RC F automotive reviews thread
02-27-15, 04:17 AM
#887
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Top Gear Slide by Slide--RC F or M4 (Excerpt-Second Half of Article)
Except from Top Gear Magazine, Slide by Slide—RC F Versus M4
Words: Ollie Marriage
This is only the second half of the article. I view this as a grey zone article in the typical Top Gear fashion. In all fairness to both cars, there is an undefinable component in each car's performance that is rooted in the test driver(s) familiarity and capabilities behind the wheel of each new car.
For what it is worth, enjoy the read.
“Don’t feel to sorry for it yet, because there are upside to the Lexus that we’ll come on to. Before we do, we need to discuss the BMW. Yes, at Dunsfold it trounced the Lexus in a straight line and went everywhere with more speed, determination and control. But, above all, it was sharper. The nose went where it was told, when it was told, and provided you didn’t get carried away, the rear tyres would push it very effectively onwards.
But, if you did get carried away, even only slightly, the BWM developed what we’ll call a “traction issue”. In short, it struggles to get its power down. A prod too far and, if you didn’t have your wits about you, the M4 would no longer be facing the exit of the corner, but the entrance. In fact, sharp might not be the right word to describe the M4 on track – spiky and edgy are equally valid. In Sport Plus mode, the throttle response is savage, clever engine management keeping the turbo spinning so you don’t get caught off-boost. It kicks very hard, is tricky to drive smoothly and easy to get wrong.
“THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH DOES TRACK DRIVING MATTER TO YOU OVER ROAD DRIVING?”
It’s as if BMW were worried that the M4 would be perceived as a bit of a softie with the adoption of turbos, so decided to equip it with a scorpion’s tail—jabby and poisonous. Of course, this also means it’s a laugh on track, rarely pointing straight, and you can, of course, back all the settings off, and the BMW actually becomes more manageable.
However, on this evidence, the bald numbers seem to be proof of a better car. But the question is this: how much does track driving matter to you over and above road driving? You may do a couple of track days a year, but the other 363 days are all about road driving. And out there, it’s a different matter. The BMW still has traction issues, and here they’re less amusing. It can’t get out of a junction without an orange light flashing. And the engine noise is rather forced, the double-clutch gearbox jerks the shifts unnecessarily and, bar some extra carbon, the cabin is that of a standard 3-series. And why don’t the top bars of the wing mirrors join up to the doors?
It just feels a bit over-processed, too much garnish, a hint of pantomime. Ultimately, there’s a suspicion that the M4 is acting the part of an M4, rather than actually being an M4.
Don’t’ get me wrong: it’s still good, but it seems slightly out of kilter, doesn’t have the integrity or purity of purposes that made older m3s so enthralling. The engine is central to this – M4 is missing the rasping yowl of a clean-breathing straight-six barreling its way to 8,000 rpm.
And a bombastic engine is one thing the Lexus does have in its favor. The Lexus V8 is all heart and soul and effort, it responds well, is a genuine pleasure to fire up in the mornings, is so honeyed on its way to the 7,000 rpm limiter that it seems as if it could rev to 8, 9, and 10,000 rpm, even. It’s deeply satisfying. And so’s the rest of the car. The cabin is more coupe-ish than the M4’s, with an interesting terraced dash (although the infotainment is hopeless), it’s well planted with good traction and stability, more refined and relaxed, vigorous rather than vicious. I liked it on the road: it was burly, honest, endearing and surprisingly dexterous. Better than the BMW. Which, given the 363:2 road/track ratio, must make it the winner, right?
So nearly. If it’d been 300kg lighter, I think we’d have a different verdict here. The BWM wins, but it’s a victory hollowed by the M4’s strange imbalance—it’s not as well rounded as it ought to be. Too much focus on the numbers, perhaps.”
Words: Ollie Marriage
This is only the second half of the article. I view this as a grey zone article in the typical Top Gear fashion. In all fairness to both cars, there is an undefinable component in each car's performance that is rooted in the test driver(s) familiarity and capabilities behind the wheel of each new car.
For what it is worth, enjoy the read.
