RC F automotive reviews thread
05-20-15, 05:34 PM
#1112
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=rominl;9046830]you are able to see 0.8sec difference in a youtube video? wow you are good
i am glad i see the m4 won it clearly and cleanly.
Yes, I am glad that you are glad about whatever you are glad about...clearly and cleanly.
These are two independent runs, stacked, and synced as best as was possible.
This remains a very close outcome...time it.
i am glad i see the m4 won it clearly and cleanly.
Yes, I am glad that you are glad about whatever you are glad about...clearly and cleanly.
These are two independent runs, stacked, and synced as best as was possible.
This remains a very close outcome...time it.
05-20-15, 09:16 PM
#1113
[QUOTE=ISF001;9047186]
nah, whatever makes YOU feel better 
you are able to see 0.8sec difference in a youtube video? wow you are good
i am glad i see the m4 won it clearly and cleanly.
Yes, I am glad that you are glad about whatever you are glad about...clearly and cleanly.
These are two independent runs, stacked, and synced as best as was possible.
This remains a very close outcome...time it.
i am glad i see the m4 won it clearly and cleanly.
Yes, I am glad that you are glad about whatever you are glad about...clearly and cleanly.
These are two independent runs, stacked, and synced as best as was possible.
This remains a very close outcome...time it.
05-21-15, 06:40 AM
#1114
Wow how are we still fighting about this...thought it's been done & dusted. The RCF doesn't compete on performance, it's a better DD, more reliable (?), more unique styling, better driving experience, more accessible for less skilled drivers etc....but unless the M4 has its handbrake on, blown turbo or driven by an inept driver, tough for the RCF to win.
Come on Lexus, release a lightweight RCF, that will really show the competition. You know we want one!
Come on Lexus, release a lightweight RCF, that will really show the competition. You know we want one!
05-21-15, 10:24 AM
#1115
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
This Is Just Another Perspective
I don't think there is much in the way of fighting going on. We (the group) just have different perspectives--disagree in part or in total-- and these disagreements hinge on our experience and knowledge. I think this is the basis for any meaningful exchange, particularly in Club Lexus.
Hand brake on or off, we know the RC F competes strongly with the M4. On a track with demanding cornering, my money is on the F. We all saw the F lead in acceleration up to 200 KPH. I am sure this kind of surprised non-RC F owners given the fire-breathing turbo commentaries of the editorial M4 devotees. The boost apparently is not enough to combat the holding power of the F's high-revving V8. Yes, the V8 required nearly another second to hit top speed for this gauge stacked run. The fact that the aspirated engine on the husky F nearly mapped to the acceleration of the twin-turbo, lighter M4 is amazing. You would have expected a slaughter based on commentaries from M snorting editors...not. This is also being done with a two-cycle engine...amazing.
Weight...I felt that my ISF was a bit too light--it was a heck of a lot of fun but skittish. As for a future, "lighter" RC F, I would not hold your breath. It would compromise two key Lexus standards: a plethora of technology and topping-off consumer luxury--it's a tradeoff, and as much as I love how the F can effortlessly climb in speed to become a missile on open roads, there just are days when I want to kick back, crank up the 17 speaker, 835-watt ML (talk about a heavy weight), and cruise in blissful comfort, unaware of the diesel truck barreling down behind me.
Weight...it may be me, but I just don't feel "weight." I feel a planted yet agile car. It obviously responds quickly when called upon to do so. The RC F GT3 is much lighter at 2,755.8 pounds, and it will definitely take on the contenders in its racing class next year. I look forward to the coverage.
But both cars have a real problem: power and handling. Both cars need and want to be driven in the triple digits to truly come to life. The RC F is probably the car among the two that is best suited for daily driving, but it's not long before the driver feels the need to find a hole in the traffic, a long length in the road ahead, or an open highway where the right foot can put the pedal to the metal and hear the V8 roar. Life could be worse for the F (and M) owner.
The RC F is a quick, planted, V8-authentic, true out-of-the-stable, M competitor any day of the week. It's predictable and able to match varied driver skill levels. Bring on more footage on M4 and RC F track competitions. It's going to continue to swing both ways...that's how the performance hinge works for these two competitors, and I doubt it will change...hand brake on or off.
I do respect your opinion.
Hand brake on or off, we know the RC F competes strongly with the M4. On a track with demanding cornering, my money is on the F. We all saw the F lead in acceleration up to 200 KPH. I am sure this kind of surprised non-RC F owners given the fire-breathing turbo commentaries of the editorial M4 devotees. The boost apparently is not enough to combat the holding power of the F's high-revving V8. Yes, the V8 required nearly another second to hit top speed for this gauge stacked run. The fact that the aspirated engine on the husky F nearly mapped to the acceleration of the twin-turbo, lighter M4 is amazing. You would have expected a slaughter based on commentaries from M snorting editors...not. This is also being done with a two-cycle engine...amazing.
