4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

M CCB package upgrades the caliper to 6 piston front 4 piston rear, standard is 4 piston front 2 piston rear. RCF comes with 6/4 pistons

Levi68

I'm reading over at F80Post. Lol at the comments. Most are not so called "car enthusiasts" but rather "BMW fanboys".

Vladi

Well they could say the same thing about us really

But no one expected RC-F that close on the track, no matter what.

ISF001

It's an upset for M4 fans. The marketing pitches and hyperbole all deflate in the face of such an undeniably close outcome. In all fairness, Yaguchi had the ability to run side-by-side comparisons with the M4 in advance of final production while BMW did not have the same opportunity.

But think about it: Yaguchi promised to create a next-generation F that outperforms the ISF; an F for beginner through expert drivers; an F that performs exceptionally on the road and the track; an F with exotic styling; an F that challenges conventional thinking about how things all unite to deliver performance--and they do.

It is apparent that traditional segmented metrics alone are NOT definitive indicators of what a car can do. Yaguchi continues to challenge conventional automotive wisdom.

I do not claim to know how it all came together on the track comparison between the M4, RCF, and one driver. All that matters to me is that it works exceptionally well, and it is unlikely to incur reliability issues under sustained, aggressive driving.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Guys if you start this thread down the path of another cross forum flame war like the prior m4 thread it will be closed. Keep it on the reviews please.

AussieISF

I am surprised at the outcome. All doubt has been removed. You get almost the same track capabilities as the M4, without the compromises of a poor exhaust note, harsh ride and questionable reliability. Also, side by side, the RCF grabs way more attention. I have sat in both and I find the interior of the RCF is much more befitting of a premium vehicle.

I am going down to Lexus this weekend to try and secure myself an allocation by putting down a deposit. The first ones to Australia have all been sold out, so earliest would be this time next year. This is the 2nd time a MotorTrend review has sold me a Lexus car, the first was Carlos' ISF review. Lexus should be giving them some big time sales commission! HAHA!!

obturator

I'll take reliability over .3 seconds everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Stats are just for bragging rights. I'll never achieve those numbers myself nor will go to a track multiple times a year. The m4 is a great car but that driver cam really showed how rough the ride can be, whereas the rcf was very Lexus-like.

05RollaXRS

Primecut wrote:

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.


I was expecting someone to say that. IS-F and RC-F were not tested side by side. 5/10ths is not bus lengths. At 112 - 115 mph trap speed, it is about 3 - 4 car lengths at best. In a side by side test, RC-F would destroy the IS-F. No doubt.

Different testing conditions (temperature, wind, surface conditions etc.) on different day/time/year make it incomparable directly.

Motor Trend tested the IS-F at 12.9 seconds@111 mph recently. I had once posted how hugely inconsistent their numbers are. The Audi RS5 Motor Trend number in 4 tests fluctuated from 12.2 - 12.8 seconds. That is a 6/10th of a second discrepancy.

Also, remember on the race track, they were neck and neck on the long straight. It is only that the M4 launches harder with a better launch control. The RC-F launch does not allow for maximum acceleration starting speed. Once both cars start accelerating, the acceleration is very similar as evident in the track video,



Primecut wrote:

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.


Randy does not do one single lap. It would be naive to believe he does. He does 3 laps, according to Motor Trend. An out lap, a flier and then a timed lap. Carbon ceramic brakes make a huge difference in repeated hard braking. Carbon ceramic is what made all the difference otherwise, RC-F would have been quicker.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

to say there was no change in braking power is untrue, the CCB package gives large caliper upgrades to all wheels not to mention its lighter.

ISF001

Down Under Man,

If you need to wait, consider the carbon model. I expect to take delivery of mine in the eastern US in late February/early March.

Let me know if MotorTrend ends up getting a sales commission for your buy.

TF109B

Hey, legitimate question here- how do we know this RC F was even a production unit? If its the carbon version as evidenced by the roof, why no mention of the tvd? It could well be a pre production car. Why didnt they talk about those things? Why didnt they tell you about the lack of features on the M4? All these facts left out just so they could call the M4 faster in a little video. People put way too much stock into these 'journalists'.

TangoRed

Excellent question. We'll see what happens in future tests from other journos. In reality I want to see what numbers C&D pulls out during their annual Lightning Lap test...unfortunately we're going to have to wait an entire year for that.

MRxSLAYx

Going to have to wait and see more testing to be sure of that. If the RCF only traps 112-115 it will door to door with a stock ISF. Interesting review though! M3 is still my choice, but the RCF does hold its own.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

this comparo also shows the differences between NA and turbocharged engines. NA is linear, very predictable, therefore smooth on the track - hence less fuss on the steering inputs. Then you have a highly turbocharged engine that has less predictable, non linear power. When the boost comes on, the power dramatically rises and you can easily lose grip - hence the fussy steering inputs the driver had to apply. Car like this requires much more skill and more effort to track. You'll get beat up on a track day.

Its funny how earlier in the video one of the reviewers says the M4 oversteer is easy to control, its so balanced and controllable. Then in the hot lap, the veteran driver is thrashing the wheel like hes cutting down a tree.

Levi68

I'm looking forward to comments on new Toyota FT-1, how it is bad because it is turbocharged, sounds worse than NA, not as linear power delivery, not good as good throttle response, to hard to control, lack comfort feature like ventilating seats, is so light that it feels not solid etc...