05RollaXRS

DCT issues are the big elephant in the room. The issues get swept under the rug.

There are many Ferrari 458 Italia on FerrariChat that are on their 3rd DCTs after 2 consecutive failures, the E92/E90 M3 M-DCT is notorious for hesitation issues in DCT.

In racing, they say racing teams don't touch them with a ten foot pole because of complexity, weight, packaging and durability issues especially in high-revving applications.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

to me dct still has some way to go before they really mature. the idea is not bad but design is tough.

but at the same time to make cars more "suitable" for street driving (which is like 90% of them), dct is smoother. single clutch and fast shifting, no fun

ISF001

Some of the reviewers felt the new RCF tranny was as fast as a double...

MK4Sup_isF

iTrader: (10)

No where did I mentioned about the wait list. I was just referring to your quote of "a bunch of" unregistered ones for sale. I believed that I have only seen one unregistered for sale with delivery mileage. The rest of the unregistered LFAs were all having a decent amount of miles on them. That was why I gave the example if Lexus of Westminstet's owner unregistered LFA with dealer plate running around. You are from OC too, I'm not sure if you have seen it around or not. I'm only a few mins away from the dealer so I have seen it often

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i will have to drive it to see how fast it is. but they said something similar on the isf too, however it's nothing close. response time is important too. on the isf, up shift is very fast, i like it. but from the time i flip the pedal to the actually down shift and blipping occurs, there's this lag that i don't experience in the m3.

i definitely hope to see improvement in the rcf

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

there is a reason why the new vette z06 coming out has the same tranny design as the isf/rcf

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

DCTs have low speed smoothness issues. The DCT the acura TLX uses actually has a torque converter to be used at low speeds.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ed%20jerkiness

begone

So I've read a ton of back and forth arguments... Here's my take.

This car actually competes with the rs5 better than the m4 imo. But just like the rs5 will inevitably always go head to head with the M, so will the AMG and this RC F.

I also remember how down magazines were on the isf in the beginning...too many gears, traditional autobox, not a great track car, too rough a ride, etc... but it quickly earned it's rank among this class and we all seem to adore it, just as we will the RC F.

I'm a car enthusiast, plain and simple. I currently own an e92 m3, I'm only siked about the m4 cause of the TT straight 6 and it looks pretty badass, reminds me of my old RSP Supra....but you know what... My money is actually on the upcoming AMG C63 S.

Levi68

With regards to the topic of this thread, "RC F vs. M4", I think this vid says it all:

Mr Bond

I have heard the M4 in real life an it sounds pretty ok. It actually sounds like any sporty 6 cyl engine. Yes, it sounds a little artificial on higher revs, but as we all know by now, the RC-F sound is artficial as well .This recording is the best so far, its about what you really hear inside the car. It actually sounds pretty good.

05RollaXRS

That video is epic. It was so hilarious, I almost fell off my chair laughing hysterically.

On a serious note, the video makes a point that no one can simply deny. The M4 sounds terrible. Low range, mid range or high rpm, it sounds painfully bad everywhere. Even Akrapovic exhaust cannot do much for that engine, it sounds so bad. Then, the sound of the E92 M3 after that really is a treat to listen to.

E92/E90 M3 is quite possibly the best M3 ever made. It did everything and everything so well.

itsmike177

iTrader: (3)

All these comparisons about exhaust sound of M4 vs RCF.... who cares about the exhaust noise? The M4 is the faster car, and by a lot, in drag and probably track times due to weight. Exhaust noise be damned once if you have a stock production car that can do almost 120mph trap speed in the quarter.

The M3/M4 traps at near 120mph stock... there is no way the RCF will be doing close to that. And tunes are not far behind for the BMW's, which should put it in the 500hp range easily.

If you want to go fast, go with the M3/M4. If reliability is of a concern, go with the RCF, which will be pretty slow in comparison.

05RollaXRS

Ahh...make that argument that does not favor your bias. I remember how M division used to celebrate sound and throttle response as part of the M heritage and all of the BMW fans used to argue that point till the end of time.

That is until an M car started sounding bad and BMW M fans blindly changed their opinions. Believe it or not, most of the people care more about how the engine/exhaust feels and throttle response other than fanboys who simply cannot deny how bad it is.

Which data are you comparing against when you claim RC-F cannot come close to the M4? Where is proof of a head to head comparison? Do you have anything more than just bench racing? Why not wait and see when the R&T performance car of the year shootout in which both RC-F and M4 are taking part?

The M4 did 3:00 around Virginia raceway for the "Lightning lap". It got beaten by heavy, cruiser GT cars like the E63 AMG and S63 AMG. Go read the comparison. There are lots of cars that are cheaper or cost as much that would crush the M4 around the race track like a nutcracker. The IS-F did it in 3:05 back 3 years ago. Considering RC-F is much better than the IS-F, it would be well within a tenth or two with the M4, at best or marginally quicker. Even if the M4 was a bit quicker than the RC-F around the track, you could hardly make an argument that it is the better car because of its better lap time when it gets spanked by cruiser GT cars.

There are lots of cars in the recent MT best driver's car that spanked the 1:40 lap time around Laguna Seca. 3 seconds per lap faster than the old E92 M3. The old Boss 302 was quicker than the M4 despite being 4 years older design.

Even the 12.2 seconds@117 mph trap speed is nothing to write home about since in recent tests. It does not trap at anywhere close to 120 mph. There have been tests where it even trapped as low as 114 mph in a RT test. Why should anyone take the 117 mph anymore seriously than the 114 mph that it did in other tests?

Oh, BTW the M4 sounds absolutely terrible and the throttle response as Sutcliffe said does not come close to that of the RC-F. These two attributes count for a lot and you better believe it.

begone

In one paragraph you want real numbers, head to head, no bench racing. And in the next you speculate based on the isf numbers and the MT Lightning laps.... I'm confused. I see this all the time in Supra forums, m3forums, and many others with the fan boys unequivocal adoration for their car maker. Even when numbers are published and it's the same day, same track, same driver, same everything and their beloved car gets beat they still can't come to terms.

Look, the RC F is badass but it's not going to beat Germanys best. It's not, it's simple math at this point, less hp (or not enough), less torque, and more weight equals less performance. Especially in rear wheel drive sports cars.

I think this is Lexus' attempt to sell some units and make a case for this type of investment for the company, if it's successful then we'll really see what they are capable of. RC F 2.0 will be a force to be reckoned with.

ISF001

You forgot to add additional mambo jumbo about performance stats you are pulling from the air. What exactly is the scientific basis for your conclusion? It is a finger in the air, groping for the desirable direction of the German wind.

Say whatever you want: it has no basis in fact, nor will it until the ultimate production RCF with TVD graces the roads and track in February.

I will say this: you should go buy the M4. Whatever the outcome, the performance will be much closer than even you can imagine. Of course, the RCF will pass the M4 at 155 on its way to pulling 170 mph--one fact we know.