Furge

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

No faster than the old IS F. Much slower than the M3/4 which easily does 3.9. RC F does 4.4.

400 pounds (FOUR HUNDRED?!) heavier than the M4. WTF is Lexus thinking?


I was really set on buying one. This is very disappointing news for me.
Maybe you feel different, but this car, at least in its current form, will not be a big success.

I predict massive discounting in 1 year as they sit on dealer lots.

TimboIS

Repost. Please add new reviews to the Breaking news repository…

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...n-the-rcf.html

TF109B

Its an obvious biased article with NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS, just a quick write up from one guy filled with guesstimates and quotes from Lexus (4.4 0-60). Nice try, though.

05RollaXRS

You consistently take hypothetical assumptions and ("feel" does not mean in reality) and talk like they are facts. C&D estimated a 12.9 secs 1/4 mile, which it would not run even on its worse run. The whole article is a sham just to generate controversy head to toe and get people talking. Once they do the instrument testing, it will be revealed as a surprise as to how quick the RC-F is.

A03

"Courtesy Car" LMAO

eoph

This is very disappointing coming from a former racing driver.........

TimboIS

That was pretty funny. At least they acknowledged Lexus superior quality.

primecut

iTrader: (1)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._f_first_test/



I'm glad they kept the pricing competitive... I know most folks here were guessing low 70s base price. Everything else is as we feared... high weight, not enough power increase, just doesn't seem like a game changer or dynamic improvement over the F. Doh. I know they will make improvements over time as they did with the F, but this is definitely not coming out with a bang.

AussieISF

I'm quite disappointed. I'm not sure what to do now once my ISF gets to a mature age. There doesn't seem to be a worthy replacement.

05RollaXRS

Geez! 4.5 seconds and 12.9 seconds? Definitely, something is up with the prototype. Maybe not broken in properly yet. They say, the ECU was updated later. That is exactly what they got for the IS-F a few years ago.

artig

Another review at the Motoring Australia web site.

A03

I hope those performance numbers are prototype numbers otherwise I'm really leaning towards something else all together.

natnut

Well at least one reviewer has already rated the RC-F as the Best Sports Coupe in its segment, beating the M4,the C63 AMG coupe and the RS5 :


I suspect the OP is a ex-Toyota/Lexus owner who wants to be a BMW turn-coat and is looking for any excuse to get into an M4.

Too bad the posters here have their BS-meter on high alert and will set him right with facts and not pre-suppositions.

ISF001

I have to agree with you. Car and Driver is all about German cars and heavily biased. I also do not consider the majority of these critiques to be true professional drivers. How many hours have most of them ever logged in an F?

Full speed ahead here with my purchase of the RCF. I expect to see outstanding performance numbers once real testing takes place.

Again, this is meant to be the best overall performing car in its class--not the fastest. The key factor for me is fun, and I expect to have plenty of that as well.

ISF001

I don't know what you are driving, but have you driven the F that was "spec'd" at 4.6? It runs a 4.2. I am confident the RCF "spec'd" at 4.4 will run a 4.0 on a good day with the competent driver.

The M4 is trash...and expect LOTS of additional problems with the rear, turbos, and engine. BMW is ultimately the wrong driving experience. The cars are mass produced and their lack of reliability and blatant disregard to observe the limits of what they produce is what constantly results in blown engines and components. My Bimmer was a freekin nightmare!

Their cars just need to perform long enough to get their cursory reviews by biased writers.