RC F automotive reviews thread
11-08-14, 10:51 AM
#451
This article was released in September. They haven't even driven the car. How can they comment, other than the looks? Can you read the bias? Maybe your print edition says they've driven the car.
Last edited by obturator; 11-08-14 at 10:58 AM.
11-08-14, 05:41 PM
#452
Lexus RC media test drive canceled in Japan -- for lack of interest 
http://www.autonews.com/article/20141106/BLOG06/141109881/lexus-rc-media-test-drive-canceled-in-japan-for-lack-of-interest
http://www.autonews.com/article/20141106/BLOG06/141109881/lexus-rc-media-test-drive-canceled-in-japan-for-lack-of-interest
11-08-14, 05:45 PM
#453
11-08-14, 05:47 PM
#454
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
It is disappointing to see so many twisting the numbers. The RCF has already run a 4.3 and a 12.7. Lexus has confirmed in print that the RCF is faster than the M4 and RS5 on a closed circuit track. Anyone with intermediate driving experience can see the car has uncanny corning advantages, and this equals substantial gains on any track or challenging road.
The RCF will destroy my 2012 ISF on a track and on the road--no question here.
Magazines sell ads to manufacturers. Need I say more. A light foot turns light results. RCF drivers are likely to beat the 4.3 and 12.7 with the carbon TVD. We'll compare notes in March/April.
I for one am AMAZED that MT published the hot lap comparison where there was only 3/10s of a second difference in the lap times.
Naysayers can argue until they are blue in the face: when it is all put together, the car is simply amazing. It actually works.
11-08-14, 06:04 PM
#455
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Do you know why they did not show much interest? There is a minimal segment of the population, even among high paid executives, who actually can afford to buy the ISF or RCF in Japan. There is no real market for supercars/high performance cars-and even less of a market among the young buyers. This is the country of the bullet train.
"The Japanese just don't get geared up about cars anymore.". READ THE ARTICLE.
Most executives commute via the bullet train to Tokyo, have a long day, go out for dinner, Get home late at night, and do it again the next day. Weekend driving you say? They sleep most of the weekend so they can get up and do it all over the next week--life in the fast lane in Japan.
This is a cultural response to expensive cars by the Japanese. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I would not read much of anything into this "article."
Lexus will not have any problems selling these cars. I just drove the RC 350 Fsport today. For $50,000 plus it is a bargain. It handles well, sounds great, and has much more testosterone than the IS currently delivers. The cabin was attractive, well appointed with leather, and the instrumentation was easy to interpret and use.
There simply isn't much of a market for expensive autos in Japan these days. Japan is a greying population in a state of contraction.
Last edited by ISF001; 11-08-14 at 06:30 PM.
11-08-14, 07:05 PM
#456
Lexus Test Driver
Just stopped by the Indigo bookstore to check out the latest C&D and saw the two main features (Camaro 1LE vs Mustang GT vs Challenger comparo and RC-F full test).
RC-F did a 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds and 12.8 seconds 1/4 mile. It was a tad slower than the MT test. However, the trap speed was pretty high of 114 mph.
So far, none of the tests matched Lexus' official stats of 12.5 seconds. Hopefully, that will happen soon.
I refuse to believe their claim that RC-F is no quicker or slower than the IS-F. That is flat out wrong. Both cars were not tested in the same conditions and on the same day. A head-to-head would tell a much better story since IS-F had done a couple of tests where it pulled a 13.1 seconds.
They cherry picked the best 2008 IS-F time to put against the RC-F time while completely ignored the 2011 updated IS-F time of 13.1 seconds. I would question why they would do that?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review
Good news I found was that RC-F was quicker than the other cars in the comparison feature. Mustang GT, Challenger and Camaro 1LE all managed to pull a 13.0 - 13.1 seconds 1/4 mile.
Also, they said RC-F has a very neutral chassis and the understeer is very minimal, if you don't entirely lift off the throttle. That is also much better than what MT said where they actually complained about the understeer. RC-F weight distribution was also pretty good of 53% front and 47% back.
RC-F did a 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds and 12.8 seconds 1/4 mile. It was a tad slower than the MT test. However, the trap speed was pretty high of 114 mph.
So far, none of the tests matched Lexus' official stats of 12.5 seconds. Hopefully, that will happen soon.
I refuse to believe their claim that RC-F is no quicker or slower than the IS-F. That is flat out wrong. Both cars were not tested in the same conditions and on the same day. A head-to-head would tell a much better story since IS-F had done a couple of tests where it pulled a 13.1 seconds.
They cherry picked the best 2008 IS-F time to put against the RC-F time while completely ignored the 2011 updated IS-F time of 13.1 seconds. I would question why they would do that?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review
Good news I found was that RC-F was quicker than the other cars in the comparison feature. Mustang GT, Challenger and Camaro 1LE all managed to pull a 13.0 - 13.1 seconds 1/4 mile.
