RC F automotive reviews thread
12-08-14, 11:16 AM
#556
I contacted Alex Kierstein, the Road and Track Web Editor, in regards to why the R&T magazine copy of the PCOTY 2015 article was showing a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds for the Lexus RC-F yet the online article was showing a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds (especially when the 1/4 mile time and trap speed was 12.7 sec @ 113.0 mph). Below is his response stating that 4.3 seconds is the correct 0-60 time for the RC-F (not 3.9):
12-08-14, 11:33 AM
#557
With that said, not into spec racing. Both cars are awesome. Buy what speaks to you.
12-08-14, 11:55 AM
#558
I said a few days ago there was an issue with the 3.9 - 12.7 times, now the 12.7 makes sense with a 4.3 0-60 time, thanks for the leg work on this to clear it up.
I contacted Alex Kierstein, the Road and Track Web Editor, in regards to why the R&T magazine copy of the PCOTY 2015 article was showing a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds for the Lexus RC-F yet the online article was showing a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds (especially when the 1/4 mile time and trap speed was 12.7 sec @ 113.0 mph). Below is his response stating that 4.3 seconds is the correct 0-60 time for the RC-F (not 3.9):
12-08-14, 12:32 PM
#559
Lexus Champion
M3 is a sedan. The M4 is the coupe. Not getting your comparison, and not seeing where youre getting your information from either.
12-08-14, 02:48 PM
#561
Lexus Test Driver
RC-F:
The un-American takes on the pony-car formula, the Jaguar F-type R Coupe and the Lexus RC F, should attract the same customer in a similar fashion. Surprisingly, not a single staffer fails to articulate a distinct favorite between the two. On Team Lexus: Kierstein, Webster, and a few others. The interior's laser-cut precision, the undeniable caviar quality of the engine's broad powerband, and the rather astounding ability of the suspension to provide magic-carpet ride and max-g grip in a single package. For others, including myself, the F-type takes it. There's just so much power, so much adjustability at speed ("The rear's on casters!" Cammisa laughs), and did I mention the power? "Sounds so good I felt guilty," Senior Editor John Krewson admits. "I love this car … in small increments," RoadandTrack.com Editorial Director Alex Núñez says.
A similar experience, albeit with better seats and the excellent Mark Levinson stereo, should be available in the Lexus RC F. Unfortunately, it isn't, thanks to a cowardly stability-control computer that never stops nannying and can't be disengaged. The number of ways in which the Lexus will sabotage your lap is legion. I take a rerun, because I initially can't get the car to shift at redline, permit minor slip angles, and/or play Guns N' Roses without warning me that my feelings were at risk. "It won't do a burnout!" Cammisa moans. It also won't permit any of the tomfoolery for which its IS F predecessor was famous.
The M3 is the only car to actually scare me at the Motown Mile. Going around the fast final turn, the torque spikes and sends me into a long, lazy, 100-mph slide that I don't recover until well down the front straight. Forget this being a German Trans Am; it's a German Corvette. "This car is nightmarish to control under power," concurs Cammisa. "It's so much work, and there's no joy to be had as a result." Having driven the M3 before, on a larger track, I suggest that it needs a bigger venue to shine. Cammisa agrees.
12-08-14, 03:28 PM
#562
Neither car made it to the final three so what does it matter, no points were awarded that I know to classify the cars in any particular order. The M3 did run a 3.9 0-60 though, a real 3.9
Wrong. Road and track liked RC-F more than they liked M3. They put the RC-F on the level of Jaguar F Type R. That is the biggest complement they could give. They called the M3 "a nightmare" on the track. They hated the characteristics of no torque switch to suddenly a big spike in torque combined with the chassis' inability to cope with the sudden changes in torque to wheels.
RC-F:
The only thing they did not like of the RC-F (a restrictor in the prototype or they simply did not know how, but RC-F does burn outs and can hit the rev limiter all day):
This is what they said about the M3 and how much they disliked the inability of the chassis to cope with the sudden and unpredictable torque spike
RC-F:
The only thing they did not like of the RC-F (a restrictor in the prototype or they simply did not know how, but RC-F does burn outs and can hit the rev limiter all day):
This is what they said about the M3 and how much they disliked the inability of the chassis to cope with the sudden and unpredictable torque spike
12-08-14, 06:08 PM
#563
Pole Position
12-08-14, 11:41 PM
#567
Lexus Test Driver
Around a track, it took an M4 with carbon ceramic brakes to squeak past the RC-F by 3/10ths of a second in MT. If you look at the R&T Motown laps, the RC-F lapped a lot quicker than the M4 (albeit tested on a different day).