“Don’t feel to sorry for it yet, because there are upside to the Lexus that we’ll come on to. Before we do, we need to discuss the BMW. Yes, at Dunsfold it trounced the Lexus in a straight line and went everywhere with more speed, determination and control. But, above all, it was sharper. The nose went where it was told, when it was told, and provided you didn’t get carried away, the rear tyres would push it very effectively onwards.
But, if you did get carried away, even only slightly, the BWM developed what we’ll call a “traction issue”. In short, it struggles to get its power down. A prod too far and, if you didn’t have your wits about you, the M4 would no longer be facing the exit of the corner, but the entrance. In fact, sharp might not be the right word to describe the M4 on track – spiky and edgy are equally valid. In Sport Plus mode, the throttle response is savage, clever engine management keeping the turbo spinning so you don’t get caught off-boost. It kicks very hard, is tricky to drive smoothly and easy to get wrong.
“THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH DOES TRACK DRIVING MATTER TO YOU OVER ROAD DRIVING?”
It’s as if BMW were worried that the M4 would be perceived as a bit of a softie with the adoption of turbos, so decided to equip it with a scorpion’s tail—jabby and poisonous. Of course, this also means it’s a laugh on track, rarely pointing straight, and you can, of course, back all the settings off, and the BMW actually becomes more manageable.
However, on this evidence, the bald numbers seem to be proof of a better car. But the question is this: how much does track driving matter to you over and above road driving? You may do a couple of track days a year, but the other 363 days are all about road driving. And out there, it’s a different matter. The BMW still has traction issues, and here they’re less amusing. It can’t get out of a junction without an orange light flashing. And the engine noise is rather forced, the double-clutch gearbox jerks the shifts unnecessarily and, bar some extra carbon, the cabin is that of a standard 3-series. And why don’t the top bars of the wing mirrors join up to the doors?
It just feels a bit over-processed, too much garnish, a hint of pantomime. Ultimately, there’s a suspicion that the M4 is acting the part of an M4, rather than actually being an M4.
Don’t’ get me wrong: it’s still good, but it seems slightly out of kilter, doesn’t have the integrity or purity of purposes that made older m3s so enthralling. The engine is central to this – M4 is missing the rasping yowl of a clean-breathing straight-six barreling its way to 8,000 rpm.
And a bombastic engine is one thing the Lexus does have in its favor. The Lexus V8 is all heart and soul and effort, it responds well, is a genuine pleasure to fire up in the mornings, is so honeyed on its way to the 7,000 rpm limiter that it seems as if it could rev to 8, 9, and 10,000 rpm, even. It’s deeply satisfying. And so’s the rest of the car. The cabin is more coupe-ish than the M4’s, with an interesting terraced dash (although the infotainment is hopeless), it’s well planted with good traction and stability, more refined and relaxed, vigorous rather than vicious. I liked it on the road: it was burly, honest, endearing and surprisingly dexterous. Better than the BMW. Which, given the 363:2 road/track ratio, must make it the winner, right?
So nearly. If it’d been 300kg lighter, I think we’d have a different verdict here. The BWM wins, but it’s a victory hollowed by the M4’s strange imbalance—it’s not as well rounded as it ought to be. Too much focus on the numbers, perhaps.”
Last edited by ISF001; 02-27-15 at 04:54 AM.
02-27-15, 08:43 AM
#889
Driver School Candidate
...Better than the BMW. Which, given the 363:2 road/track ratio, must make it the winner, right?
SO NEARLY. If it’d been 300kg lighter, I think we’d have a different verdict here. The BWM WINS, but it’s a victory hollowed by the M4’s strange imbalance—it’s not as well rounded as it ought to be. Too much focus on the numbers, perhaps.”
SO NEARLY. If it’d been 300kg lighter, I think we’d have a different verdict here. The BWM WINS, but it’s a victory hollowed by the M4’s strange imbalance—it’s not as well rounded as it ought to be. Too much focus on the numbers, perhaps.”
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the rest of the article as well...
Last edited by Razorthin1; 02-27-15 at 08:49 AM.
02-27-15, 10:01 AM
#890
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
No they did not. That's your conclusion. The M4 won the comparison.
So in spite of the them preferring the RCF on the road 363 days out of the year they STILL concluded that the M4 wins the comparison. I'm guessing they are not going to be kind to the RCF on this upcoming episode, and I'm sure this was filmed before they drove the new C63 or it would get downright brutal. Do you want to start comparing the RCF to the new C63 yet?
