RC F automotive reviews thread
02-21-15, 09:26 AM
#826
But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
02-21-15, 09:54 AM
#827
Pole Position
Last edited by natnut; 02-22-15 at 12:34 AM.
02-21-15, 09:59 AM
#828
Lead Lap
I feel like I'm in some weird bubble of distorted reality in here...
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
02-21-15, 10:48 AM
#829
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Those who believe there are NO ulterior, monetary motivations in the automobile review industry are indeed DELUSIONAL.
Only a blind man cannot see what is clearly in front of him.
When the runs are grossly out of line with REALITY, it indicates we have imbeciles executing these runs and evaluating the metrics, or that we have rigged runs.
As for the world of drivers running all of the cars in this class, there is no doubt that everyone of them has a preference, and none is free of subjective consideration of the cars. It is also obvious that a light foot results in a light run.
Despite the fact that there will never be a totally objective review of any car, there are drivers who make it clear from the on-start that they wear a pro-German auto stamp on their arms.
Only a blind man cannot see what is clearly in front of him.
So I agree with the comment: "F" the reviews. This thread has had 95,000+ views. I am presuming the majority of them are NON-DELUSIONAL individuals who actually are Lexus enthusiasts with true interest in Lexus "F" cars.
I'm one of them.
Only a blind man cannot see what is clearly in front of him.
When the runs are grossly out of line with REALITY, it indicates we have imbeciles executing these runs and evaluating the metrics, or that we have rigged runs.
As for the world of drivers running all of the cars in this class, there is no doubt that everyone of them has a preference, and none is free of subjective consideration of the cars. It is also obvious that a light foot results in a light run.
Despite the fact that there will never be a totally objective review of any car, there are drivers who make it clear from the on-start that they wear a pro-German auto stamp on their arms.
Only a blind man cannot see what is clearly in front of him.
So I agree with the comment: "F" the reviews. This thread has had 95,000+ views. I am presuming the majority of them are NON-DELUSIONAL individuals who actually are Lexus enthusiasts with true interest in Lexus "F" cars.
I'm one of them.
Last edited by ISF001; 02-21-15 at 10:52 AM.
02-21-15, 11:23 AM
#830
I feel like I'm in some weird bubble of distorted reality in here...
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
02-21-15, 11:59 AM
#831
Lexus Champion
Do you guys honestly think 'major' auto mags/websites would pick the RC F over the BMW? Even though Randy posted nearly identical times, these others like to say the Lexus is really slow and overweight. The BMW is NOT 500, 600lbs. less. Its curb weight is 3600-3700lbs. Stop buying the media hype. Its all bs to go with the status quo. The turbo torque is so great now but was criticized last generation. Remember the rave of the last gen M3's N-A engine? Turbos were so bad because they were unpredictable, they took away the 'feel'. Oh, but now bmw has a turbo car, its all the rage. N-A engines like the RC F's are all of a sudden "slow" "uninspiring" "lacking feel" etc. You dont have to be a genius to see the trend here. No matter how good competition is, even when they beat bmw with the same thing that was previously praised, theyre no match because it's a bmw. Stop being sheep. Cars arent supposed to have snap oversteer on throttle application. No one wants a drift car in a luxury sports coupe. These reviews are all opinion pieces. But the bias towards bmw is definitely apparent. If you cant see that, then bmw has bought you over the same way it has with the major auto media.
02-21-15, 05:17 PM
#832
I am glad it's not the "Hot" car to have because every mag racer would have one and I don't want to see them sell like the mustang, I am sure Lexus knew the numbers when it came out better then we ever well, Hell they had a M4 at the track just to see what you like better at the Asphalt up event.
I am not sure why everything that says the M4 is faster even matters, no need to be insecure about a stupid car lol.
I am not sure why everything that says the M4 is faster even matters, no need to be insecure about a stupid car lol.
02-21-15, 06:24 PM
#833
Lexus Champion
Drove an RC-F today... I fell in love. Such a great feeling car around the closed course. It felt very natural and confident around the bends, even for a novice like me.
