Page 21 of 57

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:24 pm
by kevm14
If I remember correctly that Gen IS-F wasn't that polished (like overly hard ride for the handling) and was not as good as the V2.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:06 pm
by Bob
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test
Power and spooky exhaust rumblings aside, the one aspect of the F’s personality that got the most attention was its hard ride. Hardly a logbook entry was written without mention of it. Some said it was just plain rough; some said it was distracting to the point of seasickness. Others did not seem to mind, and a few even enjoyed it, but those folk also drive ’30s hot rods.

Because the IS F sits so low to the road and its big wheels leave little space between fender and tire, there is very little suspension travel available, and the resulting tune is firm. The car bucks and heaves and never settles down; it will bob like an apple over a seemingly good freeway. Nonetheless, Lexus claims its sophisticated sport-tuned suspension offers improved body control without degrading ride quality. We disagree. One of our number with deep technical credentials noted astutely: “Lexus really needs a good suspension consultant to fix this car.” Indeed.

Ride aside, the IS F proved to be an excellent assault vehicle, expressly built for attacking expressways. While cruising at 85 mph, the eight-speed automatic keeps the revs below 2300 rpm. We averaged 21 mpg over the 40,000-mile test—amazing for this naturally aspirated beast with 416 horses. Consider that our long-term BMW M3, which kicks out 414 horsepower, has returned 17 mpg over 30,000 miles of its stay here. The IS F has achieved fuel economy as high as 28 mpg a few times, but its range on a full tank exceeded 400 miles only once.
Yes, it does appear the ride isn't very good, although NC roads are much more tolerant of a stiffly sprung car than MI roads. The notes on fuel economy are positive, but I don't really care about that too much due to few miles driven and cheap gas.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:12 pm
by Bob
I give GM credit for limiting the Vsport to 18 inch wheels. When you consider both performance and sophistication of ride, there's really no reason to go higher.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:46 pm
by kevm14
Is this ATS-small?
This is a fashionably snug car inside

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:51 pm
by kevm14
This doesn't matter but this is the ugliest engine I have ever seen.
C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_2008-lexus-is-f-engine-inline-photo-294351-s-cd-gallery.jpg

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:55 pm
by kevm14
12.9 @ 112. I think it is fair to say this is about equal to the Vsport and SS.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:02 am
by kevm14
Looking closer at the Lexus, it kind of seems to fall within the envelope of the CTS-V1. Braking and skidpad are very similar. The IS-F is definitely a little faster being ~100 lbs lighter, with a few additional HP plus the automatic.

But looking at the sizes, this IS-F is definitely a small car, in the tradition of the 3-series on its various E-platforms. Compared to my CTS-V, which I don't consider a large car:
Wheelbase
CTS-V: 113.4
IS-F: 107.5

Length
CTS-V: 191.5
IS-F: 183.5

Width
CTS-V: 70.6
IS-F: 71.5

Height
CTS-V: 57.3
IS-F: 55.7

I had these dimensions handy but interior is really what matters. I will look that up. I'm guessing they benchmarked the M3.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:15 am
by kevm14
Passenger volume
CTS-V: 98 cu ft
IS-F: 86 cu ft

Front legroom
CTS-V: 42.4"
IS-F: 43.9"

Front headroom
CTS-V: 38.9"
IS-F 37.2"

Front hip room
CTS-V: 53.4"
IS-F: 54.1

Front shoulder room
CTS-V: 56.6"
IS-F: 54.4"

Rear legroom
CTS-V: 36.2" (I rate this as small as I would go and still consider the vehicle acceptable as a family sedan)
IS-F: 30.6" (holy shit)

Rear headroom
CTS-V: 36.9"
IS-F: 36.7"

Rear hip room
CTS-V: 53.8"
IS-F: 53.7"

Rear shoulder room
CTS-V: 56.2"
IS-F: 52.7"

Trunk
CTS-V: 12.5
IS-F: 13.3

In some very key dimensions the CTS-V is noticeably larger by spec, mainly rear legroom, and rear shoulder room. Obviously this would be more useful against one of the cars on the list but the numbers are here at least.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:27 am
by kevm14
Against the 2014 ATS (stupid cars.com gave me numbers for the 2017 Acura TLX - I need to fix this)

ATS 3.6 performance is about 300 lbs lighter than the IS-F.

Wheelbase
ATS: 109.3
IS-F: 107.5

Length
ATS: 182.8
IS-F: 183.5

Width
ATS: 71.1
IS-F: 71.5

Height
ATS: 55.9
IS-F: 55.7

Passenger volume
ATS: 90.9 cu ft
IS-F: 86 cu ft

Front legroom
ATS: 42.5"
IS-F: 43.9"

Front headroom
ATS: 38.6"
IS-F 37.2"

Front hip room
ATS: 53
IS-F: 54.1

Front shoulder room
ATS: 55.2"
IS-F: 54.4"

Rear legroom
ATS: 33.5"
IS-F: 30.6" (yikes)

Rear headroom
ATS: 36.8"
IS-F: 36.7"

Rear hip room
ATS: 52.3"
IS-F: 53.7"

Rear shoulder room
ATS: 53.9"
IS-F: 52.7"

Trunk
ATS: 10.4
IS-F: 13.3

They are similar except on paper the ATS has more rear legroom and a slight edge overall.

Re: Kia Rondo Replacements

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:16 am
by kevm14
Let's compare the largest to the smallest, SS vs IS-F. I have done a CTS Vsport vs SS somewhere else (probably in this thread) and even between those there were some significant differences despite the same size and weight footprint.

SS is ~250 lbs heavier than IS-F.

Wheelbase
SS: 114.8
IS-F: 107.5

Length
SS: 195.5 (only a foot longer)
IS-F: 183.5

Width
SS: 74.7
IS-F: 71.5

Height
SS: 57.9
IS-F: 55.7

Passenger volume
SS: 123.3 cu ft (I don't know how many size classes apart these are but it is at least two, maybe three)
IS-F: 86 cu ft

Front legroom
SS: 42.3"
IS-F: 43.9"

Front headroom
SS: 38.7"
IS-F 37.2"

Front hip room
SS: 57.2
IS-F: 54.1

Front shoulder room
SS: 59.1"
IS-F: 54.4"

Rear legroom
SS: 39.7"
IS-F: 30.6"

Rear headroom
SS: 38"
IS-F: 36.7"

Rear hip room
SS: 58"
IS-F: 53.7"

Rear shoulder room
SS: 59"
IS-F: 52.7"

Trunk
SS: 16.4
IS-F: 13.3