RC F automotive reviews thread
12-10-14, 09:16 AM
#586
Having now seen a few RCs in person, including the F, I am sort of shocked that Motor Trend so highly dislikes the exterior.
Maybe there are some awkward elements, such as the wide "hips" on the rear bumper, but in person, the RC has street presence and aggression unlike anything else right now. Not only is it aggressive, but I haven't met a single person who doesn't think the front end with tri-LED headlights isn't one of the best faces short of $100k. Lexus did a great job with this car, but alas, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe there are some awkward elements, such as the wide "hips" on the rear bumper, but in person, the RC has street presence and aggression unlike anything else right now. Not only is it aggressive, but I haven't met a single person who doesn't think the front end with tri-LED headlights isn't one of the best faces short of $100k. Lexus did a great job with this car, but alas, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
me...i think its awesome. just not enough doors...
12-10-14, 10:59 AM
#587
I agree, nothing revolutionary about the M4 looks, If you passed a BMW on a 2 lane road you wouldn't know what it was until you looked at the badge. M6 style would have a great one to use as a model for the M4. Im sure there are beemer fans that can tell you exactly what car it is with just one glance, Im not one of them for sure.
main issue is, people buy these type of vehicles to stand out but the M4 doesnt, looks like a other pedestrian 3/4 series with an M Sport kit. Dunno about other people but buying a car in this segment I want to stand out. The M235 and M6 is what M3/4 shouldve looked like, more aggressive. M3/4 isnt ugly, just boring.
12-10-14, 11:12 AM
#588
but has she seen DIS angle?:
Last edited by scamsel; 12-10-14 at 11:44 AM.
12-10-14, 11:44 AM
#589
I've accepted the ugliness that is the spindle. But only because I stare at it everyday. If this were a BMW forum, someone would slap that tired "Predator' picture up right now to combat that last 'nice' photo. And it's still hard to defend against it. 2nd gen GS was the GOAT (admitted bias)
Not a BMW fan by any means but design-wise I know when I see an M and I like it.
The RC 350 from the rear is stunnngly awful to look at.
I'm hoping there are quite a few design people to get fired before (if) the GS-F comes to market.
Not a BMW fan by any means but design-wise I know when I see an M and I like it.
The RC 350 from the rear is stunnngly awful to look at.
I'm hoping there are quite a few design people to get fired before (if) the GS-F comes to market.
12-10-14, 04:40 PM
#593
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
This is not definitive, but it points to the benefits of a TVD on a RWD car.
It remains to be seen if the RCF can hold onto this position. Other tracks will soon follow I am sure.
12-10-14, 04:43 PM
#594
Lexus Test Driver
What 4tehnnguyen is saying is 100% correct. 3/10ths of a second difference with an additional $10,000 carbon ceramic brakes on the M4 is 100% driver's race. Even if I ignore the carbon ceramic brakes and its lighter rotational mass, 3/10th is a photo finish. Both cars would almost be crossing the finish line at the same time.
Even Randy Pobst despite being a professional race of decades, could not get more than 3/10ths better time out of the M4. Almost all of the buyers will never have skills remotely comparable to those of Randy Pobst so that 3/10th difference is completely insignificant as they will never be able to see that on the track.
RC-F was able to put down a better lap time than the M4 without carbon ceramic brakes at the Motown mile (Road and track). Since they both had most likely different journalists drivers, it illustrates my point that the difference is insignificant and comes down to the driver.
Did I mention, M4 needed optional carbon ceramic brakes to squeeze out the extra 3/10ths?
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 12-10-14 at 04:59 PM.
12-10-14, 05:30 PM
#595
I thought you said you were leaving? So you decided to come back?
What 4tehnnguyen is saying is 100% correct. 3/10ths of a second difference with an additional $10,000 carbon ceramic brakes on the M4 is 100% driver's race. Even if I ignore the carbon ceramic brakes and its lighter rotational mass, 3/10th is a photo finish. Both cars would almost be crossing the finish line at the same time.
Even Randy Pobst despite being a professional race of decades, could not get more than 3/10ths better time out of the M4. Almost all of the buyers will never have skills remotely comparable to those of Randy Pobst so that 3/10th difference is completely insignificant as they will never be able to see that on the track.
RC-F was able to put down a better lap time than the M4 without carbon ceramic brakes at the Motown mile (Road and track). Since they both had most likely different journalists drivers, it illustrates my point that the difference is insignificant and comes down to the driver.
Did I mention, M4 needed optional carbon ceramic brakes to squeeze out the extra 3/10ths?
What 4tehnnguyen is saying is 100% correct. 3/10ths of a second difference with an additional $10,000 carbon ceramic brakes on the M4 is 100% driver's race. Even if I ignore the carbon ceramic brakes and its lighter rotational mass, 3/10th is a photo finish. Both cars would almost be crossing the finish line at the same time.
Even Randy Pobst despite being a professional race of decades, could not get more than 3/10ths better time out of the M4. Almost all of the buyers will never have skills remotely comparable to those of Randy Pobst so that 3/10th difference is completely insignificant as they will never be able to see that on the track.
RC-F was able to put down a better lap time than the M4 without carbon ceramic brakes at the Motown mile (Road and track). Since they both had most likely different journalists drivers, it illustrates my point that the difference is insignificant and comes down to the driver.
Did I mention, M4 needed optional carbon ceramic brakes to squeeze out the extra 3/10ths?
12-10-14, 05:46 PM
#596
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
The engine torque required to accelerate the spinning rotor and the brake torque required to decelerate the spinning rotor is reduced by 75%, according to experts on CCBs.
This extra torque is used to accelerate and slow the car...right?
One lap or not, it would not take much to gain 3 tenths in a lap by reducing this rotational weight. This can be defined as a performance gain.
Thoughts?
This extra torque is used to accelerate and slow the car...right?
One lap or not, it would not take much to gain 3 tenths in a lap by reducing this rotational weight. This can be defined as a performance gain.
Thoughts?
12-10-14, 06:24 PM
#597
The engine torque required to accelerate the spinning rotor and the brake torque required to decelerate the spinning rotor is reduced by 75%, according to experts on CCBs.
This extra torque is used to accelerate and slow the car...right?
One lap or not, it would not take much to gain 3 tenths in a lap by reducing this rotational weight. This can be defined as a performance gain.
Thoughts?
This extra torque is used to accelerate and slow the car...right?
One lap or not, it would not take much to gain 3 tenths in a lap by reducing this rotational weight. This can be defined as a performance gain.
Thoughts?
12-10-14, 06:46 PM
#599
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
12-10-14, 07:12 PM
#600