obturator

You stated that Toyota can't make a featherweight car. I gave you an example. You said Toyota has to borrow a Mazda engine. Well, Lotus uses a Toyota engine for their lightweight cars. I fail to see your point. You are comparing a true 2 seater with a small engine with a 4 seater with a V8.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Problem here is the chassis, not engine. They use Frankenstein chassis, front is borrowed from GS to fit V8, mid section is borrowed from ISC and rear is borrowed from 3IS. They try to save development cost and time by using a chopped chassis. What's the point of creating a high performance car when they didn't even bother making a good chassis for it?

I'm sure everyone knows Toyota can do a featherweight sportcar, they don't do it. Toyota can do a lighter, RC-F, they don't do it. They just want to make a "good enough" car, not a competent sport car. Like I said before, last time they did a light weight car, they had to ask Subaru for help because they still think about profit more than anything else. Mazda was at loss for 4-5 years, they still kept making Miata. It's more of company philosophy than their ability of making a car.

spwolf

there is a big difference between making a Mazda or Toyota and making a Lexus.
Toyota cars are pretty lightweight and still have better sound insulation than most Mazda's that strip it to lose weight.

There is no simple answer to anything, but spec racing is worst kind anyway.

cino

iTrader: (1)

It may have a bad sound insulation, but it is terribly fun as well. Many fun cars lack quietness and refinement in compensate of sportiness. Though sound road noise issue can be easily fix without adding hundreds of pounds.

RC-F is not really competing in C segment with this kind of weight. They can try again next generation.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

I thought those commercials were pretty weak. I was hoping for something "grittier."

obturator

Well, I guess the RS5, C63 AMG and M4 can't compete with the almighty Miata either since they're bloated pigs too. They'll have to try again next generation.

cino

iTrader: (1)

You took my words to literal, I think? Miata isn't a C segment car, but ATS-V, C63, M4, and RS5 are. The problem is weight penalty in RC-F makes it a bloated GT coupe. They can tune suspension so much, it will still be a pig with a lot of power. M4 has DCT, 400lb and more torque advantage while being down on power, It will still move off the line quicker and more nimble than RC-F. I don't know how much resource Toyota spent on RC chassis, but if they think it would too much to make a competitive platform, it should be the time they fire half of their engineering team. There is no good excuse for a high performance RWD C segment coupe to weight over 4000lb.

I don't care about RC-F that much, but I'm more concerned about the new Supra. Hope the rumor of them borrowing platform from BMW is true. I don't want to a half-**** effort pig Supra.

spwolf

his point was that C63 and RS5 weight the same amount as RC-F.

And my point about Mazda still stands - they are not lighter than Toyota's, and they still have a lot less sound insulation which is easily noticeable when you drive their cars. So in fact, weight is where Toyota is superior to Mazda in their vehicles.

And thats with Toyota's old recycled platforms as you say, and Mazda's latest ones.

Maybe you should talk to Mazda on how to fix their sound insulation troubles without increasing the weight... I am sure they would love to hear your input.

cino

iTrader: (1)

New C63 AMG Sedan is going to weight ~3650lb, I'm not sure how coupe going to end up 4000lb.

RS5 is AWD, and Yes I drove it, it's just a pig with fancy cloth.

RC-F is ~4050lb, 400lb more than C63 AMG Sedan and down on power and torque "most likely ~500hp".

ATS-V coupe is likely to gain 100-200lb from V6 model, which makes it ~3700lb-3800lb, it will also have the torque and hp of a turbo engined.

Beside having a vacuum machine sound, M4 is, in fact, a better driver's car than RC-F.

How Lexus is going to stack up against those cars in the segment? Driving a fast car fast is fun, I don't buy the "feel".

If you want to know about who else make bad sound insulation, you can drive any sport car. I mean everyone of sportcars. 370Z, Subiyota twins, Miata, Cayman et al.,

I'm sure 200 bucks, 25lb sound deafening material, and better set of tires will fix bad sound insulation. If you can't do it yourself, you can take it to a professional to get it done.