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the rest of the article as well...
So in spite of the them preferring the RCF on the road 363 days out of the year they STILL concluded that the M4 wins the comparison. I'm guessing they are not going to be kind to the RCF on this upcoming episode, and I'm sure this was filmed before they drove the new C63 or it would get downright brutal. Do you want to start comparing the RCF to the new C63 yet?
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the rest of the article as well...
Video? No idea what the video brings. The TG crew tends to be very schizophrenic, and you will have different drivers and editorial misalignment--you know--what dominates most auto magazines.
Yep. The BMW "won" THIS comparison and dominated the track based on TG's driving experience. I do not know who drove the car.
However, in the words of TG, the RC F is clearly "Better than the BMW" as a daily driver:
Attention please...
"And a bombastic engine is one thing the Lexus does have in its favor. The Lexus V8 is all heart and soul and effort, it responds well, is a genuine pleasure to fire up in the mornings, is so honeyed on its way to the 7,000 rpm limiter that it seems as if it could rev to 8, 9, and 10,000 rpm, even. It’s deeply satisfying. And so’s the rest of the car. The cabin is more coupe-ish than the M4’s, with an interesting terraced dash (although the infotainment is hopeless), it’s well planted with good traction and stability, more refined and relaxed, vigorous rather than vicious. I liked it on the road: it was burly, honest, endearing and surprisingly dexterous. Better than the BMW. Which, given the 363:2 road/track ratio, must make it the winner, right?"
This is all one more editorial opinion among all of the varied opinions on the two cars. Both have alleged strengths and weaknesses. Choose your weapon.
Last edited by ISF001; 02-27-15 at 10:06 AM.
02-27-15, 10:20 AM
#892
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Lexus positions RC F coupe as halo model for F performance brand
http://www.gizmag.com/lexus-rc-f-coupe/36046/
The new performance and image flagship of Lexus, the RC F
Image Gallery (33 images) Awesome photos
The halo model, every car company needs one. It is the car that sits front and center in the dealer's showroom, its aura of advanced technology, styling and performance lending a glow all the way down the product range. It is the one that draws shoppers in, even if they end up buying a minivan. For Lexus, that car is the new RC F coupe that was unveiled at NAIAS last month.
Lexus is a brand that doesn't need much burnishing, but might need a little help in defining its F performance brand. What M is to BMW, S is to Audi and AMG is to Mercedes, the F brand is to Lexus. Even though the RC F is only the third Lexus to get the F badge – after the IS F and the LFA supercar – it's there to let you know that the up-market Toyota brand means business.
As with its German counterparts, the RC F is first and foremost about power and the application of that power to the tarmac as directly and efficiently as possible. For the RC F, this is accomplished with a stonking 5 liter V8 plant situated up front under a low-slung hood. The V8 engine cranks out 351 kW (470 hp) of power and 530 Nm of torque, sending all that power to the road via an eight-speed transmission and a torque vectoring differential. Naturally, the chassis is stiff, the suspension was developed and refined at the track and the brakes could stop a train.
The Lexus RC F powerplant
First things first, let's take a closer look at that engine. Lexus calls it the 2UR-GSE and it features all-new cylinder heads, a new D-4S dual-injection system for the go juice, lighter moving parts, new cam profiles, and new intake and exhaust manifolds. Bottom line: power is up by 13 per cent from the previous mill. The internals bear goodies of their own, like forged con-rods and titanium valves allowing the red line to be set at a pretty-durn-high 7,300 rpm, which is not at all bad for an engine with a 12.3:1 compression ratio and pistons the size of your fist.
All that translates into 351 kW of power at 7,100 rpm and 530 Nm of torque from 4,800 to 5,600 rpm. This means the lucky drivers of the RC F have around 2,500 rpm of nice, fat powerband to play with to their hearts content. And in case you're getting your tutu in a twist, Lexus was also able to up the fuel economy and get the RC F to meet the uber-strict Euro 6 emission requirements.
All that power can't stay in the crankcase, and it's south of the bellhousing where there's some really neat tech happening.
