Lexus RC F vs BMW M4 side by side pics
05-15-14, 04:53 PM
#196
You know what I find funny. These full fledge sport models are not volume models. Efficiency while nice is not the point of these vehicles. So BMW dropping the 4.0L V8 and 5.0L V10 in favor of some hi-po normal 3.0 and 4.4 mills really misses the mark. Rolla summed it up nice saying that Lexus took the hard road so there would be no compromises. BMW drops the V8 in favor of the I6 saying "oh it's more efficient". Lexus keeps the V8, and it's aural bliss AND makes it meet strict standards. BMW did a good job with the chassis and weight but honestly seems M is getting lazy.
Why M when you can F..
Why M when you can F..
05-15-14, 04:58 PM
#197
Lexus Test Driver
no doubt about that. the engine setup alone is disappointing on the m3/4 imho, i think that takes a lot of "coolness" out of it, at least to me.
at the same time i do think it's great that the is and rc are two different cars, better differentiation, etc.... however between is and isf, or rc and rcf, i think cosmetic wise they are just about the same as 3/4 vs m3/4. using that as an argument is a bit weak imho. now come to drive train and it's a totally different story.
and for example on e9x m3 vs regular? actually 90% of the stuff are different. just a data point
at the same time i do think it's great that the is and rc are two different cars, better differentiation, etc.... however between is and isf, or rc and rcf, i think cosmetic wise they are just about the same as 3/4 vs m3/4. using that as an argument is a bit weak imho. now come to drive train and it's a totally different story.
and for example on e9x m3 vs regular? actually 90% of the stuff are different. just a data point
Lets not talk down on //M, they are still some of the best performance car available in luxury segment.
Lexus is building the F brand by following what //M has done for BMW. (F sport models, F sport accessories etc)
I think BMW did a great job on the new M3/4 but like everyone else the Engine and Sound is a big disappointment.
I prefer the RCF in almost every way compared to M4 - Engine, Styling, Interior, Reliability, Fit/finish etc.
05-16-14, 03:46 PM
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know what I find funny. These full fledge sport models are not volume models. Efficiency while nice is not the point of these vehicles. So BMW dropping the 4.0L V8 and 5.0L V10 in favor of some hi-po normal 3.0 and 4.4 mills really misses the mark. Rolla summed it up nice saying that Lexus took the hard road so there would be no compromises. BMW drops the V8 in favor of the I6 saying "oh it's more efficient". Lexus keeps the V8, and it's aural bliss AND makes it meet strict standards. BMW did a good job with the chassis and weight but honestly seems M is getting lazy.
Why M when you can F..
Why M when you can F..
They truly were the enthusiast marque at that point, giving 2 ****s to the establishment and what everyone else wanted and was doing.Understand I completely understand their reasons and the business case to sell more M cars, which they have. The X5 M appeals to me as a brutal 7 seat SUV for example. But don't expect me to have the same facination and love for M cars made to sell to everyone. I thought that was what AMG/RS was for with their automatics. The same thing with Porsche who I used to be head over heels with but now with PDK GT3's I have really become detached, even as they have become more awesome than before. I honestly don't understand why we don't have a M7 b/c if they make SUVs and things softer, might as well make a M7.
I think this is really going to create a huge demand with higher prices of past M cars, if that has not already started happening.
It used to be that these niche brands were about pleasing the 1% and if the 99% bought it, that was fine and dandy. Today it seems like it is about pleasing the 99% and to hell with the 1%.
Lexus truly is shocking making hardcore cars like the IS F, the LFA and we feel the RC F will follow that mold. Many of us have spoken about brands moving to the middle ground but I honestly didn't expect some to completely shift on the axis!
I honestly think there is a HUGE opportunity for a BMW version of AMG's "Black Series". Imagine higher priced, lower weight, more raw versions of BMW M. Not as crazy as the M3 GTR but something like that as that car got amazing reviews. Maybe BMW is working on something
Last edited by LexFather; 05-16-14 at 03:51 PM.
