Close

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,737
    Rep Points
    41,035.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411


    Yes Reputation No

    The 2016 Lexus GS F is prepared to go toe to toe with nobody - GS F vs. Audi S6 vs. Cadillac CTS V-Sport

    We joked last year that the Lexus GS F arrived just in time to fight last decade's mid-size sport sedan battle. That statement rings true in the wake of MotorTrend's test results for the 'high performance' Lexus sedan. They did not even put it up against the best that Audi and Cadillac have to offer.

    Click here to enlarge

    Oh no, instead of the heavyweights the GS F goes up against the middleweights. As you well know Cadillac has the monster CTS-V and Audi's RS7 is nothing to toy with. Well, actually, the GS F can not play with any brands top performing sport sedan. The M5 would crush it, the CTS-V would crush it, the E63 AMG would crush it, the RS7 would crush it, the Panamera Turbo S would crush it, and the Jaguar XFR-S would easily have its way with the Lexus as well.

    Somewhat amusingly MotorTrend put up comparison figures from over a decade ago of the CTS-V, RS6, and the top lexus GS at the time:

    2005 Cadillac CTS-V 2003 Audi RS 6 2001 Lexus GS 430
    ENGINE 5.7L V-8; 400 hp/395 lb-ft 4.2L twin-turbo V-8; 444 hp/413 lb-ft 4.3L V-8; 300 hp/
    325 lb-ft
    TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual 5-speed automatic 5-speed automatic
    0-60 MPH 4.7 seconds 4.3 seconds 5.9 seconds
    QUARTER MILE 13.1 seconds @ 109.8 mph 12.6 seconds
    @ 108.6 mph
    13.9 seconds
    @ 103.2 mph
    FIGURE EIGHT 25.6 seconds @ 0.72 g (avg) N/A N/A


    The 2005 Cadillac CTS-V and the 2003 Audi RS6 clobbered the GS 430 and the funny thing is would be a better matchup for the 2016 GS F than the 2016 CTS-V or 2016 RS6/RS7.

    So why in the hell does the GS F cost $85k? It is almost $15k more in base price than the Audi S6 or CTS V-Sport. Does it perform slightly better? Well, it gets less than a mile per hour of trap speed on the S6 which beats it to the 1/4 mile mark. The S6 impressively also gets to 60 in 3.8 seconds.

    The CTS and the S6 both have turbocharged powerplants. All it takes is a tune for either one of them to blow the GS F so far away the straightline argument becomes pointless. As the GS F is naturally aspirated it does not lend itself anywhere near as well to extracting any further power. If you are into tuning or aftermarket performance, cross it off your list immediately.

    That said the naturally aspirated V8 powerplant is nice to see despite the competition all going to forced induction. If a 1999 BMW E39 M5 were included in the competition the GS F V8 would look quite good. Then again, we would be comparing it to a BMW M V8 of the same displacement from almost two decades ago and the GS F just barely outpaces it. To be honest, the E39 M5 is better balanced and has a manual transmission. Considering the value today it really is a better buy for an enthusiast.

    If a BMW M5 from the 90's is a better driving sports sedan what good is the GS F really especially when you factor in the money? MotorTrend says as much themselves:

    The GS F at first glance seems destined for comparison tests with the Audi RS 7 or Cadillac CTS-V, yet its V-8 just doesn’t hang with the big boys. Bringing the GS F to a CTS-V and RS 7 comparison test would be like bringing a squirt gun to a bazooka fight.
    Our advice? If you really want a naturally aspirated V8 sedan go get the E39 M5 because despite being older it's better. Give it modern rubber and an updated suspension and the M5 will be the more satisfying drive.

    If you really want to spend $85k+ just go get the Cadillac CTS-V. If the V-Sport is chosen as better here imagine how much better the CTS-V is. It actually starts at a slightly lower base price and has the performance a top of the line luxury sedan in 2016 is expected to have.

    The Lexus does not deserve second place in this comparison. It does not even deserve second place if compared to a top Cadillac or Audi performance sedan from 10 years ago. The GS F just flat out is fighting the luxury performance sedan battle from a decade ago and that is embarrassing.

    Back to the drawing board Lexus.

    Click here to enlarge

    Third Place: Audi S6

    As close a third-place finish as could be, the S6 is a little too soft for our tastes, but it’s a stellar car nonetheless.

    Second Place: Lexus GS F

    If this comparison test were purely about performance, the tightly wound GS F would have rightfully won the gold.

    First Place: Cadillac CTS V-Sport

    Yeah, GM has been winning lots of awards lately, but when you’re churning out fantastic world-beating cars such as the CTS V-Sport, praise is warranted.