For starters there's a whole lot of cogs in the gearbox. Eight of them to be exact, with the first gear being a granny ratio to get you off the line, then six more that are closely spaced, ratio-wise, and then that final eighth gear that's Yao Ming tall so the mpg figures are really impressive when you're cruising down the highway for long trips.
Gear selection is accomplished either with the gear lever or paddle shifters on the steering wheel. In "M Mode", up-shifts are made in 0.3 of a second and going down happens in just 0.2 of a second, with the transmission's throttle blipping control matching the engine speed to the gear. Which, let's face it, has got to be fun.
Now, about that torque vectoring differential. Essentially, torque vectoring differentials work like this: rather than use a differential in the traditional way of varying speed of the inside to outside wheel through a turn, torque vectoring brings in a bunch of computers on the diff, working in concert with sensors strewn throughout the car and drivetrain to tweak the side-to-side torque split.
The Lexus RC F
For example, say you're slowing down and making a left-had turn. A torque vectoring differential will dramatically slow the inside rear wheel (i.e. the left) and send more power to the outside rear wheel (that would be the right). This makes the car pivot harder and quicker on turn in, and from apex on out, allowing progressively more and more of the power the engine produces to be put to the ground.
Naturally, since the RC F is an all new car, the suspension and brakes are all new as well.
The front suspension is a double-wishbone design with a substantial front suspension cross member/sub-frame, while out back there's a multi-link suspension with two upper control arms, two suspension arms and a toe-control arm (rear tie-rod assembly). The rear suspension also has its own sub-frame made from tubular-steel and pressed-metal for optimum rigidity.
Brakes? Oh yeah, the RC F has stupendous breaks. Ventilated and slotted rotors supplied by Brembo with aluminum monoblock calipers all round. The new Lexus sports coupe has whopping 380 mm by 34 mm two-piece front rotors with six-piston calipers, and in the back there's 345 mm by 28 mm rotors with four-piston calipers. For those of you that don't understand the metric system, these brakes are about the size of a pizza; in other words, very, very large.
All this go-fast technology is wrapped in a not-unattractive skin and a computer controlled and articulated rear wing. Also, the RC F isn't fat, considering all the computers, bits, bobs, pieces, luxury features and the like. It tips the scales at only 1,860 kg (4,100 lb). No, it's not a Lotus 7, but with what passes for "light weight" from a lot of manufacturers these days, the RC F ain't all that bad.
Sean Hanley, Lexus Australia chief executive summed it all of it up rather nicely: "The RC F is now the performance and image flagship of Lexus, and its development at the Fuji and Nürburgring circuits means that it is more than capable at the track, in the hands of both experienced and novice drivers. RC F has a lot of depth to its talents – it's a vehicle that is very comfortable to drive in traffic or interstate, in complete luxury."
The new performance and image flagship of Lexus, the RC F
Image Gallery (33 images) Awesome photos
The halo model, every car company needs one. It is the car that sits front and center in the dealer's showroom, its aura of advanced technology, styling and performance lending a glow all the way down the product range. It is the one that draws shoppers in, even if they end up buying a minivan. For Lexus, that car is the new RC F coupe that was unveiled at NAIAS last month.
Lexus is a brand that doesn't need much burnishing, but might need a little help in defining its F performance brand. What M is to BMW, S is to Audi and AMG is to Mercedes, the F brand is to Lexus. Even though the RC F is only the third Lexus to get the F badge – after the IS F and the LFA supercar – it's there to let you know that the up-market Toyota brand means business.
As with its German counterparts, the RC F is first and foremost about power and the application of that power to the tarmac as directly and efficiently as possible. For the RC F, this is accomplished with a stonking 5 liter V8 plant situated up front under a low-slung hood. The V8 engine cranks out 351 kW (470 hp) of power and 530 Nm of torque, sending all that power to the road via an eight-speed transmission and a torque vectoring differential. Naturally, the chassis is stiff, the suspension was developed and refined at the track and the brakes could stop a train.
The Lexus RC F powerplant
First things first, let's take a closer look at that engine. Lexus calls it the 2UR-GSE and it features all-new cylinder heads, a new D-4S dual-injection system for the go juice, lighter moving parts, new cam profiles, and new intake and exhaust manifolds. Bottom line: power is up by 13 per cent from the previous mill. The internals bear goodies of their own, like forged con-rods and titanium valves allowing the red line to be set at a pretty-durn-high 7,300 rpm, which is not at all bad for an engine with a 12.3:1 compression ratio and pistons the size of your fist.
