When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
my friend who tested the RCF for Lexus during development said the RCF ride much better than the ISF and has more grip in the corners. He said the ride quality is a world better than the choppiness of the ISF . Luckily I live in AZ and dont care about ruff roads.....we dont have them
Ride quality is not high on the priority list for this type of car (Unless we're talking Viper levels of discomfort). I enjoyed thoroughly the roughness in the IS-F. It's enough to remind me that I'm not in a GT cruiser. My take is that things like weight and ride quality in itself is not an issue on paper until it becomes detrimental to the performance of the car. Seems like the other heavy beasts are able to hide their weight much more effectively than the RC-F for whatever reason.
Originally Posted by chris6878
My isf with IHE pulls harder than both the m4 and rc4. Now once some upgrades are out for the m4 and rcf im sure they will be real monsters.
With IHE it's not really apples to apples. How did the R-F feel compared to the IS-F in terms of overall driving experience?
I need more time to write a better review..but I will be honest from the Lexus test drive event..I am planning on selling the ISF for the RCF in next 2 years. For the short time in the RCF it is much better, traction, power delivery, experiance, braking, cornering and I did push quite hard to drift around the corner (the instructor okayed).. I was VERY impresed. I drove the M4 right after, and keep in mind I never would track but am a very very spirited road driver, the M4 very harsh on the test track at sam houston race park, exhaust tone was deformed ofcoarse due to turbos but Ive heard much better from the porsche turbo etc. power delivery was not as "stern" as the rcf. Also, I cannot understand in BMW right mind how they have not fancied the interior it is very bad in comparison to the Lexus (they really need to get it together in the cabin of the M4 quite dissapointed) no gadgets, charm, or proper glamour). I was very impressed with RCF, not sure what the editors have been comparing RCF to...I could not "tell" the 400 ibs difference, but yes IMAGINE the RCF 400 ibs lighter........
Also, with Headers and Exhaust I have a feeling the RCF will eat us...But, that is an assumption of feel..it will be interesting to see the outcome of such mods. (Note I understand performance parameters and physics of both setups but the car was that good..and I have driven quite a few cars to have a good basis for such claim.) I would say it is worth the money now for sure..
So the Sam Houston course was rough? No doubt the RC F would shine there. Randy Pobst's comments about how soft the RC F is would tend to make me believe Lexus specifically chose a venue where a soft suspension would have an advantage. The IS F from 2008 would not fare well there either.
I took that into consideartion. My 2008 with Tein coilovers just going through the parking lot reminded me of exactly how the M4 felt. But, again in respect to the spirited street driver and capability to handle the track in sport + was commendable and as we have seen by recent reports M4 vs. RCF.. I would take the RCF's suspension its quite remarkable...comparing against porsche turbo in sport +, M4, 650i, corevette etc..and to be such a competitor across the board and be so smooth ..My OPINION goes to RCF as commendable and job well done.. Even if they did pic a smoother track that would have just made the M4 seem smoother and had missed the opportunity to see the RCF truly shine...Thus, im glad they picked such a parking lot. Because I can vouch in Houston and many areas as such that is our real world reality of terrain.
I drove an RC F at the west palm beach raceway event a few weekends ago. The RC F felt very powerful and smooth. The seats were amazingly comfortable, including the suspension. All throughout I felt something was holding it back. Putting it all together now, it was definitely the weight. It definitely handles very nicely in the corners. Interior wise it blows the M4 out of the water, it looks and feels amazing. Not enough to run and trade my IS F unfortunately.
I want to start this thread by first saying I'm not out to bash RC-F or M4 they are both fantastic cars. I'm very interested on how IS-F stand up against these two new beast. So let's look at some numbers. In order to keep data as accurate as possible, I took data from Motor Trends review of IS-F, RC-F And M4 I didn't want data from two different sources
RC-F IS-F M4
0-60mph 0-60mph 0-60 mph
4.3 4.3 4.0
1/4 mi 1/4 mi 1/4 mi
12.7 112.2 12.7 113.4 12.2 117.8
60-0 Braking
107ft 105ft. 98ft
Figure 8 Figure 8 Figure 8
24.9 0.80g 24.8 0.79g 24.2 0.84g
lateral acceleration
0.92g 0.96g 0.98g
On streets of willowspring RC-F vs M4
1:24.05. 1:23.73
that's a difference of three tenths between RCF and the m4. Even though M4 had better #s in all categories RC-F was able to hold its own on track and nearly caught M4. Thank tech for allowing RC-F to make up some lost ground to bad it's not lighter.
What I find even more interesting are numbers between RC-F and IS-F there almost identical actually IS-F has better numbers of two if you go by MT , even with all new tech torque vectoring differential, track modes, bigger brakes, better chassis suspension and steering.