05-16-14, 04:11 PM
#199
The V-10 in the M5 was influenced by F1....every M engine was super special. They stated repeatedly they would never do automatics, SUVs, forced induction as they were not pure to the M brand and their essence. I don't know about you but to me back then that got me all hot and bothered They truly were the enthusiast marque at that point, giving 2 ****s to the establishment and what everyone else wanted and was doing.
Understand I completely understand their reasons and the business case to sell more M cars, which they have. The X5 M appeals to me as a brutal 7 seat SUV for example. But don't expect me to have the same facination and love for M cars made to sell to everyone. I thought that was what AMG/RS was for with their automatics. The same thing with Porsche who I used to be head over heels with but now with PDK GT3's I have really become detached, even as they have become more awesome than before. I honestly don't understand why we don't have a M7 b/c if they make SUVs and things softer, might as well make a M7.
I think this is really going to create a huge demand with higher prices of past M cars, if that has not already started happening.
It used to be that these niche brands were about pleasing the 1% and if the 99% bought it, that was fine and dandy. Today it seems like it is about pleasing the 99% and to hell with the 1%.
Lexus truly is shocking making hardcore cars like the IS F, the LFA and we feel the RC F will follow that mold. Many of us have spoken about brands moving to the middle ground but I honestly didn't expect some to completely shift on the axis!
I honestly think there is a HUGE opportunity for a BMW version of AMG's "Black Series". Imagine higher priced, lower weight, more raw versions of BMW M. Not as crazy as the M3 GTR but something like that as that car got amazing reviews. Maybe BMW is working on something
They truly were the enthusiast marque at that point, giving 2 ****s to the establishment and what everyone else wanted and was doing.Understand I completely understand their reasons and the business case to sell more M cars, which they have. The X5 M appeals to me as a brutal 7 seat SUV for example. But don't expect me to have the same facination and love for M cars made to sell to everyone. I thought that was what AMG/RS was for with their automatics. The same thing with Porsche who I used to be head over heels with but now with PDK GT3's I have really become detached, even as they have become more awesome than before. I honestly don't understand why we don't have a M7 b/c if they make SUVs and things softer, might as well make a M7.
I think this is really going to create a huge demand with higher prices of past M cars, if that has not already started happening.
It used to be that these niche brands were about pleasing the 1% and if the 99% bought it, that was fine and dandy. Today it seems like it is about pleasing the 99% and to hell with the 1%.
Lexus truly is shocking making hardcore cars like the IS F, the LFA and we feel the RC F will follow that mold. Many of us have spoken about brands moving to the middle ground but I honestly didn't expect some to completely shift on the axis!
I honestly think there is a HUGE opportunity for a BMW version of AMG's "Black Series". Imagine higher priced, lower weight, more raw versions of BMW M. Not as crazy as the M3 GTR but something like that as that car got amazing reviews. Maybe BMW is working on something
It is odd. The onslaught of new vehicles and niches and they still haven't done the M7. Why not, you're doing everything else already
. Oh and if a LS F ever comes out then BMW really has no excuse whatsoever.Making these new M cars with hi-po powertrains is just lazy. I wouldn't be surprised if E46 and E90 M's appreciate just a little or at least hold value more.
Lexus with a 10 year project, skunkworks project
. In another thread you mentioned V10's are declining and true but I do want to give kudos to Lexus for doing it. They could have done a V8 or FI something but instead they chose something that gives the LFA an iconic status. Just hearing the word LFA and immediately the first thing that comes to mind is an auralgasm at 9000rpm 
put that in your pipe and smoke it BMW.Will be interesting to see what BMW has in store. With the new i division, M, possible hardcore M ala Black Series like you suggested, and lastly rumor has it a M1 dubbed M8 supercar could be produced. Odd that they have never really had a flagship supercar like MBZ's SLR/SLS, Audi R8/V10 and Lexus LFA. These guys have touted the "Ultimate Driving Machine" for so long and yet they really lack that it seems.
05-21-14, 02:33 PM
#200
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday I posted a comment on Autoblog's review of the M3 sedan. Not surprisingly, my comment was downvoted 3 times within the hour - I think it stands at -5 right now. Ha!