All that translates into 351 kW of power at 7,100 rpm and 530 Nm of torque from 4,800 to 5,600 rpm. This means the lucky drivers of the RC F have around 2,500 rpm of nice, fat powerband to play with to their hearts content. And in case you're getting your tutu in a twist, Lexus was also able to up the fuel economy and get the RC F to meet the uber-strict Euro 6 emission requirements.
All that power can't stay in the crankcase, and it's south of the bellhousing where there's some really neat tech happening.
For starters there's a whole lot of cogs in the gearbox. Eight of them to be exact, with the first gear being a granny ratio to get you off the line, then six more that are closely spaced, ratio-wise, and then that final eighth gear that's Yao Ming tall so the mpg figures are really impressive when you're cruising down the highway for long trips.
Gear selection is accomplished either with the gear lever or paddle shifters on the steering wheel. In "M Mode", up-shifts are made in 0.3 of a second and going down happens in just 0.2 of a second, with the transmission's throttle blipping control matching the engine speed to the gear. Which, let's face it, has got to be fun.
Now, about that torque vectoring differential. Essentially, torque vectoring differentials work like this: rather than use a differential in the traditional way of varying speed of the inside to outside wheel through a turn, torque vectoring brings in a bunch of computers on the diff, working in concert with sensors strewn throughout the car and drivetrain to tweak the side-to-side torque split.
The Lexus RC F
For example, say you're slowing down and making a left-had turn. A torque vectoring differential will dramatically slow the inside rear wheel (i.e. the left) and send more power to the outside rear wheel (that would be the right). This makes the car pivot harder and quicker on turn in, and from apex on out, allowing progressively more and more of the power the engine produces to be put to the ground.
Naturally, since the RC F is an all new car, the suspension and brakes are all new as well.
The front suspension is a double-wishbone design with a substantial front suspension cross member/sub-frame, while out back there's a multi-link suspension with two upper control arms, two suspension arms and a toe-control arm (rear tie-rod assembly). The rear suspension also has its own sub-frame made from tubular-steel and pressed-metal for optimum rigidity.
Brakes? Oh yeah, the RC F has stupendous breaks. Ventilated and slotted rotors supplied by Brembo with aluminum monoblock calipers all round. The new Lexus sports coupe has whopping 380 mm by 34 mm two-piece front rotors with six-piston calipers, and in the back there's 345 mm by 28 mm rotors with four-piston calipers. For those of you that don't understand the metric system, these brakes are about the size of a pizza; in other words, very, very large.
All this go-fast technology is wrapped in a not-unattractive skin and a computer controlled and articulated rear wing. Also, the RC F isn't fat, considering all the computers, bits, bobs, pieces, luxury features and the like. It tips the scales at only 1,860 kg (4,100 lb). No, it's not a Lotus 7, but with what passes for "light weight" from a lot of manufacturers these days, the RC F ain't all that bad.
Sean Hanley, Lexus Australia chief executive summed it all of it up rather nicely: "The RC F is now the performance and image flagship of Lexus, and its development at the Fuji and Nürburgring circuits means that it is more than capable at the track, in the hands of both experienced and novice drivers. RC F has a lot of depth to its talents – it's a vehicle that is very comfortable to drive in traffic or interstate, in complete luxury."
02-27-15, 01:42 PM
#893
Pole Position
No they did not. That's your conclusion. The M4 won the comparison.
So in spite of the them preferring the RCF on the road 363 days out of the year they STILL concluded that the M4 wins the comparison. I'm guessing they are not going to be kind to the RCF on this upcoming episode, and I'm sure this was filmed before they drove the new C63 or it would get downright brutal. Do you want to start comparing the RCF to the new C63 yet?
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the rest of the article as well...
So in spite of the them preferring the RCF on the road 363 days out of the year they STILL concluded that the M4 wins the comparison. I'm guessing they are not going to be kind to the RCF on this upcoming episode, and I'm sure this was filmed before they drove the new C63 or it would get downright brutal. Do you want to start comparing the RCF to the new C63 yet?
I'm curious as to why you didn't post the rest of the article as well...
