Official UK stats for the RC-F
08-14-14, 01:05 AM
#31
Pole Position
I think that slalom time and track time of the RC-F vs the M4 will be the most important comparison metric.
08-14-14, 06:52 AM
#32
Driver
Join Date: May 2014
Location: California
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to buy a car around the RC F price why not step up the price a little and go for an AMG that goes to 3 seconds range? What do you want others to think of you when you're sitting in an RC F, that you're in a "very fast luxury sports car" incorrect not fast enough
Now to think of it, I barely see any ISF models around, but I see M3 and AMG cruising around like everyday. Not trying to put down Lexus, but they need the speed to attract buyers.
Last edited by FinaLpeace; 08-14-14 at 07:01 AM.
08-14-14, 06:58 AM
#33
Lexus Test Driver
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Ever seen an IS-F against an IS350 F-Sport? On a freeway, the IS-F leaves the IS350 for the dead. As if it was on a standstill putting bus lengths. An RC-F would be faster than the IS-F. That is why I said earlier, your posts are killing brain cells.
If it was a short 60 foot race, I could buy the argument that there is not much difference since the 470 HP car would be traction limited. With some legs to stretch of 1/8th mile or more, a 1 - 1.5 second difference translates to 7 - 8 car lengths. By the 1/4 mile, all of these cars (RC-F, M4 and C63 etc.) are low-12 seconds cars. No difference whatsoever.
Somehow a 1.5 second difference does not "seem like much" to you, yet you are insisting a 3.8 - 3.9 seconds 0 - 60 mph AMG that would barely be between 1/10 to 3/10ths quicker to 60 mph than the RC-F is a better buy? This contradiction absolutely no sense.
You clearly don't have a proper sense of perspective as to how huge a gap of 1.5 seconds is (and a 16 - 17 mph difference in trap speed), which is why you are pulling things out of the air.
Ever seen an IS-F against an IS350 F-Sport? On a freeway, the IS-F leaves the IS350 for the dead. As if it was on a standstill putting bus lengths. An RC-F would be faster than the IS-F. That is why I said earlier, your posts are killing brain cells.
If it was a short 60 foot race, I could buy the argument that there is not much difference since the 470 HP car would be traction limited. With some legs to stretch of 1/8th mile or more, a 1 - 1.5 second difference translates to 7 - 8 car lengths. By the 1/4 mile, all of these cars (RC-F, M4 and C63 etc.) are low-12 seconds cars. No difference whatsoever.
Somehow a 1.5 second difference does not "seem like much" to you, yet you are insisting a 3.8 - 3.9 seconds 0 - 60 mph AMG that would barely be between 1/10 to 3/10ths quicker to 60 mph than the RC-F is a better buy? This contradiction absolutely no sense.
You clearly don't have a proper sense of perspective as to how huge a gap of 1.5 seconds is (and a 16 - 17 mph difference in trap speed), which is why you are pulling things out of the air.
Enjoy your future RC F, it's a great car, BUT you're not gonna do much in the streets/freeway. From 0-60 1-1.5 seconds difference isn't going to make your RC F a whole lot of different in the street vs an IS350
If you're going to buy a car around the RC F price why not step up the price a little and go for an AMG that goes to 3 seconds range? What do you want others to think of you when you're sitting in an RC F, that you're in a "very fast luxury sports car" incorrect not fast enough
If you're going to buy a car around the RC F price why not step up the price a little and go for an AMG that goes to 3 seconds range? What do you want others to think of you when you're sitting in an RC F, that you're in a "very fast luxury sports car" incorrect not fast enough
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-14-14 at 07:19 AM.
08-14-14, 07:32 AM
#34
Enjoy your future RC F, it's a great car, BUT you're not gonna do much in the streets/freeway. From 0-60 1-1.5 seconds difference isn't going to make your RC F a whole lot of different in the street vs an IS350
If you're going to buy a car around the RC F price why not step up the price a little and go for an AMG that goes to 3 seconds range? What do you want others to think of you when you're sitting in an RC F, that you're in a "very fast luxury sports car" incorrect not fast enough
Now to think of it, I barely see any ISF models around, but I see M3 and AMG cruising around like everyday. Not trying to put down Lexus, but they need the speed to attract buyers.
If you're going to buy a car around the RC F price why not step up the price a little and go for an AMG that goes to 3 seconds range? What do you want others to think of you when you're sitting in an RC F, that you're in a "very fast luxury sports car" incorrect not fast enough
Now to think of it, I barely see any ISF models around, but I see M3 and AMG cruising around like everyday. Not trying to put down Lexus, but they need the speed to attract buyers.
Spend more...The 2015 Mercedes C 63AMG is $60,250, 451 HP, and is spec'd at 4.4 secs for 0-60...you are clearly mislead by your information source.If you compare the baseline RCF at $77,000, to the C63 AMG baseline model, it is clearly a less expensive ride.
With the help of a carryover seven-speed automatic, the 507 Edition of the C63 runs from zero-to-60 mph in 3.9-4.1 seconds and tops out at 174...Price: $90,000+.
Sounds comparable to the RCF carbon model--just more costly.
08-14-14, 07:56 AM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
HAHA 0.4s difference. Big deal. Cant even use that power on the road anyway.
Being on this thread is like seeing grown men comparing ***** size - may as well be saying "mine is 0.4cm longer than yours"
Being on this thread is like seeing grown men comparing ***** size - may as well be saying "mine is 0.4cm longer than yours"
08-14-14, 08:07 AM
#36
LOL. All of that is speculation and assumptions.
