When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Have just come back from a up close and personal look at the RC-F, looks very impressive with its short length, wide width and low stance.
Looking inside the car I found the front seats were as far back as they could go leaving no room whatsoever in the back, after a bit of persuasion I got them to open the doors and let me sit in it, I adjusted the seat to near enough were I felt right, my observations , (by the way I am 6”-1” tall)
I had the seat as low as it would go but still felt that I had to duck slightly to see ahead, although my head was a good 1.5” from the head lining.
Still really no room for the rear passengers legs, so not really a family car, as there is only me and my daughter this is not a problem for me.
The bulge in the bonnet made it near on imposable to see or judge the front of the car.
But if I had raised the seat higher it would have made looking ahead even harder.
I must admit I really needed to spend more time with the seat and perhaps I would have found a better position, I am also used to the GS.
I also found the car to be a bit closed in, but again coming from a GS .
I will need to have the car for a few hours to really see if I can adjust, I am sure I will.
The rep had a sheet with all the figures on that she was trying very hard for me not to see, I did however notice one fuel figure, it said combined 10.8, now that must be per litre, but if it was per mile or kilometre I don’t know, I am a bit old fashioned and deal in m.p.g, but perhaps someone can work it out.
Your all be pleased to know that the official stats are being released on Friday. (in the UK)
One can extrapolate that the US version will be "spec'd" at 4.3 0-60 mph. Based on the fact that the ISF was "spec'd" at 4.6 and runs 4.2 0-60's on a good day, I expect the RCF to run a 3.9.
Here is the M4 spec by comparison...
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
BASE PRICE: $65,125
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979 cc
Power: 425 hp @ 7300 rpm
Torque: 406 lb-ft @ 1850 rpm
TRANSMISSIONS: 6-speed manual, 7-speed automatic with manual shifting mode
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 110.7 in
Length: 184.5 in
Width: 73.6 in Height: 54.4 in
Curb weight (C/D est): 3600 lb
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.0-4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.7-8.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.2-12.4 sec
Top speed: 155 mph
Still no torque figures on the sheet. The HP rating is slightly lower than the 477 PS (471 HP) we saw earlier on another sheet.
That is listed in bhp... if you convert it, 468 bhp = 474 hp. I tried to look at how some other Lexus models in the UK list bhp, and the only petrol model I could find was the LS 460, which is rated at 387 bhp.
Not sure what our final US-spec number will be. I would assume that "471" might be correct after all.
4.5 0-60 is not great guys! I know that Lexus is conservative. But so are other car makers.
A ton of new cars, like the MB GLA 45 AMG, will beat that. And that's not even a sports car and costs almost half as much.
The M4 will beat it. Its quoted 0-60 is 4.1.
I thought Lexus was going to match or beat the M4… this doesn't seem likely.
Argh… too bad. I really wanted to buy one. But why, if the M4 is the better performer.
Sure, you can say it's not all about 0-60, and that's true. But like it or not, 0-60 is a key figure in assessing sports car performance. Doesn't look good for the RC F winning a comparo test any time…
1) Lexus benchmarked the IS F and IS F CCS-R when creating the RC F - not the M4.
2) If you're strictly spec hunting, then yes, you will probably want to buy an M4 or C63 AMG coupe.
3) I agree that 4.5 seconds is a little slow. It needs to be at 4.3 or 4.2, but this is a 4,000 lb coupe with a V8.
If you estimate that the RC F weighs 3,950 lbs and puts out 471 hp, that's 8.38 lbs/hp.
I don't think BMW has been completely honest about the weight of the M4 - it seems closer to 3,700 lbs with fluids. So, say 3,700 lbs with 450 hp (which seems closer to it's true output), you get 8.22 lbs/hp.
M4 is going to be faster. BMW has built a monstrous engine, but really, as you note yourself, 0-60 is one part of the equation and RC F is only going to be fractionally behind the M4.
For one, 0-60 mph is meaningless for RWD cars since it is only a measure of traction off the line. In terms of straight line speed, 1/4 mile time and trap speed is the first milestone reliable in measuring the straight line power. I reckon, RC-F would be 12.2 seconds@116 - 117 mph.
The spec sheet says, 0 - 100 km/h and not 0 - 60 mph. You do know the difference between 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h. Yes?
As far as magazine tests go, IS-F was putting down 4.2 seconds 0-60 mph. Even conservatively, if RC-F is 2/10ths quicker, that still puts it at 4.0 seconds.
Magazine numbers are with 1-foot roll outs, which are incomparable to the statistics published by the manufacturer.
Originally Posted by Furge
4.5 0-60 is not great guys! I know that Lexus is conservative. But so are other car makers.
A ton of new cars, like the MB GLA 45 AMG, will beat that. And that's not even a sports car and costs almost half as much.
The M4 will beat it. Its quoted 0-60 is 4.1.
I thought Lexus was going to match or beat the M4… this doesn't seem likely.
Argh… too bad. I really wanted to buy one. But why, if the M4 is the better performer.
Sure, you can say it's not all about 0-60, and that's true. But like it or not, 0-60 is a key figure in assessing sports car performance. Doesn't look good for the RC F winning a comparo test any time…
Awesome...!!! Thanks for sharing a bit more Official news from the UK
Yeup we will ALL know more soon enough !!