It's actually quite false this statement : M4 is the better track car, RCF the better GT car.
The true statement would be : RCF is the better track car 99% of the time AND the better GT car. The other 1%, get a Porsche Cayman.
Last edited by natnut; 02-27-15 at 01:48 PM.
02-27-15, 01:51 PM
#894
I'm curious though : why you seem to be a champion for a car (the M4) that 99% of the time would be slower than the RCF on the track. That is the obvious conclusion after reading through the raft of reviews on this thread : M4 would be faster only in the 1% of the time when a professional race car driver, on his best day and when well rested. The RCF can be driven by a novice 365 days of the year with eyes half closed and would thrash the M4 easily. You seem to be exclusively focussing the the 1% but most the the human population have to live with the car the other 99% of the time.
It's actually quite false this statement : M4 is the better track car, RCF the better GT car.
The true statement would be : RCF is the better track car 99% of the time AND the better GT car. The other 1%, get a Porsche Cayman.
It's actually quite false this statement : M4 is the better track car, RCF the better GT car.
The true statement would be : RCF is the better track car 99% of the time AND the better GT car. The other 1%, get a Porsche Cayman.
02-27-15, 03:33 PM
#895
Lead Lap
Yet in the average driver's hands, the M4 would be SLOWER than the RCF on the track.
That's the huge glaring fact that all the M4 fans are tiptoeing around.
I say again : The M4 is consistently SLOWER than the RCF when driven by a non-professional race car driver.
How is a car whose performance is only fully accessible by 0.1% of the car driving population ever considered the superior driver's car?
I'm betting that if you lined up 100 actual RCF owners against 100 actual M4 owners on the track, each owner driving their own machines, the fastest 99 lap times out of the 200 laptimes would be RCFs.
That's the huge glaring fact that all the M4 fans are tiptoeing around.
I say again : The M4 is consistently SLOWER than the RCF when driven by a non-professional race car driver.
How is a car whose performance is only fully accessible by 0.1% of the car driving population ever considered the superior driver's car?
I'm betting that if you lined up 100 actual RCF owners against 100 actual M4 owners on the track, each owner driving their own machines, the fastest 99 lap times out of the 200 laptimes would be RCFs.
I'm curious though : why you seem to be a champion for a car (the M4) that 99% of the time would be slower than the RCF on the track. That is the obvious conclusion after reading through the raft of reviews on this thread : M4 would be faster only in the 1% of the time when a professional race car driver, on his best day and when well rested. The RCF can be driven by a novice 365 days of the year with eyes half closed and would thrash the M4 easily. You seem to be exclusively focussing the the 1% but most the the human population have to live with the car the other 99% of the time.
It's actually quite false this statement : M4 is the better track car, RCF the better GT car.
The true statement would be : RCF is the better track car 99% of the time AND the better GT car. The other 1%, get a Porsche Cayman.
It's actually quite false this statement : M4 is the better track car, RCF the better GT car.
The true statement would be : RCF is the better track car 99% of the time AND the better GT car. The other 1%, get a Porsche Cayman.
And let me be clear, given a choice RC-F is my pick no matter what. It is better looking, more reliable, more comfortable, cheaper and unique. The M4 only has the fun aspect going for it. Not enough to sway me to the dark side.
02-27-15, 04:18 PM
#896
i think it's so interesting why one has to question why and how someone else has preference on a car over another. it's just what it is, period. it's not hard to accept the fact that everyone can have their preference.
i am not leaning against either car, i think they both have goods and bads, neither of them is perfect. but it sounds like if we talk about which is the fastest on track? it's the m4, but only 1% (god knows where that number comes from) of the people can achieve it. and out of nowhere comes the new condition about how majority of the people can get faster time in the rcf and so it's a better car. nothing wrong with that, i think it's a good point, but i don't see how that suddenly become the golden excuse.
if this question keeps on being raised, to me it sounds just like asking people "why would anyone choose the tvd option when it's heavier and unless you really push close to the limit it's hard to benefit from it?" to me it's as simple as preference. oh and before anyone tries to go at it, please have some normal people (ie non-professional racer) run cars with and without tvd and show me conclusive noticeable difference in time before convincing me one way or another.
