spwolf

yeah and M4 was also $13k more expensive for that 0.35s. Apparently, M4's standard brakes fall apart on track unlike RC-F, so that carbon package is needed.

RC-F really did well there... really well. It was also very easy to drive, much less corrections needed.

1. 2015 BMW M4 1:23.73
2. 2008 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 1:23.87
3. 2015 Lexus RC F 1:24.05
4. 2011 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Z07 Package 1:24.28
5. 2013 Audi RS7 Sportback 1:24.30
6. 2015 Ford Mustang GT Performance Pack 1:24.32
7. 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 1:24.55
8. 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 1:24.60
9. 2013 Mercedes CLS 63 AMG S-Model 1:24.70
10. 2013 Aston Martin V12 Vantage S 1:24.85


If Lexus does RC-F CSSR and drops 200lbs, it will be faster on that track and still a lot cheaper.

TimboIS

I guess that's one interpretation Check your math.

Although I see a 4.0s v 4.3s as a 7.5% time difference. Plus you could say 10% weight difference.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

.3/83.73s is .00358 which is .358%

can argue skidpad, slalom, 0-60, 1/4 mile, weight all day, but on the track all of that is taken into account and it only lost by a margin thats well within driver error. This M4 in the test had the carbon ceramic brakes too. The gold caliper and high $80k price is the dead giveaway that its the CCBs. Blue calipers are the standard ones. Without the CCB it wouldve LOST. CCB are worth a lot more than .3 seconds timewise on a laptime like this.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

NA linear predictable power vs turbo engine less predictable power. This is why I prefer NA

ISF001

It's every bit the track car the M4 is, but it is much more manageable. On the road, there is no better car in the class. The oversteer in the M4 is actually a problem IMO.

So, you are dodging the buy over 3/10s of a second...really?

Not sure what you are looking for...

ISF001

So, why the preoccupation with 400 pounds? Are you competing?

TimboIS

Sorry, the IS F was beaten in every MEASURABLE way. Can't argue with that. I guess you're the only one that's allowed an opinion.

ISF001

You left out one key word...MARGINALLY. it was apparent from the beginning that Lagos was leaning towards Germany.

I've driven plenty of exotics and know the depth of performance. This car is an excellent machine with plenty of untapped value and performance.

That's my opinion. The proof is in the pudding. The fact that the RCF nearly matched the pseudo-track king is incredibly impressive...and yes, quite MEASURABLE. Trust me, there will be more measurements by new drivers.

I considered the new Aston, Porsche 911 4s, and the new Jag. The RCF made it to the top of my list, and I am more impressed after seeing the track run. The TVD on a rear wheel drive is new and offers surprising performance advantages in the hands of a driver who knows the car.

This car has yet to reveal what it can do.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

you do realize the M4 in the comparison had carbon ceramic brakes? The M wouldve lost the hot lap without those. The margin of victory was well within driver error. Go ahead and buy the M if you wish, you are not reading between the lines of what really happened in this test, that the M was not all that it was cracked up to be. I expected a sizeable victory for the M, that didnt happen. This is really a victory for the RCF, everyone talked down on how badly it would perform against the M4, and look what happened. It hung with a carbon ceramic braked M4 that is 400# lighter and was easier to drive.

TangoRed

If you're going to take that angle, you need more than 1 track test to come to that conclusion. No worries, there are surely more to come.

ISF001

For now, I think the majority of us will agree it was remarkably close.

Again, well done Yaguchi!

05RollaXRS

The so-called overhyped "track monster" got tamed. It took carbon expensive ceramic brakes option for the M4 to squeak a notch past the RC-F. True story.

natnut

After all the horse**** from the European journalists, including Chris Harris, about how the M4 was obviously the better track car, it's amusing to see that both cars have ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TRACK TIMES.

The RC-F has poorer power-to-weight ratio,poorer-torque-to-weight ratio, heavier by 400 pounds, costs $13,000 less, has no Ceramic Brakes compared to the M4 and yet could have beaten the M4 given another driver or another attempt.

Guess the Lexus engineers really did their homework : all the above evidence is proof-positive that the RC-F has the superior and more well-rounded chassis The M4 is just engine, harsh suspension and cheap turbocharging that will fail over repeated laps.

Levi68

Ok, so the Lexus was best equipped, and the BMW also, but had all the rest basic, cloth seats, no HUD, and many other things that reduce weight. The M4 will stay that way till production end, unless you get the competition package in 2 years time. The RC F on the other hand will have changes every year, like the IS F had. Funny how the M4 is such a track monster, when most owners won't go on track, and if you really want to go on track there are so many better and cheaper alternatives, to name a few: Toyota GT86, BMW M235i/M2, Porsche Cayman GTS/GT4. The M4 is neither this nor that. Even as a BMW customer I won't think a second a bout the M4, I'd be deciding between the nimble and fun M2 or the luxurious and fast M6. If I wanted both M2 and M6 in one car, RC F is that car.

primecut

iTrader: (1)

The close lap times and the driver cam clearly shows the RC-F being easier to drive at the limit, whereas the M4 is definitely more challenging/rewarding. In that sense I think Lexus accomplished what they said they were going to do, but I can't shake the feeling that it's such a lame cop-out for that to be their goal.

Outside of the track, if we are talking about road performance, the M4 spanked the RC-F, I don't know how anyone can dance around it. 12.7 vs 12.2? That's bus lengths and high 12s is on par with the IS-F (Although I've seen stock Fs hitting mid 12s.) which is hugely disappointing. Where is the progression and evolution of the F line? Argh. I guess if I wanted a newer IS-F with 2-doors then I'd consider this. The styling hasn't grown on me and it's totally off my list now (Not due to this comparo, just from all the other factors considered, subjective or otherwise).

Not that it's a bad car by any means, and I'm sure those who ordered will thoroughly enjoy it, and do so knowing that it'll be hassle-free. I know there are a few obvious prior F owners that are very passionate about this car (To say the least), but I get the sense that the rest (majority) don't feel like it's enough of an upgrade to take the leap. That's bad news if you are Lexus trying to build loyalty for the brand.

BTW - I don't see how anyone can say that CCB was the difference when it doesn't help stopping power, only fade. In one hot lap it should/would not have been a determining factor, and if it did, then it only demonstrates that the RC-F had weak brakes.