bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

rc-f wasn't any match for the other two.

example:

0-60
RC-F 4.88
ATS-V 4.32
M4 3.97

1/4 mile
RC-F 13.12
ATS-V 12.41
M4 12.05

full info:
http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/com...oupe-challenge

mmarshall

Too bad the Audi S5/RS5 is temporarily out of the picture....until the replacement comes. It was, IMO, one of the best-looking coupes of all, minus the oversized Audi grille, although whether it could keep up with these three rockets on the track is a good question.

i can see why they didn't pick a Mercedes AMG. The 2-door Mercedes AMG coupes are all in a higher price and/or size-range, and the CLA AMG "coupe" in this price/size range is not a true coupe, but has 4 doors....also seems to list for quite a bit less.

Toys4RJill

I always thought the Lexus F cars are a little underwhelming.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

turbo cars beating an NA car bad at 2000 foot elevation, cool story

mmarshall

All else equal, though, this time of year, even at comparably low altitudes, with warm and sometimes muggy conditions creating a high density-altitude, is usually even worse on a N/A engine's power than a turbo.

LH1

Holy crap on the M4!! Under 4 sec 0-60 and 12.05 @ 118 Looks like BMW laid the smack down again on its competitors. That being said I really like the ATS-V. Just wish GM stuck a V8 in there.



I'm starting to feel the same way. The GS F will clearly be 4th place behind an M5, E63 and the CTS-V. Lexus is like 10 years too late to the party. Would the GS F even be able to beat out an E39 M5 from 2000 in a mag comparo? Probably not.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

The E39 M5 is my favorite M5 of all time, but it's too outdated. I would place the GS-F between the E39 and E60.

spwolf

interesting that they said it is harshest and hardest to drive on track, kind of goes opposite of everything we have heard so far.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

M4 must have launch control. I'd have thought the ATS-V would be the straight line champ with more hp and torque than the BMW and similar weight.

As mentioned above, missing C63 AMG and RS5 in this test.

Sounds like the ATS-V could have won, same luxury touches, uber performance and great daily abilities. The BMW being the same probably got the edge based on its history and merits. To be honest I don't think you can go wrong with any of these three. None are perfect but all are sure to put a smile on your face.

gengar

The worst thing about it is that lesser spec times would be completely forgivable if the RC-F were a more engaging drive than its competitors, but we already know that not to be true either.

A ~5% hp loss compared to the turbo at that altitude is not going to make up for the huge straight line discrepancy. We are talking nearly a full second slower 0-60, and a full second slower in the 1/4 mi.

I'm just about the last person on this forum to care about spec times, but 4.88s? That's pathetic. Any chump could vbox under 4.6 in the 2008 IS-F in fully automatic mode, and that's 0-100km/h too.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

they were trying to brake torque and getting flashing lights also, something wasnt right. We've seen plenty of tests and know its more capable than the times they pulled.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

4.3 on motortrend, but that means it still gets stomped on by the m4. can't beat physics.

http://wot.motortrend.com/1409_lexus...s_clocked.html

Infra

iTrader: (1)

4.88s seems quite terrible given that people were getting under 5s in 2nd gen. IS350 (with just intake and exhaust because there is no ECU tuning on that car).

doge

No C63 in this comparo?

gengar

The motorweek comparo was advertised as a coupe test.