02-21-15, 09:08 PM
#834
Lexus Test Driver
02-22-15, 12:33 AM
#835
Pole Position
Do you guys honestly think 'major' auto mags/websites would pick the RC F over the BMW? Even though Randy posted nearly identical times, these others like to say the Lexus is really slow and overweight. The BMW is NOT 500, 600lbs. less. Its curb weight is 3600-3700lbs. Stop buying the media hype. Its all bs to go with the status quo. The turbo torque is so great now but was criticized last generation. Remember the rave of the last gen M3's N-A engine? Turbos were so bad because they were unpredictable, they took away the 'feel'. Oh, but now bmw has a turbo car, its all the rage. N-A engines like the RC F's are all of a sudden "slow" "uninspiring" "lacking feel" etc. You dont have to be a genius to see the trend here. No matter how good competition is, even when they beat bmw with the same thing that was previously praised, theyre no match because it's a bmw. Stop being sheep. Cars arent supposed to have snap oversteer on throttle application. No one wants a drift car in a luxury sports coupe. These reviews are all opinion pieces. But the bias towards bmw is definitely apparent. If you cant see that, then bmw has bought you over the same way it has with the major auto media.
The true "bubble of distorted reality" is the people thinking that the M4 is the best track car for them when IN REALITY, unless they are Randy Probst on his best day or other PROFESSIONAL race car driver, 100% of those sucking on BMW's teat will be FASTER in the RCF on a track than in an M4.
100% of those people buying the M4 expecting that they will blow away the RCF on the track will receive a rude awakening the moment their first encounter with a hairpin loop occurs. Within the limits of the handling abilities of the average buyer of the M4/RCF, the RCF will almost always be faster around a corner.
Last edited by natnut; 02-22-15 at 12:42 AM.
02-22-15, 04:48 AM
#836
Pole Position
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The turbo torque is so great now but was criticized last generation. Remember the rave of the last gen M3's N-A engine? Turbos were so bad because they were unpredictable, they took away the 'feel'. Oh, but now bmw has a turbo car, its all the rage. N-A engines like the RC F's are all of a sudden "slow" "uninspiring" "lacking feel" etc.
02-22-15, 05:50 AM
#837
what exactly has changed with regards to turbos in the last 8 years? You still have lag, the complexity, reliability, the heat issues, non linear throttle. Now BMW wants to add water injection and AWD to M cars. Complexity is going to get even worse
02-22-15, 07:32 AM
#838
Driver School Candidate
PistonHeads RCF vs M4 track review:
http://www.pistonheads.com/features/...s-bmw-m4/31677
Bedford South Autodrome. Damp track.
M4 Best Time: 1:06
RCF Best Time: 1:07:10
Summary paragraph perfectly fits the current conversation in here:
http://www.pistonheads.com/features/...s-bmw-m4/31677
Bedford South Autodrome. Damp track.
M4 Best Time: 1:06
RCF Best Time: 1:07:10
Summary paragraph perfectly fits the current conversation in here:
Foregone conclusions, biased or not, are actually very necessary. Pick the one you liked first, and you'll be happy. But the M4 is fastest. But the RC F has a V8.
02-22-15, 08:43 AM
#839
Lexus Test Driver
PistonHeads RCF vs M4 track review:
http://www.pistonheads.com/features/...s-bmw-m4/31677
Bedford South Autodrome. Damp track.
M4 Best Time: 1:06
RCF Best Time: 1:07:10
Summary paragraph perfectly fits the current conversation in here:
http://www.pistonheads.com/features/...s-bmw-m4/31677
Bedford South Autodrome. Damp track.
M4 Best Time: 1:06
RCF Best Time: 1:07:10
Summary paragraph perfectly fits the current conversation in here:
M4 is the Faster and more Dynamic car at 10/10s
RCF is just as good at 8/10s but cant match the M4 at the absolute limit, but it comes with a NA V8, great sounds, and long term reliability.
Both are Great cars, drive them and pick one u like best...........