For one, 0-60 mph is meaningless for RWD cars since it is only a measure of traction off the line. In terms of straight line speed, 1/4 mile time and trap speed is the first milestone reliable in measuring the straight line power. I reckon, RC-F would be 12.2 seconds@116 - 117 mph.
The spec sheet says, 0 - 100 km/h and not 0 - 60 mph. You do know the difference between 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h. Yes?
As far as magazine tests go, IS-F was putting down 4.2 seconds 0-60 mph. Even conservatively, if RC-F is 2/10ths quicker, that still puts it at 4.0 seconds.
Magazine numbers are with 1-foot roll outs, which are incomparable to the statistics published by the manufacturer.
For one, 0-60 mph is meaningless for RWD cars since it is only a measure of traction off the line. In terms of straight line speed, 1/4 mile time and trap speed is the first milestone reliable in measuring the straight line power. I reckon, RC-F would be 12.2 seconds@116 - 117 mph.
The spec sheet says, 0 - 100 km/h and not 0 - 60 mph. You do know the difference between 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h. Yes?
As far as magazine tests go, IS-F was putting down 4.2 seconds 0-60 mph. Even conservatively, if RC-F is 2/10ths quicker, that still puts it at 4.0 seconds.
Magazine numbers are with 1-foot roll outs, which are incomparable to the statistics published by the manufacturer.
08-14-14, 08:21 AM
#37
Somehow a 1.5 second difference does not "seem like much" to you, yet you are insisting a 3.8 - 3.9 seconds 0 - 60 mph AMG that would barely be between 1/10 to 3/10ths quicker to 60 mph than the RC-F is a better buy? This contradiction absolutely no sense.
You clearly don't have a proper sense of perspective as to how huge a gap of 1.5 seconds is (and a 16 - 17 mph difference in trap speed), which is why you are pulling things out of the air.
You clearly don't have a proper sense of perspective as to how huge a gap of 1.5 seconds is (and a 16 - 17 mph difference in trap speed), which is why you are pulling things out of the air.
08-14-14, 07:29 PM
#40
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: ON
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Canada it lists for high $60s (USD)! That's for the Type 507, which will smoke the RC F and apparently is a brilliant chassis for the track as well.
I sure hope the RC F will cost less than an M4 or a 507 C63. It's not going to outsell these cars if it doesn't cost less, since the acceleration will not be as fast.
Argue all you want guys, but people buy these cars based on 0-60! Right or wrong, they're going to ask themselves if it's fast, if it looks good, and how much it costs.
08-14-14, 07:44 PM
#41
C63 starts at 60k, then the 507 trim is another $10k. Keyword is starts at $60k then the typical german nickel and diming begins, easily bloats past 85k for basic options that the RCF has. Still charging $3k for leather, $650 for push start, $720 for paint, $1700 gas guzzler.
08-14-14, 09:39 PM
#42
Lexus Test Driver
How do you know the RC-F will be slower?
The C63 507 does the 1/4 mile in 12.2 seconds@117 mph. There is no proof whatsoever that the RC-F will be slower especially around the race track. It is a newer and a technology more superior engineered car very likely better suited for the track.
You claiming the RC-F is slower, is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Also, there is no way a C63 AMG 507 costs high $60K. That is ridiculous. The C63 AMG starts at $77,000.
The C63 507 does the 1/4 mile in 12.2 seconds@117 mph. There is no proof whatsoever that the RC-F will be slower especially around the race track. It is a newer and a technology more superior engineered car very likely better suited for the track.
You claiming the RC-F is slower, is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Also, there is no way a C63 AMG 507 costs high $60K. That is ridiculous. The C63 AMG starts at $77,000.
Not correct. The C63 507 costs less than the RC F will. Check the list price in the US, it's high $60s.
In Canada it lists for high $60s (USD)! That's for the Type 507, which will smoke the RC F and apparently is a brilliant chassis for the track as well.
I sure hope the RC F will cost less than an M4 or a 507 C63. It's not going to outsell these cars if it doesn't cost less, since the acceleration will not be as fast.
Argue all you want guys, but people buy these cars based on 0-60! Right or wrong, they're going to ask themselves if it's fast, if it looks good, and how much it costs.
In Canada it lists for high $60s (USD)! That's for the Type 507, which will smoke the RC F and apparently is a brilliant chassis for the track as well.
I sure hope the RC F will cost less than an M4 or a 507 C63. It's not going to outsell these cars if it doesn't cost less, since the acceleration will not be as fast.
Argue all you want guys, but people buy these cars based on 0-60! Right or wrong, they're going to ask themselves if it's fast, if it looks good, and how much it costs.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-14-14 at 09:53 PM.
08-14-14, 10:03 PM
#43
i think most of us are talking about USD here
http://mbworld.org/forums/mercedes-v...ase-cheap.html
"The only options on the car are AMG illuminated door sills and the headlight package- $73k sticker when new"
for sure it doesn't start at 77k
http://mbworld.org/forums/mercedes-v...ase-cheap.html
"The only options on the car are AMG illuminated door sills and the headlight package- $73k sticker when new"
for sure it doesn't start at 77k
08-14-14, 10:59 PM
#45
i think most of us are talking about USD here
http://mbworld.org/forums/mercedes-v...ase-cheap.html
"The only options on the car are AMG illuminated door sills and the headlight package- $73k sticker when new"
for sure it doesn't start at 77k
http://mbworld.org/forums/mercedes-v...ase-cheap.html
"The only options on the car are AMG illuminated door sills and the headlight package- $73k sticker when new"
for sure it doesn't start at 77k
