4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

you do realize that other luxury V8 coupes C63 AMG and RS5 weigh similar to the RCF, yet people dont fault them.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i think my issue has to do with how lexus emphasize so much on their weight philosophy and then how people (pro or anti lexus) have skewed it

c63 and rs5 they are both couple of years old already, i think we are looking at improvements these days, and by that the rcf is a heavy car no matter what. people fault the 5 series as a heavy car the moment they said it's based on 7 series chassis and the weight numbers were out. i am not talking about performance, i am talking simple on the notion of weight itself.

on the other hand, lexus has focused so much on weight. lfa is pretty light everyone knows, and lexus pride themselves so much on the 4gs being quite light, and obviously lexus fans praise on that so much too.

with all that, and suddenly the rcf comes in this heavy on a chopped chassis because of cost (which i completely understand), i think it is not surprising on the criticism. fact is, with their knowledge, if lexus actually built a new coupe platform for the rcf, i think it will be quite a bit lighter

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

The 5-Series is heavier no doubt, but to be fair even a 535i light on it's feet when it comes to acceleration and the underrated 3.0 I6

I can def see a future lightweight modular platform

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i think bmw learned their lesson well, to me there is a reason why they worked so much on the weight of the new m3/4. lexus is doing well and i think once they take the cost out of the picture (somehow) they are on track.

mb is the one, i never feel like they bother much with weight

spwolf

Question is what is the improvement in daily life... is it more comfortable and does it drive better than regular IS?

In reality, RC350 is 3748lbs. IS350 is 3600lbs. Difference is not that big.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

would be more expensive to have to develop a new chassis

cino

iTrader: (1)

You probably haven't read through the string? I'm not sure why you fault me when you haven't read through everything I've said?

I mentioned above the new C63 AMG Sedan weights 3,615 lbs and C63 S is at 3,648 lbs. You don't think coupe version can be 400lb over sedan, do you?

I did also mentioned that RS5 is a pig. It doesn't matter it has AWD.

Since this is a thread about RC-F, I only talk in detail about RC-F. I'm not against Toyota as a company. In fact I like Toyota best, but this car isn't something for an enthusiast like me.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Define good chassis. I'm too young to drive a luxury boat, so a comfortable ride isn't priority, though I don't think M4 is any more uncomfortable compare to RC-F.

I admit, I've never driven the car, but having driven many cars since I was 12-13, from small roadster to full-size truck with some high performance cars in between, I don't think weight has anything to do with spec racing and it's always a big plus from performance stand point, which is where those cars stand. In fact, Lexus is the one should be called spec racer making more powerful engine, but disappointing with clumsy chassis.

You can accept RC-F as it is, but I personally think their best isn't good enough. They can try again with IS-F. If rumor about V6 TT IS-F is correct, I hope it finds in way into the new Supra with BMW CF reinforced chassis.

spwolf

well, once again, if we look at track results, RC-F with 400lbs more is easier to drive than M4 with carbon brakes ($13k more expensive) and gets really close numbers to it.

Its definitely not bad chassis.

And M4 has things removed to save weight compared to regular 4... for instance, there is no underhood insulation at all, it is completely removed while RC-F is completely covered. You will probably find a lot of these examples if we took the cars apart.


What you are doing is magazine/spec racing... it is not worth commenting on. Try both cars and tells us what you think.

If you are not interested into trying the car, then dont try to write about expecting everyone will agree with you.

baddis es

iTrader: (3)

exactly this...we can probably say 25% or so will truly utilize these significant aspects of the car to their potential. majority of RCF, C63, M4, RS owners just enjoy having the best offering for that model, and will likely commute it as they would any other car they owned or purchased.

unless you plan to purchase this car and track it weekly, a lot of your points are pretty irrelevant IMO

just enjoy what was made and even if you feel it is a half-hearted attempt, the reviews are pointing otherwise, for the most part. the RC is going to be a hit, and the RC-F will follow-suit just as the IS-F did. plenty ridicule up front, only to be a successful offering since its release.

cino

iTrader: (1)

I take it as you've not driven RC-F either, how do you know if RC-F is any better car to drive. Like I said, everyone has their own priority, being too easy to drive doesn't mean it's good. IMO RWD platform should be playful while being controllable.

I'm expressing opinion, not asking/convincing people to agree. Forums are made for debating if you don't like it, don't response. Don't go personal on someone because of a car.

Diego@Vossen

UDel

I wonder what happened.

Media test drive in Japan cancelled do to lack of interest?

http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...ck-of-interest

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

if it was a micro vehicle with hello kitty the media would come out. They dont seem to care about fast cars much anymore

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

3963# for the old AMG
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...07-test-review

Even the new Mustang is over 3800#. This is the nature of V8 cars now. This 3600# number for the new V8 is based on euro spec. Remember when euro specs said the new M3 would be 3300#. Then it really weighed almost 3700#. The new V8 AMG isnt going to be ~3600# thats lighter than an IS350