If you compare Mazda6 to Camry SE, Mazda6 drives better while having a little more noise issue. Would you rather take a little more quietness or a little more sportiness? You can make Mazda6 quieter with a few hundred bucks, but I'm not sure if you can add handling to Camry with that much money.

spwolf

Thats not how it works - it does not take 25lbs, otherwise all Mazda's would not have this problem.
I was just trying to show you how Mazda does not have some special low weight vehicles as they are not lighter than Toyota's at all.

I see that with Mazda6, weight is not so much important to you but the driving... then RC-F feels pretty good and gets really good track times, doesnt it?

So how can Mazda use these lightweight platforms and Toyota use old recycled cheap platforms, and yet both arrive at same weight?

Otherwise, I would buy Mazda6 rather than Camry. Unfortunately I am one of the few it seems.

cino

iTrader: (1)

What's the lightweight platform are you talking about?

Like Toyota, Mazda can make a light weight platform if they want to. Mazda 6 doesn't need to be lightweight because it's not its intended purpose. Everyone in the segment has the similar curb weight, right? Why RWD RC-F weight the same as old tech chassis AWD RS5? and weights 300lb more than anything else in the segment? It just shows how lazy engineering at Toyota is.

Toyota is able to match Mazda at family mid size segment, but they can't match Germans and American in high performance Mid-size coupe segment, Is that what you're saying? Weight is not important factor for Miata at 2500lb and Twin at 2750lb because both are relatively lightweight. Though I've been saying many times, you can't defy physics. at 4000lb, RC-F is a pig. You probably "feel" good driving it around the track at relatively high speed, but as soon as you push it, you will feel the weight.

I think we should end this topic now when I think it lightweight performance car feels better than heavy car with big gob of HP, but you think otherwise.

spwolf

Lighter is always better especially for performance, but RC-F is not just performance car... it is GT.

If I ever get car like RC, it will never ever see track. And again, let me point out that RC-F objectively is very fast and easy car to drive at track... that 0.3s difference in MT videos was tiny.

I had 2004 MRS with custom turbo setup... weight is not everything. I guess at that point you were saying how SLK is a pig because MRS is so much lighter :P.

But in reality, great drive, poor and loud cabin... 3M insulation materials never helped it much.

Infra

iTrader: (1)

All the paper stats don't translate to an enjoyable driving experience. Case in point, the Viper should be a phenomenal ride, but it's an extremely challenging car to drive. The RC-F pursued the polar opposite, and made something that anyone can drive. Some people might prefer to fight their car around the track, but that's not the philosophy of the RC-F. So, just go buy the M4 instead if that is what you are looking for.

You're arguing for something the designers of the car don't particularly care about. You can't assume your desires are their desires.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Viper is another class of car. It's not even a regular supercar. It's more like a race-breed muscle car, where it bites you if you're not careful. I've never driven a Viper, but it's not built for a typical car enthusiasts. It serves its purpose as it is, nothing more, nothing less.

RC-F in other hand falls in a competitive segment. I've never driven the new M4 either, but if it's anything similar to E92 M3, I don't think a sane person can't handle the car. I don't think M4 is any worse than RC-F.

I have no interest in any of the cars in that segment. For the money, I can find a better car to fulfill my mission. I'm more interested in the new Supra that "may be" coming out in the next few years, but if it's going to be an overweight pig as well, I'd rather look elsewhere.

Designer and engineer are two different careers. It doesn't matter what their desire is, using an overweight chopped chassis to house a high performance engine is lazy, especially when the car costs 70K.

obturator

Chopped chassis or not, a good chassis is a good chassis. The chassis has been praised, the weight, not so much. Was it lazy engineering? Maybe. Does it matter? Probably not.

You are panning a car even though you haven't driven it. If you are in to spec racing, then I can see your point. That's all for bragging rights as far as I'm concerned. To me, .3 sec in the MT hot lap comparison meant diddly squat. One can argue the difference was due to driver error. What I saw was that one car was more composed at the limits than the other when viewing the in-car cam. If fun equates to head bobbing around then have at it.