I find it very amusing when BMW M fans used to always talk about "it is about the most complete driving experience and not the numbers". Now, suddenly compared to the RC-F, it is all about numbers. If one cuts through the BS, the RC-F is a much more complete car.
There are many cars that are cheaper than the M4 and would spank it silly in a straight line and around the track. It is a GT practical sports coupe that can seat 5 people, in theory. Not an all-out sports car.
R&T clearly stated how the RC-F is a much better driving experience on the race track. They enjoyed the engine, handling, interior and adaptability of the chassis to different road conditions a lot more than those of the M4. It is clear in their statements above.
BTW, seeing pattern in all of your other posts, are you here to glorify the M3/M4?
I find it very amusing when BMW M fans used to always talk about "it is about the most complete driving experience and not the numbers". Now, suddenly compared to the RC-F, it is all about numbers. If one cuts through the BS, the RC-F is a much more complete car.
There are many cars that are cheaper than the M4 and would spank it silly in a straight line and around the track. It is a GT practical sports coupe that can seat 5 people, in theory. Not an all-out sports car.
R&T clearly stated how the RC-F is a much better driving experience on the race track. They enjoyed the engine, handling, interior and adaptability of the chassis to different road conditions a lot more than those of the M4. It is clear in their statements above.
BTW, seeing pattern in all of your other posts, are you here to glorify the M3/M4?
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 12-08-14 at 11:51 PM.
12-09-14, 03:25 AM
#568
Pole Position
I'm not sure you have ever been to the track. 4000 lbs car will tear up the brakes in two or three laps so I'm not understanding your argument. Car magazines that get the car, hammer it, and they are done with it. They don't have to deal with warped rotors, melted pads, or killed tires.
According to RT Lexus handles the rough track better than M4.
Anyway I'm waiting on ATSV, C63 AMG and RS5 to see what they are about. RCF to me so far just isn't on par in the segment. However I have not driven it yet.
According to RT Lexus handles the rough track better than M4.
Anyway I'm waiting on ATSV, C63 AMG and RS5 to see what they are about. RCF to me so far just isn't on par in the segment. However I have not driven it yet.
Or actual track use/daily driver utility/driving enjoyment?
For track, the RC-F is comparable if not faster than the M4 ( R&T test). For driving fun, the well modulated V8 is better than the turbos of the M4 and the backend is more controllable and the limits of the car more attainable for the average driver.( as per several magazine comparos)
Until you specify what you are measuring the RC-F against and do a proper hands-on test drive, a lot of what you say seems premature and smacks of leaping to conclusions. Unless of course you are just a BMWphile whose sad use of time is boosting your ego by trolling Lexus forums.(Not That I''m saying you are)
12-09-14, 05:32 AM
#569
4000# will tear up brakes, as opposed to what a 3900# car? Tires do a majority of the braking power, there are no such thing as warped rotors. Go read Stoptechs article about the myth of warped rotors. Plenty of ISF owners here have put hard laps on their 3800# car and didnt "tear up the brakes in 2-3 laps" and the ISFs brakes are even weaker than the RCFs. Where are you digging this stuff up? Do GTRs tear up their brakes in 2-3 laps? Sounds like you missed the R&T tidbit that said the RCF actually put higher braking Gs than the M4 did. Sounds like the brakes are fine.
12-09-14, 06:43 AM
#570
In regards to the Motor Trend article with the M4 beating the RC-F around the Streets of Willow track by 0.3 seconds, I noticed that on the Motor Trend spec sheet, it lists the Lexus RC-F being equipped with Bridgestone Potenza tires and the BMW M4 with Michelin Pilot Super Sports:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
Doesn't the RC-F come standard with Michelin Pilot Super Sports? I'm an advocate that tires play a huge role in regards to lap times (when driver skill level remains constant) so assuming that the Michelin Pilot Super Sports are stickier than the Bridgestone Potenzas that the test RC-F was equipped with for this comparison, it's very likely that the pendulum might have switched and that the RC-F could have been the one to win the Motor Trend lap time comparison that day by 0.3 seconds if it was using Super Sport tires as well.
Just my two cents...
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
Doesn't the RC-F come standard with Michelin Pilot Super Sports? I'm an advocate that tires play a huge role in regards to lap times (when driver skill level remains constant) so assuming that the Michelin Pilot Super Sports are stickier than the Bridgestone Potenzas that the test RC-F was equipped with for this comparison, it's very likely that the pendulum might have switched and that the RC-F could have been the one to win the Motor Trend lap time comparison that day by 0.3 seconds if it was using Super Sport tires as well.
Just my two cents...
Last edited by redspencer; 12-09-14 at 06:46 AM.