My comment simply read:
2 Part Challenge:
1. Put it up against the RC-F and get back to us.
2. Run the same race with 60,000 miles on the odometer and get back to us.
One fanboi actually posted a (rather poorly written) response:
"You do realize that it's BMW with the rich racing heritage, pedigree and success right? The M3 (now M4) has always been the benchmark. Do you realize that the ONLY reason why Toyota (I mean Lexus) created the IS-F and the RC-F is to compete with the M3/M4? Did you also realize that when Lexus was developing their IS-F and RC-F to come to market, they bought their own M3 analyze the performance and compare data to? You my friend are leagues away from knowing what kind of fight Lexus has on their hands. I give Lexus absolute kudos for taking on the challenge and building a M3/M4 fighter as competition is good (it makes brands less complacent) but if the IS-F was any indication of what Lexus as to offer in the RC-F... Lexus is in for another rude awakening."
To which I responded:
"First off, ghetto2315, I commend you for willing to submit a response to my comment in lieu of launching downvotes without justification.
That, I'm afraid is where the kind words will end.
Your arguments are based upon nothing but assumptions, starting with the assumption that I'm ignorant or not well informed of the M3's heritage, down to the very catalyst of Lexus' F mark. Quite to the contrary, I'm VERY well aware of the fact that BMW M3 is THE benchmark for all vehicles in this category. I'm also well aware of the fact that the TWO MAIN dissuasions from the purchase of an M vehicle are 1. BMW's propensity to nickel and dime the hell out of their customers with their "options" that really ought to be included, and 2. BMW's proven record to be on the shallow end of the reliability pool. These are both FACTS and not assumptions.
Now to address RC-F vs. the M3/M4. For simplicity, I'll just call them "M3", MY assumption is that you're smart enough to know I'm talking about them in tandem. Just because the M3 preceded the IS-F and now the RC-F doesn't mean the RC-F can't be better. That's like saying horses and bayonets are better than fighter jets because they were the one of the first forms of military strength. Chronology has nothing to do with superiority. Lexus did in fact benchmark the IS-F against the M3, no denying that. The fact that you feel that there's a huge gap between the IS-F and the M3 tells me that you're not well versed in that topic. A 2013 IS-F and a 2013 M3 are neck and neck in every performance category. That too, is a fact. Oh, and by the way, I own and drive a Lexus IS-F so I bring first hand experience from the Lexus side of things.
The RC-F has already brought home multiple Super GT podium finishes despite its newcomer standing. With that knowledge, coupled with knowing that the RC-F puts down more that 450 hp (whatever number that ends up being will be more than the M3's 425) and more than 383 lb-ft of torque (versus the M3's 406 lb-ft), I'm quite comfortable saying that I do know what kinda fight Lexus is in for, and furthermore, I like their chances.
So, YOU, my friend, how about we cut out the personal attacks in the form of assumptions and have a nice talk about cars?"
That's what I get for entertaining the oft uninformed world of blogospheres I guess.
My comment simply read:
2 Part Challenge:
1. Put it up against the RC-F and get back to us.
2. Run the same race with 60,000 miles on the odometer and get back to us.
One fanboi actually posted a (rather poorly written) response:
"You do realize that it's BMW with the rich racing heritage, pedigree and success right? The M3 (now M4) has always been the benchmark. Do you realize that the ONLY reason why Toyota (I mean Lexus) created the IS-F and the RC-F is to compete with the M3/M4? Did you also realize that when Lexus was developing their IS-F and RC-F to come to market, they bought their own M3 analyze the performance and compare data to? You my friend are leagues away from knowing what kind of fight Lexus has on their hands. I give Lexus absolute kudos for taking on the challenge and building a M3/M4 fighter as competition is good (it makes brands less complacent) but if the IS-F was any indication of what Lexus as to offer in the RC-F... Lexus is in for another rude awakening."
To which I responded:
"First off, ghetto2315, I commend you for willing to submit a response to my comment in lieu of launching downvotes without justification.
That, I'm afraid is where the kind words will end.