i am not leaning against either car, i think they both have goods and bads, neither of them is perfect. but it sounds like if we talk about which is the fastest on track? it's the m4, but only 1% (god knows where that number comes from) of the people can achieve it. and out of nowhere comes the new condition about how majority of the people can get faster time in the rcf and so it's a better car. nothing wrong with that, i think it's a good point, but i don't see how that suddenly become the golden excuse.
if this question keeps on being raised, to me it sounds just like asking people "why would anyone choose the tvd option when it's heavier and unless you really push close to the limit it's hard to benefit from it?" to me it's as simple as preference. oh and before anyone tries to go at it, please have some normal people (ie non-professional racer) run cars with and without tvd and show me conclusive noticeable difference in time before convincing me one way or another.
Last edited by rominl; 02-27-15 at 04:21 PM.
02-27-15, 05:35 PM
#897
Driver School Candidate
It's pointless to engage someone who:
A) Lacks basic reading comprehension skills (FYI, the Autocar ranking was M4>RS5>RCF, hopefully you can understand that).
and
B) Makes up stats 99% of the time (see what I did there?).
Also, when your signature is an old, 200 something horsepower vehicle (RIP) and you actually thought it was pertinent information to list spark plugs as an "engine upgrade" it's probably safe to assume that vehicles like the RCF and M4 are both out of YOUR driving capabilities. Perhaps that's why you keep posting your 99%/1% "fact". Unfortunately for you, repeating it every other post will not make it magically become true.
A) Lacks basic reading comprehension skills (FYI, the Autocar ranking was M4>RS5>RCF, hopefully you can understand that).
and
B) Makes up stats 99% of the time (see what I did there?).
Also, when your signature is an old, 200 something horsepower vehicle (RIP) and you actually thought it was pertinent information to list spark plugs as an "engine upgrade" it's probably safe to assume that vehicles like the RCF and M4 are both out of YOUR driving capabilities. Perhaps that's why you keep posting your 99%/1% "fact". Unfortunately for you, repeating it every other post will not make it magically become true.
02-27-15, 06:24 PM
#898
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Ok...read this.
The RC F was faster than the M4 in the Road & Track PCOTY Motown Mile.
The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among 44 cars.
The RC F was faster on this course than many of the cars including:
The M4 ran it at 57.47.
The Cayman s at 56.73.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83.
The Hellcat at 56.37.
RC F>RS5>M4
The RC F was faster than the M4 in the Road & Track PCOTY Motown Mile.
The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among 44 cars.
The RC F was faster on this course than many of the cars including:
The M4 ran it at 57.47.
The Cayman s at 56.73.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83.
The Hellcat at 56.37.
RC F>RS5>M4
02-27-15, 06:42 PM
#899
Ok...read this.
The RC F was faster than the M4 in the Road & Track PCOTY Motown Mile.
The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among 44 cars.
The RC F was faster on this course than many of the cars including:
The M4 ran it at 57.47.
The Cayman s at 56.73.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83.
The Hellcat at 56.37.
RC F>RS5>M4
The RC F was faster than the M4 in the Road & Track PCOTY Motown Mile.
The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among 44 cars.
The RC F was faster on this course than many of the cars including:
The M4 ran it at 57.47.
The Cayman s at 56.73.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83.
The Hellcat at 56.37.
RC F>RS5>M4
M3>RC F>RS5>M4.
02-27-15, 07:30 PM
#900
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Drifting the RC F TVD--Autovisie TV
Gereden Lexus RC F: Zo scherp als een samurai zwaard?
Driven Lexus RC F: As sharp as a samurai sword?
AUTOVISIE TV - Zijn uiterlijk is gehouwen met een samurai zwaard en met 477 pk op de achterwielen zet hij de BMW M4 een mes op de keel. De Lexus RC F is een rijdende rookmachine uit het land van de rijzende zon. Wij reden hem op bochtige wegen in de omgeving van het Spaanse Ronda.
Autovisie TV - His appearance is carved with a samurai sword and with 477 hp at the rear wheels he gives the BMW M4 a knife to the throat. The Lexus RC F is a smoke machine moving from the land of the rising sun. We drove him on winding roads in the vicinity of the Spanish Ronda.
Last edited by ISF001; 03-01-15 at 10:37 AM.