2015 RC F VS 2008 IS F Multiple Runs
08-08-15, 05:48 PM
#2
Im not sure how u guys are running, sometimes the is f pulls then, let go off the gas...then rc f pulls and leavet the is f...then is f pull,then rc f is not ready...maybe more consistent...like 60+ to whatever traffic permits...or maybe at the race track...
08-08-15, 05:57 PM
#3
08-09-15, 03:32 AM
#4
Lol we only got one clean run I belive it was number 3 you can here me give three honks. We slowed to about 60 and I got out at 120. Now my man kept in it beyond that lol. It was crazy fun! Next weekend is IFO at our local drag strip so we can battle it out in the quarter mile.
This was on a closed course.
This was on a closed course.
Last edited by Gearbangin; 08-09-15 at 07:37 AM.
08-09-15, 11:13 AM
#5
Lol we only got one clean run I belive it was number 3 you can here me give three honks. We slowed to about 60 and I got out at 120. Now my man kept in it beyond that lol. It was crazy fun! Next weekend is IFO at our local drag strip so we can battle it out in the quarter mile.
This was on a closed course.
This was on a closed course.
glad you guys are having fun. be safe!!!
08-09-15, 08:13 PM
#6
Driver
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice runs! I have to say your F's sound incredible! Absolutely beastly!
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
08-09-15, 09:10 PM
#7
Lexus Test Driver
Nice runs! I have to say your F's sound incredible! Absolutely beastly!
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
Forget the upgrading stuff, I never even remotely considered purchasing an IS F and would not even if it had 1,000 hp. I have track cars for that stuff and we all need to keep it on the track, although a few little blast to 120 is no harm. I have had a few middle of night empty interstate blast to the 190s so I certainly cannot talk.
Lol about the performance stuff. Does you butt dynamometer sense a few .10ths 0 to 60 or does it do the body/ego good to know your car is a few tenths quicker 0 - 60 even though you do nothing but drive it to and from work in it and probably cannot even drive it 8/10s around a track? The upgrade would be bland outdated sedan to a fresh new cutting edge appearance coupe.
Trending Topics
08-09-15, 09:58 PM
#8
Thanks! Hopefully I will have some of the strip footage with gearbangin next Sunday at Import Face Off! 
Sometimes, it's really not about the performance, it's the whole car in general that makes it for the buyers. I mean, if you are looking for performance, get a GTR and you are set.
Nice runs! I have to say your F's sound incredible! Absolutely beastly!
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
I am a bit disappointed to see such a poor showing by the RCF. I was really hoping that with it being more of a GT car vs the competition (ATS-V, M3) it would be a lot faster than its predisesor especially being an NA "high revving" engine. No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
Same with the C63. Yes they went turbo and lost some of that NA "soul", but the new car will destroy the old car (as it should) in any type of race. MB has actually managed to make their turbo car sound damn good as well. MUCH better stock vs stock compared to the literally whisper quiet "shhh you might wake the baby" RCF.
Really can't believe Lexus didn't make the RCF a more compelling upgrade to the ISF. In fact, if I was an ISF owner, especially one still under factory warranty, after reading the RCF forum daily for over a year now I don't think I would be able to "upgrade" to the RCF.
08-09-15, 10:34 PM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
No matter what you say about the M4 and the bad sound (which is really bad) or the move to forced induction and loss of 2 cylinders it is a hell of a lot faster than the e9x in any situation where as with the RCF well it's a lot heavier than the ISF, and sadly not much faster either.
.
.
Besides. Motor Trend recently placed the M4 dead last in a comparo versus the C63 and ATS-V. It was also the slowest of the three in all performance tests. Still, I doubt it would put a dent in its reputation.
My point is, RC-F is very quick considering the IS-F in this video had significant mods on it.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-09-15 at 10:40 PM.
08-09-15, 10:41 PM
#10
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (20)
It is not "hell of a lot faster". There is a video of an E92 M3 with I/E and a tune beating a bone stock M4. It is quicker, yes. No doubt. However, it is not that much quicker.
Besides. Motor Trend recently placed the M4 dead last in a comparo versus the C63 and ATS-V. It was also the slowest of the three in all performance tests. Still, I doubt it would put a dent in its reputation.
My point is, RC-F is very quick considering the IS-F in this video had significant mods on it.