Your arguments are based upon nothing but assumptions, starting with the assumption that I'm ignorant or not well informed of the M3's heritage, down to the very catalyst of Lexus' F mark. Quite to the contrary, I'm VERY well aware of the fact that BMW M3 is THE benchmark for all vehicles in this category. I'm also well aware of the fact that the TWO MAIN dissuasions from the purchase of an M vehicle are 1. BMW's propensity to nickel and dime the hell out of their customers with their "options" that really ought to be included, and 2. BMW's proven record to be on the shallow end of the reliability pool. These are both FACTS and not assumptions.
Now to address RC-F vs. the M3/M4. For simplicity, I'll just call them "M3", MY assumption is that you're smart enough to know I'm talking about them in tandem. Just because the M3 preceded the IS-F and now the RC-F doesn't mean the RC-F can't be better. That's like saying horses and bayonets are better than fighter jets because they were the one of the first forms of military strength. Chronology has nothing to do with superiority. Lexus did in fact benchmark the IS-F against the M3, no denying that. The fact that you feel that there's a huge gap between the IS-F and the M3 tells me that you're not well versed in that topic. A 2013 IS-F and a 2013 M3 are neck and neck in every performance category. That too, is a fact. Oh, and by the way, I own and drive a Lexus IS-F so I bring first hand experience from the Lexus side of things.
The RC-F has already brought home multiple Super GT podium finishes despite its newcomer standing. With that knowledge, coupled with knowing that the RC-F puts down more that 450 hp (whatever number that ends up being will be more than the M3's 425) and more than 383 lb-ft of torque (versus the M3's 406 lb-ft), I'm quite comfortable saying that I do know what kinda fight Lexus is in for, and furthermore, I like their chances.
So, YOU, my friend, how about we cut out the personal attacks in the form of assumptions and have a nice talk about cars?"
That's what I get for entertaining the oft uninformed world of blogospheres I guess.
Last edited by gshyu; 05-21-14 at 03:09 PM.
05-21-14, 02:44 PM
#201
Yesterday I posted a comment on Autoblog's review of the M3 sedan. Not surprisingly, my comment was downvoted 3 times within the hour - I think it stands at -5 right now. Ha!
My comment simply read:
2 Part Challenge:
1. Put it up against the RC-F and get back to us.
2. Run the same race with 60,000 miles on the odometer and get back to us.
One fanboi actually posted a (rather poorly written) response:
"You do realize that it's BMW with the rich racing heritage, pedigree and success right? The M3 (now M4) has always been the benchmark. Do you realize that the ONLY reason why Toyota (I mean Lexus) created the IS-F and the RC-F is to compete with the M3/M4? Did you also realize that when Lexus was developing their IS-F and RC-F to come to market, they bought their own M3 analyze the performance and compare data to? You my friend are leagues away from knowing what kind of fight Lexus has on their hands. I give Lexus absolute kudos for taking on the challenge and building a M3/M4 fighter as competition is good (it makes brands less complacent) but if the IS-F was any indication of what Lexus as to offer in the RC-F... Lexus is in for another rude awakening."
To which I responded:
"First off, ghetto2315, I commend you for willing to submit a response to my comment in lieu of launching downvotes without justification.
That, I'm afraid is where the kind words will end.
Your arguments are based upon nothing but assumptions, starting with the assumption that I'm ignorant or not well informed of the M3's heritage, down to the very catalyst of Lexus' F mark. Quite to the contrary, I'm VERY well aware of the fact that BMW M3 is THE benchmark for all vehicles in this category. I'm also well aware of the fact that the TWO MAIN dissuasions from the purchase of an M vehicle are 1. BMW's propensity to nickel and dime the hell out of their customers with their "options" that really ought to be included, and 2. BMW's proven record to be on the shallow end of the reliability pool. These are both FACTS and not assumptions.