Also, they said RC-F has a very neutral chassis and the understeer is very minimal, if you don't entirely lift off the throttle. That is also much better than what MT said where they actually complained about the understeer. RC-F weight distribution was also pretty good of 53% front and 47% back.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 11-08-14 at 07:12 PM.
11-08-14, 09:26 PM
#458
Lexus Test Driver
the full tests and comparos are about to come out, but it really doesn't matter to me because magazines rarely capture the "seat of the pants" feel nor the non-professional driver "accessibility". both of which this car has in spades.
11-09-14, 02:46 AM
#459
Pole Position
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Prague
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is mostly BMW who overrated this. I wonder what the Supra/Z5 will be like and hope it will be like the AMG GT and California or F12, not to forget the LFA, which are all rear weight biased.
11-09-14, 03:57 AM
#460
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Just stopped by the Indigo bookstore to check out the latest C&D and saw the two main features (Camaro 1LE vs Mustang GT vs Challenger comparo and RC-F full test).
RC-F did a 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds and 12.8 seconds 1/4 mile. It was a tad slower than the MT test. However, the trap speed was pretty high of 114 mph.
So far, none of the tests matched Lexus' official stats of 12.5 seconds. Hopefully, that will happen soon.
I refuse to believe their claim that RC-F is no quicker or slower than the IS-F. That is flat out wrong. Both cars were not tested in the same conditions and on the same day. A head-to-head would tell a much better story since IS-F had done a couple of tests where it pulled a 13.1 seconds.
They cherry picked the best 2008 IS-F time to put against the RC-F time while completely ignored the 2011 updated IS-F time of 13.1 seconds. I would question why they would do that?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review
Good news I found was that RC-F was quicker than the other cars in the comparison feature. Mustang GT, Challenger and Camaro 1LE all managed to pull a 13.0 - 13.1 seconds 1/4 mile.
Also, they said RC-F has a very neutral chassis and the understeer is very minimal, if you don't entirely lift off the throttle. That is also much better than what MT said where they actually complained about the understeer. RC-F weight distribution was also pretty good of 53% front and 47% back.
RC-F did a 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds and 12.8 seconds 1/4 mile. It was a tad slower than the MT test. However, the trap speed was pretty high of 114 mph.
So far, none of the tests matched Lexus' official stats of 12.5 seconds. Hopefully, that will happen soon.
I refuse to believe their claim that RC-F is no quicker or slower than the IS-F. That is flat out wrong. Both cars were not tested in the same conditions and on the same day. A head-to-head would tell a much better story since IS-F had done a couple of tests where it pulled a 13.1 seconds.
They cherry picked the best 2008 IS-F time to put against the RC-F time while completely ignored the 2011 updated IS-F time of 13.1 seconds. I would question why they would do that?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review
Good news I found was that RC-F was quicker than the other cars in the comparison feature. Mustang GT, Challenger and Camaro 1LE all managed to pull a 13.0 - 13.1 seconds 1/4 mile.
Also, they said RC-F has a very neutral chassis and the understeer is very minimal, if you don't entirely lift off the throttle. That is also much better than what MT said where they actually complained about the understeer. RC-F weight distribution was also pretty good of 53% front and 47% back.
The RCF will at least run a 12.5.
11-09-14, 05:24 AM
#461
Pole Position
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then its all up to the driver, what do he or she prefer ? One thing is for sure, understeer as phenomenon has never and will never be rated as "fun" and challenging by most people.
11-09-14, 06:17 AM
#462
Lexus Test Driver
Its actually among the most important parameters when it comes to driving and chassi behaviour. Porsche and the 911 is a perfect example, this car is very well known for its oversteer when you push it. The M4 with its 50/50 alternates between under and oversteer all the time, depending on how hard you are pushing, braking and accelerate out of corners and so on. RC-F has the more "safe" understeer setting , the car will never surprise you in any way, push it hard and will understeer more and more.
Then its all up to the driver, what do he or she prefer ? One thing is for sure, understeer as phenomenon has never and will never be rated as "fun" and challenging by most people.
Then its all up to the driver, what do he or she prefer ? One thing is for sure, understeer as phenomenon has never and will never be rated as "fun" and challenging by most people.
I'm sure the RC F will be much better balanced than the now old IS F 
11-09-14, 10:09 AM
#465
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review
This article was released in September. They haven't even driven the car. How can they comment, other than the looks? Can you read the bias? Maybe your print edition says they've driven the car.
This article was released in September. They haven't even driven the car. How can they comment, other than the looks? Can you read the bias? Maybe your print edition says they've driven the car.