to avoid a supercharger until it is not such a monopoly and prices become more competitive. A turbo setup may prove to be a bit laggy especially under a auto setup.

20 hours ago, peachy said:

It will do next to nothing on an ISF. and the very small gains it produced (if any) would never be noticed.

The ISF is a properly quick car as standard. Why spend a fortune in trying to make it slightly quicker.

Some people are never satisfied. You can give them the moon and the sun and they would want the stars to go with it.

Lexus purposely restricted the ISF engines performance so that they did not need to force induction the GSF.

The torque and performance aren't the moon and sun type of figures especially when they graced us with the 2JZ vvti twin turbo that could achieve amazing stuff with minimal effort 2 decades prior to the isf. We all know in reality bhp should be nearer to 100 bhp per litre and figures exceeding 400lb ft of torque.

4 hours ago, lotusdave said:

well, don't tell the Mrs and stick a supercharger on it. 

Hahaha I think she may cotton on to the 10k plus dent in the bank account

I've already got a custom system and removed one of the cats... I will do headers and air induction system but really begrudge doing a tune via a company in the states rather than on a dyno infront of me..

I looked into turbo and S/C but cost etc is difficult to justify to the Mrs. Admittedly I do miss a turbo as my 161 aristo was so easy to tune.

Hey guys has anyone done this to their isf... in the old days this is what we did to gain 15 plus bhp from 2 litre track cars and made for smoother acceleration through the rev range.

2 minutes ago, JonP said:

My IS-F doesn't have tyre pressure warning..... Though i gather the RC-F does.

Jon our ISFs don't mate. Strange but true. 

i guess the manufacturer thinks the flying tyre was sufficient warning lol

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

When the rim overtakes you I assume that there certainly was some damage to the rim... wait what rim... 

The rim didn't come off just most of the tyre lol

I still want to get headers and remap lol. 

No never hit anything. I have the winter tyres in the garage but might just do all 4 corners tomorrow and then off for spray up on front bumper bonnet and wings and now rear too grrr