Now to address RC-F vs. the M3/M4. For simplicity, I'll just call them "M3", MY assumption is that you're smart enough to know I'm talking about them in tandem. Just because the M3 preceded the IS-F and now the RC-F doesn't mean the RC-F can't be better. That's like saying horses and bayonets are better than fighter jets because they were the one of the first forms of military strength. Chronology has nothing to do with superiority. Lexus did in fact benchmark the IS-F against the M3, no denying that. The fact that you feel that there's a huge gap between the IS-F and the M3 tells me that you're not well versed in that topic. A 2013 IS-F and a 2013 M3 are neck and neck in every performance category. That too, is a fact. Oh, and by the way, I own and drive a Lexus IS-F so I bring first hand experience from the Lexus side of things.
The RC-F has already brought home multiple Super GT podium finishes despite its newcomer standing. With that knowledge, coupled with knowing that the RF-F puts down more that 450 hp (whatever number that ends up being will be more than the M3's 425) and more than 383 lb-ft of torque (versus the M3's 406 lb-ft), I'm quite comfortable saying that I do know what kinda fight Lexus is in for, and furthermore, I like their chances.
So, YOU, my friend, how about we cut out the personal attacks in the form of assumptions and have a nice talk about cars?"
That's what I get for entertaining the oft uninformed world of blogospheres I guess.
My comment simply read:
2 Part Challenge:
1. Put it up against the RC-F and get back to us.
2. Run the same race with 60,000 miles on the odometer and get back to us.
One fanboi actually posted a (rather poorly written) response:
"You do realize that it's BMW with the rich racing heritage, pedigree and success right? The M3 (now M4) has always been the benchmark. Do you realize that the ONLY reason why Toyota (I mean Lexus) created the IS-F and the RC-F is to compete with the M3/M4? Did you also realize that when Lexus was developing their IS-F and RC-F to come to market, they bought their own M3 analyze the performance and compare data to? You my friend are leagues away from knowing what kind of fight Lexus has on their hands. I give Lexus absolute kudos for taking on the challenge and building a M3/M4 fighter as competition is good (it makes brands less complacent) but if the IS-F was any indication of what Lexus as to offer in the RC-F... Lexus is in for another rude awakening."
To which I responded:
"First off, ghetto2315, I commend you for willing to submit a response to my comment in lieu of launching downvotes without justification.
That, I'm afraid is where the kind words will end.
Your arguments are based upon nothing but assumptions, starting with the assumption that I'm ignorant or not well informed of the M3's heritage, down to the very catalyst of Lexus' F mark. Quite to the contrary, I'm VERY well aware of the fact that BMW M3 is THE benchmark for all vehicles in this category. I'm also well aware of the fact that the TWO MAIN dissuasions from the purchase of an M vehicle are 1. BMW's propensity to nickel and dime the hell out of their customers with their "options" that really ought to be included, and 2. BMW's proven record to be on the shallow end of the reliability pool. These are both FACTS and not assumptions.
Now to address RC-F vs. the M3/M4. For simplicity, I'll just call them "M3", MY assumption is that you're smart enough to know I'm talking about them in tandem. Just because the M3 preceded the IS-F and now the RC-F doesn't mean the RC-F can't be better. That's like saying horses and bayonets are better than fighter jets because they were the one of the first forms of military strength. Chronology has nothing to do with superiority. Lexus did in fact benchmark the IS-F against the M3, no denying that. The fact that you feel that there's a huge gap between the IS-F and the M3 tells me that you're not well versed in that topic. A 2013 IS-F and a 2013 M3 are neck and neck in every performance category. That too, is a fact. Oh, and by the way, I own and drive a Lexus IS-F so I bring first hand experience from the Lexus side of things.
The RC-F has already brought home multiple Super GT podium finishes despite its newcomer standing. With that knowledge, coupled with knowing that the RF-F puts down more that 450 hp (whatever number that ends up being will be more than the M3's 425) and more than 383 lb-ft of torque (versus the M3's 406 lb-ft), I'm quite comfortable saying that I do know what kinda fight Lexus is in for, and furthermore, I like their chances.
So, YOU, my friend, how about we cut out the personal attacks in the form of assumptions and have a nice talk about cars?"
That's what I get for entertaining the oft uninformed world of blogospheres I guess.
05-21-14, 02:47 PM
#202
Only thing I will say here is "competition is good" among the manufacturers as the end benefit is us consumers!