    2016 Audi S6 4.0T quattro 2016 Cadillac CTS V-Sport 2016 Lexus GS F
    POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
    DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, RWD Front-engine, RWD
    ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads
    VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
    DISPLACEMENT 243.7 cu in/3,993 cc 217.5 cu in/3,564 cc 303.2 cu in/4,969 cc
    COMPRESSION RATIO 10.0:1 10.2:1 12.3:1
    POWER (SAE NET) 444 hp @ 5,800 rpm 420 hp @ 5,750 rpm* 467 hp @ 7,100 rpm
    TORQUE (SAE NET) 406 lb-ft @ 1,400 rpm 430 lb-ft @ 3,500 rpm* 389 lb-ft @ 4,800 rpm
    REDLINE 6,500 rpm 6,500 rpm 7,300 rpm
    WEIGHT TO POWER 9.9 lb/hp 9.5 lb/hp 8.8 lb/hp
    TRANSMISSION 7-speed twin-clutch auto. 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic
    AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.09:1/2.12:1 2.85:1/1.97:1 2.94:1/2.01:1
    SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
    STEERING RATIO 16.1:1 15.4:1 13.2:1
    TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.2 2.3 2.8
    BRAKES, F; R 15.7-in vented disc; 14.0-in vented disc, ABS 13.6-in vented disc; 12.4-in vented disc, ABS 15.0-in vented, grooved disc; 13.6-in vented, grooved disc, ABS
    WHEELS 8.5 x 20 in, cast aluminum 8.5 x 18 in; 9.5 x 18 in, cast aluminum 9.0 x 19 in; 10.0 x 19 in, forged aluminum
    TIRES 255/35R20 97Y Pirelli P Zero 245/40R18 93Y; 275/35R18 95Y Pirelli P Zero (runflat) 255/35ZR19 92Y; 275/35ZR19 96Y Michelin Pilot Super Sport
    DIMENSIONS
    WHEELBASE 114.8 in 114.6 in 112.2 in
    TRACK, F/R 63.6/63.2 in 61.4/61.7 in 61.2/61.4 in
    LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 194.4 x 73.8 x 56.8 in 195.5 x 72.2 x 57.2 in 193.5 x 72.6 x 56.7 in
    TURNING CIRCLE 39.0 ft 36.7 ft 36.8 ft
    CURB WEIGHT 4,392 lb 4,007 lb 4,090 lb
    WEIGHT DIST, F/R 57/43 % 52/48 % 53/47 %
    SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 5
    HEADROOM, F/R 37.2/37.8 in 42.6/35.4 in 38.0/37.8 in
    LEGROOM, F/R 41.3/37.4 in 39.2/37.5 in 40.6/32.8 in
    SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 57.5/56.3 in 56.9/54.8 in 57.2/55.7 in
    CARGO VOLUME 14.1 cu ft 13.7 cu ft 14.0 cu ft
    TEST DATA
    ACCELERATION TO MPH
    0-30 1.3 sec 1.8 sec 1.8 sec
    0-40 2.0 2.6 2.5
    0-50 2.8 3.5 3.4
    0-60 3.8 4.7 4.4
    0-70 5.1 5.9 5.7
    0-80 6.4 7.3 7.0
    0-90 7.9 9.0 8.5
    0-100 9.9 11.0 10.3
    PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.0 2.2 2.0
    QUARTER MILE 12.4 sec @ 111.4 mph 13.1 sec @ 109.0 mph 12.8 sec @ 112.2 mph
    BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 112 ft 107 ft 109 ft
    LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.91 g (avg) 0.93 g (avg) 0.95 g (avg)
    MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.9 sec @ 0.77 g (avg) 24.7 sec @ 0.80 g (avg) 24.3 sec @ 0.81 g (avg)
    TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,850 rpm 1,550 rpm 1,600 rpm
    CONSUMER INFO
    BASE PRICE $71,825 $71,445 $85,390
    PRICE AS TESTED $80,800 $73,045 $86,770
    STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
    AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee
    BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles
    POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 6 yrs/70,000 miles 6 yrs/70,000 miles
    ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/unlimited miles 6 yrs/70,000 miles 4 yrs/unlimited miles
    FUEL CAPACITY 19.8 gal 19.0 gal 17.4 gal
    EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 18/27/21 mpg 16/24/19 mpg 16/24/19 mpg
    ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 187/125 kW-hrs/100 miles 211/140 kW-hrs/100 miles 211/140 kW-hrs/100 miles
    CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.92 lb/mile 1.03 lb/mile 1.03 lb/mile
    REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB N/A 19.9/27.4/22.7 mpg 20.2/27.8/23.0 mpg
    RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Unleaded premium
    *SAE certified



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,193
    Rep Points
    3,261.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    They priced the GS-F too high. They could have put the CTS-V in the comparo, it has a lower msrp than the Lexus.

    Why does Toyota keep recycling the same old V8. They have loads of cash, can they not develop a new turbo V8?
    Last edited by BlackJetE90OC; 03-11-2016 at 11:17 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,737
    Rep Points
    41,035.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    They priced the GS-F too high. They could have put the CTS-V in the comparo, it has a lower msrp than the Lexus.
    Exactly.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    Why does Toyota keep recycling the same old V8. They have loads of cash, can they not develop a new turbo V8?
    I wondered why Audi recycled that 4.2 NA FSI V8 forever.

    Toyota wants to maximize profit. Even though they have boatloads of cash they seem to think this is 'enough' for the GS. It isn't if they want F to stand for anything other than Forgotten.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,055
    Rep Points
    863.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    if they want F to stand for anything other than Forgotten.
    Every single time I see a new RCF I think about how neat the styling is then remember its base price is 15,000 more than a fully loaded S5 where I live and has none of the tuning potential...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,737
    Rep Points
    41,035.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nbrigdan Click here to enlarge
    Every single time I see a new RCF I think about how neat the styling is then remember its base price is 15,000 more than a fully loaded S5 where I live and has none of the tuning potential...
    Maybe F is for Failure then?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •