ISF001

Here is the review from the other Journalist in the video (Nic Cackett)

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...rs5-comparison



[Quote:

The verdict

The RC F's adjustability and briskly fluent steering almost has it pip the RS5 in the final running order, especially given the inordinately massive lift-off required to have the Audi reconcile itself with a new line. But the RC F’s ultimate inability to satisfy at either end of its changeable nature – not as a big-chested GT or flat-out thrill seeker – dooms it to Toyota’s catalogue of nice ideas rather than its shortlist of unmitigated triumphs.]

I am sorry, but why does this review strike me as being highly predictable? It is scribed in the predictable tenor of the UK bimmer-blinded, reviewers. I also read this as a desperate attempt to discount what many are viewing as a new order led by Japan's RC-F.

I should think there would be more of a focus by the UK media on the new conversation emerging in the auto world about the M4. The words I am reading are "fatally flawed" M4 car with regard to the near uncontrollable oversteer occurring as the car approaches its limits and the deficiencies in the overall driver experience.

Many of legacy M fans are not thrilled with the new M4.

Razorthin1

Mods already gave me a warning about how sensitive some people are in here so I'll be nice.

Did you actually read the article? If so, do you believe that is the ranking the author alludes to in his closing remarks?

ISF001

Nic's pejorative syntax is vexing. His presumptuous conclusions about the Japanese car that has outperformed the two German rides in three track tests seems to have eluded him (along with the actual top speed of the new F).

Yes...I read his "fantasy." I am being very polite here.

He needs a newsflash: the LFA (which is rumored to have cost twice as much to build than it sold for) was not built to make money: it was built to amplify the F brand. The brand amplification strategy seems to be working based on the RC-F sales and the flow of Fsport cars being sold, IMO.

Any ranking that might be gleaned from this piece is difficult to take seriously.

ISF001

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...illiant-fusion

natnut

Please read my wording : "consensus".

It was obvious from the Autocar video that the Autocar journalist preferred the RCF over the M4 while his colleague who wrote the online Autocar article preferred the RS5 over the RCF. So Autocar's consensus opinion should be RS5>RCF>M4

Another telling thing is that the journalist who preferred the RS5 was a poor driver from the Autocar video. He could never make a clean exit from the apex when driving the M4 while the driver who preferred the RCF was a much tidier driver and much less frequently lost control of the M4's tail.Guess who is the more credible voice out of this duo of Autocar journalists?

You don't have to be nice, but perhaps you should read qualifying nouns before jumping to conclusions.

ISF001

http://auto.ndtv.com/news/dubai-poli...lection-738176

Motor

7No

iTrader: (1)

"The mouth of the Predator" lmao

05RollaXRS

Surprisingly lame review. It was dreadful and full of errors. Adam Carolla seemed checked out, which is surprising considering he is a car buff and was exited like a kid in a candy store when he reviewed the Lexus LFA. I was expecting he would show similar level of enthusiasm here.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

im sure you realize that C63 coupe and RS5 weigh about the same as the RCF. How come the weight isnt an issue with them? Argue weight or not a 2015 performance car all you want but how did it only lose by .3 sec to the M4 in Motor Trend Head 2 Head? And M4 lost to an RCF (although in the wet) in an EVO test. Im still waiting for a decisive M4 victory which it shouldve been looking at paper specs. Where is it? RCF gets praised for its predictable consistent handling, M3/4 gets complaints about oversteer and grip issues. RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than a GS (which beat the 5 series) and has the best crash test rating in that class. The A5 and 3/4 is rated marginal or poor on some of the frontal tests

ISF001

^^^This...Truth be told.

DrRick

so this week's episode of Top Gear is s'posed to have the M4 on it. anyone wanna bet that the RC-F is reviewed, as well?

dannyk8232

I sure hope so, although the ISF episode started off so exciting before it was derailed...

ISF001

http://www.torquenews.com/1083/can-2...f-drift-bmw-m4 (Complete Article)

"The M4 is a torque monster and the car can get away from drivers who are not used to such a twitchy setup. There is no doubt the M4 can drift. The only question is can the driver catch it with opposite lock in time to keep it on the tarmac."

"Our favorite comments by the driver? Here they are in order:
- The RC F is “Nicely balanced.” “Very Balanced.”
- The RC F is ” A lot tidier than the BMW.”
- “If you keep the nose (of the RC F) tucked it does not understeer much.”
- The RC F has a “Pleasingly linear engine.”
- The RC F is “a deliciously old-school coupe”
- “I just don’t think (the M4) is quite as progressive as the Lexus.”