I love all performance cars as each has their good / bad points. I've owned the majority of them in various trims from a ML63 AMG to every generation M3 to the IS-F....none of the cars did everything well, but each car has merits that make them unique to a specific buyer!
AMG: Raw torque, German muscle car with aggressive body styling, rock solid chassis
M-cars: Best driving feel, track born, amazing motors, aggressive body styling, steering gives feedback, N/A motors are the best in the business
Audi S-cars: I've had two s4's including my current DD B6 s4 ~ they are great all purpose cars with their quattro drivetrain, smooth tranny, roomy interior, best interior ergonomics
IS-F: Super reliable, great engine note, amazing mpg from 8-speed tranny, modern electronics, dealer service A+
Again no 1 car is a winner here! I'm sure the RC-F will do some things the M3 doesn't do well and vice versa, both are great cars and I think what it will come down to is what the buyer wants:
4-doors?
Manual tranny?
Style is always personal taste so don't even count that one
I love all performance cars as each has their good / bad points. I've owned the majority of them in various trims from a ML63 AMG to every generation M3 to the IS-F....none of the cars did everything well, but each car has merits that make them unique to a specific buyer!
AMG: Raw torque, German muscle car with aggressive body styling, rock solid chassis
M-cars: Best driving feel, track born, amazing motors, aggressive body styling, steering gives feedback, N/A motors are the best in the business
Audi S-cars: I've had two s4's including my current DD B6 s4 ~ they are great all purpose cars with their quattro drivetrain, smooth tranny, roomy interior, best interior ergonomics
IS-F: Super reliable, great engine note, amazing mpg from 8-speed tranny, modern electronics, dealer service A+
Again no 1 car is a winner here! I'm sure the RC-F will do some things the M3 doesn't do well and vice versa, both are great cars and I think what it will come down to is what the buyer wants:
4-doors?
Manual tranny?
Style is always personal taste so don't even count that one
05-21-14, 02:48 PM
#203
Excellent post and response. Very valid points, but no surprise the comment was downvoted, it is Autoblog after all and that's where all the fanboi's think they are professionals. Hilarious. Anyway glad you got to scold him. Did anyone agree with you / support you?
05-21-14, 03:06 PM
#204
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My response is currently at a +1 right now, but I put no stock in those +/- marks, especially since a lot the regulars have multiple handles for the sheer purpose of upvoting their own comments. Haha!
I'm cool with badge loyalty, but when you try to tell me that one is worlds better than the other, it just tells me you've got your blinders on.
I'm cool with badge loyalty, but when you try to tell me that one is worlds better than the other, it just tells me you've got your blinders on.
05-21-14, 03:47 PM
#205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its not even just comments about Lexus/Toyota, just in general it seems those with the least amount of knowledge seem to post all over these comment sections on these blogs/news feeds all over. If you even note, some are well known as comment trolls.
I honestly don'w know how anyone can seriously completely bash either car. Surely the RC will have some faults when it is tested. Saying it has no heritage is a point if its made in good taste and not a poor one (oh just a Toyota).
S4 makes the point this competition is good for us consumers and he is 100% correct. Sadly it doesn't seem to make for good competition in regards to commentary.
05-21-14, 05:32 PM
#206
My response is currently at a +1 right now, but I put no stock in those +/- marks, especially since a lot the regulars have multiple handles for the sheer purpose of upvoting their own comments. Haha!
I'm cool with badge loyalty, but when you try to tell me that one is worlds better than the other, it just tells me you've got your blinders on.
I'm cool with badge loyalty, but when you try to tell me that one is worlds better than the other, it just tells me you've got your blinders on.
05-21-14, 05:39 PM
#207
What is sad is over the years instead of people getting better and comments getting better they are getting worse and worse. They used to be funny now but now they are just sad. We have better cars than ever, more events than ever and more information than ever and the comments are worse than ever.
Its not even just comments about Lexus/Toyota, just in general it seems those with the least amount of knowledge seem to post all over these comment sections on these blogs/news feeds all over. If you even note, some are well known as comment trolls.
