dojoman

iTrader: (5)

Autoblog First Drive

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/05/2...-drive-review/

Motor

And so it begins...

mso4

iTrader: (1)

Now you have my attention, go on . . . lol

Actually I never thought about that, manufacturers always underestimate their 0-60 times. I guess I should hold my judgement until we get a full on comparison. But for this kind of dough I expect at least a 4 sec time.

And I agree, BMW historically makes great driving cars. Yet their engineers are so clueless about how to keep them reliable. It's as if they don't understand the concept of reliability.

flowrider

iTrader: (9)

Here:

http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...n=awdailydrive

Lou

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

lol so evo mag says the engine didnt feel strong at high rpm and it felt overburdened yet this guy who remembers driving the ISF says it pinned him into the seat and pulled harder than the ISF did. Says a whole lot about Evo Magazine.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Nothing here I didn't expect to see. And yes, I'm extremely disappointed at the heft. It was the first thing on my list of, I hope they get this right. The Veyron and the GTR are the only overweight cars whose performance outshines their massive weight. The IS-F was heavy, and it was compromised by using an existing platform not known for being svelte. The RCF has no excuse for all the weight. I have no doubt the M4 will crush it at the Lightning Lap (if there is one this year).

Joe Z

iTrader: (10)

Though call I agree...

Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)

This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"

Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..

AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..

~ Joe Z

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

6% improvement in power to weight, but no gains in midcorner speed unless we add TVD. I'd bet a lot of money a 2014 IS-F with the same width Michelin tires as the RCF would out run it at the track unless the IS-F had a passenger.

ISF001

It is easy to see from the mule videos at Nurburgring that the RCF will eat up the ISF on the track. Sorry, but there is no way any of our ISF's, stock for stock, corner the way the RCF does with TVD. Trust me: there will be comparisons, and we'll see the results.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything about engineering, so let me first say that. I'm also willing and open to being educated about stuff like this, but here are my concerns:

2IS platform is now ten years old and supported a sedan (four doors). The skunkworks team probably had to significantly reinforce the chassis to accommodate the V8 and extra performance equipment, and they still rang in at 3,780lbs.

Ten years forward, a car with two doors (weight savings in itself), with all of the new weight-saving technology that has been developed, using the same basic engine and transmission... how is the RC F not at least the same weight? In theory, it seems like it should actually be a little lighter.

This story about molding together three platforms seems crazy, and I would imagine, probably adds a lot of (unnecessary) weight and complexity to the RC. Why this car could not have been built mostly off the GS or IS platform is so bizarre to me. Many people said that IS C was compromised and soft to accommodate the hardtop... so how did Lexus arrive at the conclusion of using THAT as the core for the RC? Someone made a comment that the IS C was used as the core because it was already so reinforced... yes... but for a convertible. Is that necessary for RC F coupe? Again, they know more than I do, but I am left scratching my head.

After getting the 3IS and 4GS so right, and with them being universally praised for handling and (GS) for being so light... how do we arrive at 4,000lb+ RC F?

3,780lb RC F would have probably been 0-60 in 4 seconds, returned 17/26/21 MPG, and been much better to drive.

Maybe I really don't understand what I am talking about? Entirely possible.

ISF001

In the content of all this automotive engineering talk, it might we worth while adding another very critical factor--fun--why I am buying the car.

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...o-reviews.html

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

RCF is almost 2 inches longer and wider than an ISF, throw in TVD, its wasnt ever going to be lighter. So 158 lbs seems reasonable over the 3800# ISF. Not to mention 255/275 tires vs 225/255 tires and bigger brakes. Losing 2 doors doesnt mean weight savings, M3/M4 literally weigh 10-20 lbs apart. Im confident the RCF will kill the ISF on the track between the higher/broader torque and power curve, TVD, and the wider tires. Who knows what other software tweaks to the driveability there are vs the ISF have been done.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

not necessarily. the e46 and e9x m3 they are all NA, when you nail on it you get very pushed to the seat and you feel how fast you are going. granted i think it has to do with louder cabin (less insulation) but it is there

a lot of the concerns have to do with weight, which is also my big concern too looking at spec. i will have to wait till i drive the car (and also compare to rc350) before i can make good judgment

in a way, i am ok if the rcf doesn't yield better lap time than m4. it's disappointing, but i am ok. it's not like i expect better lap times in the c63 anyway. if lexus makes the rcf and try to make it a fun car, that's what i will go after. the problem with isf was it was on an existing platform so the car was not as balanced, it's much harder to drive compared to e90 m3. if lexus can make the rcf easy to drive and easy to have fun, i think that's good.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

those didnt have dying torque curves after 5500 rpm either

ISF001

Yaguchi uses the Porsche 911 as a point of comparison for the development of the ISF and most likely the RCF. The 911 is not the fastest car in town, but it's an outstanding ride.

If someone wants an unmanageable road rocket, go by the new Viper.