Besides. Motor Trend recently placed the M4 dead last in a comparo versus the C63 and ATS-V. It was also the slowest of the three in all performance tests. Still, I doubt it would put a dent in its reputation.
My point is, RC-F is very quick considering the IS-F in this video had significant mods on it.
08-09-15, 10:56 PM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
08-10-15, 06:20 AM
#13
I am with Doug on this, the RCF is a great daily driver because you know it's going to start, has a great inside and will last 200k+ miles.
I got mine because of the looks, inside / seats and the ML audio.
Also this is my 1st Lexus and the ISF was never A car I even cared about having.
I got mine because of the looks, inside / seats and the ML audio.
Also this is my 1st Lexus and the ISF was never A car I even cared about having.
08-10-15, 07:12 AM
#14
I agree, it comes down here to fractions of seconds and speed differences that will only be visible in cases such as this. Some things to consider though, RCF500 has something like 148 lbs of weight dropped from his car, and he has the added hp of the Meisterschaft exhaust, so his is not exactly a stock RC F either. I would have expected the RC F to be a little quicker in this instance. Also we should keep in mind, this was just two guys messing around “in Mexico"
, and not an official test or comparison. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
That being said, the ISF in full I/H/E is a complete beast, and somewhat of a sleeper car to those unfamiliar with what is under the hood.
As for the competitions car’s, they are all FI now, and honestly I would be surprised to not see huge increases over the prior generation car when going that route, as it really should be easy to do, (in comparison to staying with NA). A huge reason for me to go the RC F route, was that incredible sounding V8. If that means I will only be as quick as my old ISF that had I/H/E, then so be it, I am ok with that. The RC F is a better car than the ISF on so many levels, and I had always thought the ISF to be the best car I have ever owned.
Thanks Gearbangin and RCF500 for the video, we’ll all be looking forward to the track results.
, and not an official test or comparison. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.That being said, the ISF in full I/H/E is a complete beast, and somewhat of a sleeper car to those unfamiliar with what is under the hood.
As for the competitions car’s, they are all FI now, and honestly I would be surprised to not see huge increases over the prior generation car when going that route, as it really should be easy to do, (in comparison to staying with NA). A huge reason for me to go the RC F route, was that incredible sounding V8. If that means I will only be as quick as my old ISF that had I/H/E, then so be it, I am ok with that. The RC F is a better car than the ISF on so many levels, and I had always thought the ISF to be the best car I have ever owned.
Thanks Gearbangin and RCF500 for the video, we’ll all be looking forward to the track results.
08-10-15, 07:39 AM
#15
I agree, it comes down here to fractions of seconds and speed differences that will only be visible in cases such as this. Some things to consider though, RCF500 has something like 148 lbs of weight dropped from his car, and he has the added hp of the Meisterschaft exhaust, so his is not exactly a stock RC F either. I would have expected the RC F to be a little quicker in this instance. Also we should keep in mind, this was just two guys messing around “in Mexico", and not an official test or comparison. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
That being said, the ISF in full I/H/E is a complete beast, and somewhat of a sleeper car to those unfamiliar with what is under the hood.
As for the competitions car’s, they are all FI now, and honestly I would be surprised to not see huge increases over the prior generation car when going that route, as it really should be easy to do, (in comparison to staying with NA). A huge reason for me to go the RC F route, was that incredible sounding V8. If that means I will only be as quick as my old ISF that had I/H/E, then so be it, I am ok with that. The RC F is a better car than the ISF on so many levels, and I had always thought the ISF to be the best car I have ever owned.
Thanks Gearbangin and RCF500 for the video, we’ll all be looking forward to the track results.
, and not an official test or comparison. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.That being said, the ISF in full I/H/E is a complete beast, and somewhat of a sleeper car to those unfamiliar with what is under the hood.
As for the competitions car’s, they are all FI now, and honestly I would be surprised to not see huge increases over the prior generation car when going that route, as it really should be easy to do, (in comparison to staying with NA). A huge reason for me to go the RC F route, was that incredible sounding V8. If that means I will only be as quick as my old ISF that had I/H/E, then so be it, I am ok with that. The RC F is a better car than the ISF on so many levels, and I had always thought the ISF to be the best car I have ever owned.
Thanks Gearbangin and RCF500 for the video, we’ll all be looking forward to the track results.