I do believe RC-F will have better steering, handling, chassis feel than ISF, the in RC-F interior blows away ISF all the new tech is fantastic. And like IS-F it has it own unique look love or hate it.
What hurts the performance of the RCF? ONE thing and one thing only 400 pounds of extra weight. You can get around it no matter what. This goes to show you all the tech in the world still can't get around that excess weight. RCF weighs more than GT-R, now that tech did help in keep it just 3 tenths slower than M4 at willowspring but imagine how it would do if it were just 300 pounds lighter.
So I'll just hold on to my ISF for now with my current mods of headers, exhaust and intake, and being 200 lbs lighter, just on pure performance numbers alone my ISF is right in par with stock RC-F and if I add some Fig's suspension components along with a set of KW's coilovers that's when it get interesting.
It does not make sense. You are making an analysis based on one source. We know the RCF will run a 3.9, and there are no numbers on an official carbon TVD. I doubt any of the MT numbers are even based on a production car.
It does not make sense. You are making an analysis based on one source. We know the RCF will run a 3.9, and there are no numbers on an official carbon TVD. I doubt any of the MT numbers are even based on a production car.
Where have you seen an RCF run a 3.9? That doesn't sound right at all considering the car weighs close to 4,000lbs and it has some extra hp and torque to make up for it. I'd definitely say maybe a 4.2 at the lowest on a good day. I know maybe you are trying to feel better about you purchasing an RCF but you have to come to terms in reality here. That car is not going to break lower than a 4 sec 0-60 time and a 12ish second 1/4 mile. It's heavy! Even in the carbon form, you are not dropping a significant amount of weight to get much quicker times.
It's not just the RCF numbers that seem suspect by some posters. Motortrend is reporting a 4.5 0 to 60 time for the ISF and a 12.9 second quarter with a 111 MPH for the quartermile. Lexus reports stock 4.6s 0 to 60 afterall, I've gotten around 4.5s on my drag test - no way I'm getting 4.3s stock.
I think all 3 can take a lesson from MB interior. RCF interior being better is pretty subjective. I'm kind of pissed they went away from the ISF design into more of the predator/squid face loo
With the Cadillac ATS-V having just being announced we might as well add that to the mix. This car on paper at least will squash everything in our class including the IS-F, M3/4, RC-F, C63, RS5, etc and they have BOTH sedan and coupe option. Now why did Lexus kill the IS-F and add weight the the RC-F!?
455 hp
445 lb-ft of torque
3700ish Curb weight
0-60 in 3.9
190+mph top speed
14.5"/13.3" Brembos
Magnetic Ride Control
6MT or 8AT with performance shifting
Standard CF hood
Optional CF components
Optional track package with data recorder
I am really hoping ( I still think its safe to assume) that the ISF will return to battle the M3 sedan and now the new ATS. There is no way Lexus will sit this one out.........they better not
DAAAMMMN !!! That ATS has crazy torque. The numbers look amazing !
I also drove the RC-F and the M4 at the Lexus event in Houston last Saturday. I'm not a seasoned track guy by any means. I'm a veteran of spirited driving sorties when the right opportunity presents itself and that's about it.
I went around the track first in the M4 with one of the professional drivers that were chaperoning everyone around the track; he drove first. The M4 had more steering and road feedback and felt raw to me. Braking and cornering were impressive. I had plenty of room in the car and the seats were comfortable (I'm 6'4"). In my runs in the M4, the turbo barely had time to kick in during the initial WOT starts, which was disappointing. The M4 exhaust note left a lot to be desired. The M4 power didn't overwhelm me, nor did the interior; it was plain. On the other hand, when my wife and I arrived at the track before registration, the track was buzzing with test drives, and it sounded like a swarm of IS-F's. My wife and I just looked at each other and grinned.
The RC-F had better instant on-demand power and throttle response during track runs to me that the M4. The interior was sleek and impressive. The lines are impressive. We both loved the seats. Plenty of leg and head room just like my IS-F. Initial RC-F WOT starts felt just as powerful as the IS-F, but not more so. Braking and cornering were impressive. The overall ride in the RC-F felt more refined, which was expected.
I asked the professional driver (who test drives for all of the manufacturers) his opinion on the two cars. He said that if he was going to buy a fun car strictly for the track, he would buy an M4. If he was going to buy a fun car to drive everyday, he would buy the RC-F.
Like some have said, the RC-F is a great new car and is impressive, especially getting to drive it in a side-by-side comparison with the M4. But, it's not enough of a difference to make me want to trade my IS-F for it. I'll keep what I have, and mine is bone stock.
11-14-14, 06:33 PM