I honestly don'w know how anyone can seriously completely bash either car. Surely the RC will have some faults when it is tested. Saying it has no heritage is a point if its made in good taste and not a poor one (oh just a Toyota).
S4 makes the point this competition is good for us consumers and he is 100% correct. Sadly it doesn't seem to make for good competition in regards to commentary.
Its not even just comments about Lexus/Toyota, just in general it seems those with the least amount of knowledge seem to post all over these comment sections on these blogs/news feeds all over. If you even note, some are well known as comment trolls.
I honestly don'w know how anyone can seriously completely bash either car. Surely the RC will have some faults when it is tested. Saying it has no heritage is a point if its made in good taste and not a poor one (oh just a Toyota).
S4 makes the point this competition is good for us consumers and he is 100% correct. Sadly it doesn't seem to make for good competition in regards to commentary.
M3/M4 is a great car, and more dailyable than ever. Problem is M is losing soul because of to many compromises. Luckily when one door closes another one opens, enter F
Really though, strict competiton makes the selection better for all of us. Some manufacturers take the high road and some take the easy road and some make their own road.
05-21-14, 05:55 PM
#208
your comment was very nicely worded and fair... And who wants to be that we will see at least 20 negative comments in their RC review? Things like "ugly", "Camry", etc, etc... I see these even when they review cars with huge heritage like LX for instance, where posters often think it is camry based.
If BMW had a consumer mainstream brand (like a VW/Chevy) it'd be no big deal. Pot calling the kettle black at its finest
Sure there are stereotypes but sometimes they are shed. Toyota's have off and on been fun a bore, somewhere in between. Toyoda came out and said:
"I want to make people happy through cars and thus make them smile in the face" - Akio Toyoda.
05-21-14, 08:19 PM
#209
I'd say the 2000 GT, AE86, MR2, Celica ALLTRAC/GT4, and Supra are some pretty decent heritage credentials for Toyota.
What a lot of BMW and Mercedez fanbois in the states don't realize is that they sell lower end basic cars in Europe that are nothing really special. I've seen plenty of BMW and Benzes with lack of options there that these guys would never expect, such as:
hubcaps
roll-up windows
cloth or vinyl seats
no air conditioning
4 cylinder N/A low-power engines in 3 and 5 series.
crappy radio/speakers
unimpressive suspensions
cheapo interior plastics
etc...
They have cars that are "Camry" and "Corolla" like. They just don't bring them here. They're still good cars, just nothing to write home about. So just because they don't have a "lower" brand like Toyota is to Lexus, they have cars that are somewhat comparable. A cheap BMW/Benz will still be more expensive than a Toyota, but not necessarily better equipped. I'd say that the fact that they don't make FWD is what would be the real separator.
What a lot of BMW and Mercedez fanbois in the states don't realize is that they sell lower end basic cars in Europe that are nothing really special. I've seen plenty of BMW and Benzes with lack of options there that these guys would never expect, such as:
hubcaps
roll-up windows
cloth or vinyl seats
no air conditioning
4 cylinder N/A low-power engines in 3 and 5 series.
crappy radio/speakers
unimpressive suspensions
cheapo interior plastics
etc...
They have cars that are "Camry" and "Corolla" like. They just don't bring them here. They're still good cars, just nothing to write home about. So just because they don't have a "lower" brand like Toyota is to Lexus, they have cars that are somewhat comparable. A cheap BMW/Benz will still be more expensive than a Toyota, but not necessarily better equipped. I'd say that the fact that they don't make FWD is what would be the real separator.
05-21-14, 08:49 PM
#210
Lexus Champion
People are ignorant. BMW is not alone in 'racing heritage'. Toyota has a very rich history of racing. From the 60's forward. Bmw are mostly known for touring cars, some sportscars and DTM. Sportscar racing you could say Toyota is just as successful if not more. Then you take a look at their long history of success in WRC, JGTC, Super GT, CART, Indy, Nascar, Canam, IMSA GTP, Group C/B, WSC, Nurburgring, Le Mans/WEC, Dakar/rally and even F1. Toyota arent lacking in any area and people cant stand it.
