RC F automotive reviews thread
#48
Pole Position
iTrader: (1)
Actually I never thought about that, manufacturers always underestimate their 0-60 times. I guess I should hold my judgement until we get a full on comparison. But for this kind of dough I expect at least a 4 sec time.
And I agree, BMW historically makes great driving cars. Yet their engineers are so clueless about how to keep them reliable. It's as if they don't understand the concept of reliability.
#51
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Nothing here I didn't expect to see. And yes, I'm extremely disappointed at the heft. It was the first thing on my list of, I hope they get this right. The Veyron and the GTR are the only overweight cars whose performance outshines their massive weight. The IS-F was heavy, and it was compromised by using an existing platform not known for being svelte. The RCF has no excuse for all the weight. I have no doubt the M4 will crush it at the Lightning Lap (if there is one this year).
#52
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under an IS F since 2008
Posts: 13,441
Received 1,064 Likes
on
586 Posts
Man... across the board, the reviews are ******* the weight of the car. I hate to say it, but from a media coverage perspective, this seems like Lexus' least successful/positive release since before the 3GS. I hate saying that, too.
It needed to be ~3,700 - 3,800 lbs, not 4,000.
It needed to be ~3,700 - 3,800 lbs, not 4,000.
Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)
This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"
Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..
AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..
~ Joe Z
#53
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Though call I agree...
Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)
This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"
Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..
AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..
~ Joe Z
Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)
This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"
Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..
AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..
~ Joe Z
#54
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
It is easy to see from the mule videos at Nurburgring that the RCF will eat up the ISF on the track. Sorry, but there is no way any of our ISF's, stock for stock, corner the way the RCF does with TVD. Trust me: there will be comparisons, and we'll see the results.
#55
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Though call I agree...
Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)
This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"
Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..
AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..
~ Joe Z
Exiting IS F CURB WEIGHT was listed at 3,780 lbs (paper weight)
This bad boy is listing at 3,958 lbs - They met the "targets less than 3,968 lbs"
Bottom line is that it weighs 178 lbs more... Has 51 MORE HP and 18 more ft lbs of TQ..
AND a **** load of newer Technology in engine, trans, diff, etc.. etc.. etc..
~ Joe Z
2IS platform is now ten years old and supported a sedan (four doors). The skunkworks team probably had to significantly reinforce the chassis to accommodate the V8 and extra performance equipment, and they still rang in at 3,780lbs.
Ten years forward, a car with two doors (weight savings in itself), with all of the new weight-saving technology that has been developed, using the same basic engine and transmission... how is the RC F not at least the same weight? In theory, it seems like it should actually be a little lighter.
This story about molding together three platforms seems crazy, and I would imagine, probably adds a lot of (unnecessary) weight and complexity to the RC. Why this car could not have been built mostly off the GS or IS platform is so bizarre to me. Many people said that IS C was compromised and soft to accommodate the hardtop... so how did Lexus arrive at the conclusion of using THAT as the core for the RC? Someone made a comment that the IS C was used as the core because it was already so reinforced... yes... but for a convertible. Is that necessary for RC F coupe? Again, they know more than I do, but I am left scratching my head.
After getting the 3IS and 4GS so right, and with them being universally praised for handling and (GS) for being so light... how do we arrive at 4,000lb+ RC F?
3,780lb RC F would have probably been 0-60 in 4 seconds, returned 17/26/21 MPG, and been much better to drive.
Maybe I really don't understand what I am talking about? Entirely possible.
#56
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
In the content of all this automotive engineering talk, it might we worth while adding another very critical factor--fun--why I am buying the car.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...o-reviews.html
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...o-reviews.html
#57
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything about engineering, so let me first say that. I'm also willing and open to being educated about stuff like this, but here are my concerns:
2IS platform is now ten years old and supported a sedan (four doors). The skunkworks team probably had to significantly reinforce the chassis to accommodate the V8 and extra performance equipment, and they still rang in at 3,780lbs.
Ten years forward, a car with two doors (weight savings in itself), with all of the new weight-saving technology that has been developed, using the same basic engine and transmission... how is the RC F not at least the same weight? In theory, it seems like it should actually be a little lighter.
2IS platform is now ten years old and supported a sedan (four doors). The skunkworks team probably had to significantly reinforce the chassis to accommodate the V8 and extra performance equipment, and they still rang in at 3,780lbs.
Ten years forward, a car with two doors (weight savings in itself), with all of the new weight-saving technology that has been developed, using the same basic engine and transmission... how is the RC F not at least the same weight? In theory, it seems like it should actually be a little lighter.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 09-05-14 at 10:57 AM.
#58
exclusive matchup
iTrader: (4)
when you have engines with smooth power delivery you dont get the spine crushing feeling and is very deceptive of how fast you feel like you are going. If they wanted it to kick you in your seat like a turbocharged engine then they were expecting too much from NA. Id rather wait for real laptimes, with instrumentation and numbers not this "feel" nonsense. Of course a turbocharged car is going to "feel" faster
a lot of the concerns have to do with weight, which is also my big concern too looking at spec. i will have to wait till i drive the car (and also compare to rc350) before i can make good judgment
in a way, i am ok if the rcf doesn't yield better lap time than m4. it's disappointing, but i am ok. it's not like i expect better lap times in the c63 anyway. if lexus makes the rcf and try to make it a fun car, that's what i will go after. the problem with isf was it was on an existing platform so the car was not as balanced, it's much harder to drive compared to e90 m3. if lexus can make the rcf easy to drive and easy to have fun, i think that's good.
Last edited by rominl; 09-05-14 at 10:58 AM.
#60
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
not necessarily. the e46 and e9x m3 they are all NA, when you nail on it you get very pushed to the seat and you feel how fast you are going. granted i think it has to do with louder cabin (less insulation) but it is there
a lot of the concerns have to do with weight, which is also my big concern too looking at spec. i will have to wait till i drive the car (and also compare to rc350) before i can make good judgment
in a way, i am ok if the rcf doesn't yield better lap time than m4. it's disappointing, but i am ok. it's not like i expect better lap times in the c63 anyway. if lexus makes the rcf and try to make it a fun car, that's what i will go after. the problem with isf was it was on an existing platform so the car was not as balanced, it's much harder to drive compared to e90 m3. if lexus can make the rcf easy to drive and easy to have fun, i think that's good.
a lot of the concerns have to do with weight, which is also my big concern too looking at spec. i will have to wait till i drive the car (and also compare to rc350) before i can make good judgment
in a way, i am ok if the rcf doesn't yield better lap time than m4. it's disappointing, but i am ok. it's not like i expect better lap times in the c63 anyway. if lexus makes the rcf and try to make it a fun car, that's what i will go after. the problem with isf was it was on an existing platform so the car was not as balanced, it's much harder to drive compared to e90 m3. if lexus can make the rcf easy to drive and easy to have fun, i think that's good.
If someone wants an unmanageable road rocket, go by the new Viper.