Some of the prelim posted Japan docs we have seen (here on CL) show the 477 PS / 530 n.m
The proper conversion for US spec translates to approx 469 HP @7,100 RPM and 389 lb-ft TQ @ 4,800~5,600
(to get the conversion you do the math backwards using known ISF numbers for US vs JP)
More good stuff to come!!!
~ Joe Z
Originally Posted by Chris8152
Have just come back from a up close and personal look at the RC-F, looks very impressive with its short length, wide width and low stance.
Looking inside the car I found the front seats were as far back as they could go leaving no room whatsoever in the back, after a bit of persuasion I got them to open the doors and let me sit in it, I adjusted the seat to near enough were I felt right, my observations , (by the way I am 6”-1” tall)
I had the seat as low as it would go but still felt that I had to duck slightly to see ahead, although my head was a good 1.5” from the head lining.
Still really no room for the rear passengers legs, so not really a family car, as there is only me and my daughter this is not a problem for me.
The bulge in the bonnet made it near on imposable to see or judge the front of the car.
But if I had raised the seat higher it would have made looking ahead even harder.
I must admit I really needed to spend more time with the seat and perhaps I would have found a better position, I am also used to the GS.
I also found the car to be a bit closed in, but again coming from a GS .
I will need to have the car for a few hours to really see if I can adjust, I am sure I will.
The rep had a sheet with all the figures on that she was trying very hard for me not to see, I did however notice one fuel figure, it said combined 10.8, now that must be per litre, but if it was per mile or kilometre I don’t know, I am a bit old fashioned and deal in m.p.g, but perhaps someone can work it out.
Your all be pleased to know that the official stats are being released on Friday. (in the UK)
Lol it needs more power...... It's only about 1 second faster than the IS350 which is not great at all...... Why cant Lexus create something affordable in the 3 seconds range like the Germans can? Mercedes didn't need "turbos" to get their AMG models into 3 seconds range. Honestly though most buyers out there look for the 0-60 numbers when they buy a car at this price. Well seeing the numbers made me a bit happy that I didn't wait and had gotten the IS350 F Sport . 1 second faster isn't going to feel much of a difference when driving. Well that said, keep in mind that Lexus main focus on the RCF was "fun to drive" and not a M4 or M3 killer in speed. Of course what I said was based on every day driving on legal road whereas on track the RCF is probably way faster than the IS350 and maybe the M4
Lol it needs more power...... It's only about 1 second faster than the IS350 which is not great at all...... Why cant Lexus create something affordable in the 3 seconds range like the Germans can? Mercedes didn't need "turbos" to get their AMG models into 3 seconds range. Honestly though most buyers out there look for the 0-60 numbers when they buy a car at this price. Well seeing the numbers made me a bit happy that I didn't wait and had gotten the IS350 F Sport . 1 second faster isn't going to feel much of a difference when driving. Well that said, keep in mind that Lexus main focus on the RCF was "fun to drive" and not a M4 or M3 killer in speed. Of course what I said was based on every day driving on legal road whereas on track the RCF is probably way faster than the IS350 and maybe the M4
Lol it needs more power...... It's only about 1 second faster than the IS350 which is not great at all...... Why cant Lexus create something affordable in the 3 seconds range like the Germans can? Mercedes didn't need "turbos" to get their AMG models into 3 seconds range. Honestly though most buyers out there look for the 0-60 numbers when they buy a car at this price. Well seeing the numbers made me a bit happy that I didn't wait and had gotten the IS350 F Sport . 1 second faster isn't going to feel much of a difference when driving. Well that said, keep in mind that Lexus main focus on the RCF was "fun to drive" and not a M4 or M3 killer in speed. Of course what I said was based on every day driving on legal road whereas on track the RCF is probably way faster than the IS350 and maybe the M4
Correct.. on the street 306 hp vs 470 hp makes no difference when the posted street speed limit is 30-40 MPH or 55-65 MPH on Fwys..
For one, 0-60 mph is meaningless for RWD cars since it is only a measure of traction off the line. In terms of straight line speed, 1/4 mile time and trap speed is the first milestone reliable in measuring the straight line power. I reckon, RC-F would be 12.2 seconds@116 - 117 mph.
The spec sheet says, 0 - 100 km/h and not 0 - 60 mph. You do know the difference between 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h. Yes?
As far as magazine tests go, IS-F was putting down 4.2 seconds 0-60 mph. Even conservatively, if RC-F is 2/10ths quicker, that still puts it at 4.0 seconds.
Magazine numbers are with 1-foot roll outs, which are incomparable to the statistics published by the manufacturer.
I think a 3.9 is possible...under the right conditions. We'll see soon enough.
Regardless, I want the superior OVERALL high-performance car, and the M4 IS NOT the one: 1-2 tenths of a second in 0-60 really are of little value in my world. I know the RCF engine will run and run, and that I do not have to worry about blowing the turbos, DCT, and rear.
I think a 3.9 is possible...under the right conditions. We'll see soon enough.
Regardless, I want the superior OVERALL high-performance car, and the M4 IS NOT the one: 1-2 tenths of a second in 0-60 really are of little value in my world. I know the RCF engine will run and run, and that I do not have to worry about blowing the turbos, DCT, and rear.
08-13-14, 03:45 AM
Official UK stats for the RC-F
. 1 second faster isn't going to feel much of a difference when driving. Well that said, keep in mind that Lexus main focus on the RCF was "fun to drive" and not a M4 or M3 killer in speed. Of course what I said was based on every day driving on legal road whereas on track the RCF is probably way faster than the IS350 and maybe the M4 