Weight...I felt that my ISF was a bit too light--it was a heck of a lot of fun but skittish. As for a future, "lighter" RC F, I would not hold your breath. It would compromise two key Lexus standards: a plethora of technology and topping-off consumer luxury--it's a tradeoff, and as much as I love how the F can effortlessly climb in speed to become a missile on open roads, there just are days when I want to kick back, crank up the 17 speaker, 835-watt ML (talk about a heavy weight), and cruise in blissful comfort, unaware of the diesel truck barreling down behind me.
Weight...it may be me, but I just don't feel "weight." I feel a planted yet agile car. It obviously responds quickly when called upon to do so. The RC F GT3 is much lighter at 2,755.8 pounds, and it will definitely take on the contenders in its racing class next year. I look forward to the coverage.
But both cars have a real problem: power and handling. Both cars need and want to be driven in the triple digits to truly come to life. The RC F is probably the car among the two that is best suited for daily driving, but it's not long before the driver feels the need to find a hole in the traffic, a long length in the road ahead, or an open highway where the right foot can put the pedal to the metal and hear the V8 roar. Life could be worse for the F (and M) owner.
The RC F is a quick, planted, V8-authentic, true out-of-the-stable, M competitor any day of the week. It's predictable and able to match varied driver skill levels. Bring on more footage on M4 and RC F track competitions. It's going to continue to swing both ways...that's how the performance hinge works for these two competitors, and I doubt it will change...hand brake on or off.
I do respect your opinion.
Wow how are we still fighting about this...thought it's been done & dusted. The RCF doesn't compete on performance, it's a better DD, more reliable (?), more unique styling, better driving experience, more accessible for less skilled drivers etc....but unless the M4 has its handbrake on, blown turbo or driven by an inept driver, tough for the RCF to win.
Come on Lexus, release a lightweight RCF, that will really show the competition. You know we want one!
Come on Lexus, release a lightweight RCF, that will really show the competition. You know we want one!
05-21-15, 05:51 PM
#1116
I've got to agree with czar07 on this, not sure how you can possibly dispute/dismiss his statement?
.38 into the video the M4 hits the target of 280kph
.40 into the video the RC-F hits the target of 280kph
Both cars are plenty fast, but in the example you posted, the M4 is clearly faster to the target speed.
.38 into the video the M4 hits the target of 280kph
.40 into the video the RC-F hits the target of 280kph
Both cars are plenty fast, but in the example you posted, the M4 is clearly faster to the target speed.
05-22-15, 07:23 AM
#1117
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
The M4 loses traction, and this is a challenge for any car whose power hinges on turbo engagement and disengagement/boost and lag.
The RC-F puts it down to the asphalt, and that's really all that matters when it comes down to speed delivery. Smoke may be fun for some, but it's just not quick.
Ironically, a little more weight in the rear might help the lighter M4.
The RC-F puts it down to the asphalt, and that's really all that matters when it comes down to speed delivery. Smoke may be fun for some, but it's just not quick.
Ironically, a little more weight in the rear might help the lighter M4.
05-22-15, 11:52 AM
#1118
Lead Lap
Thats a pretty ignorant statement. Weight in the rear is not the right way to achieve traction. Its all in suspension geometry and chassis setup. BMW could have easily slapped on fatter / taller / sticker tyres and change the suspension characteristics to achieve a sticky rear end, but they obviously chose not to go this way...
05-22-15, 07:53 PM
#1119
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Thats a pretty ignorant statement. Weight in the rear is not the right way to achieve traction. Its all in suspension geometry and chassis setup. BMW could have easily slapped on fatter / taller / sticker tyres and change the suspension characteristics to achieve a sticky rear end, but they obviously chose not to go this way...
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
05-22-15, 08:46 PM
#1120
Lexus Test Driver
A small lesson: It's called weight distribution. For maximum performance--as with a race car--the rear should be tail-heavy. Formula One's have a 35% front and 65% REAR weight distribution. This ultimately contributes to traction because the load pushes down to the driving wheels.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
05-22-15, 08:50 PM
#1121
A small lesson: It's called weight distribution. For maximum performance--as with a race car--the rear should be tail-heavy. Formula One's have a 35% front and 65% REAR weight distribution. This ultimately contributes to traction because the load pushes down to the driving wheels.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
05-22-15, 08:57 PM
#1122
Lexus Test Driver
You want lighter front springs and heavier rear springs, with compression and rebound adjusted properly.
05-24-15, 08:23 PM
#1123
Lead Lap
A small lesson: It's called weight distribution. For maximum performance--as with a race car--the rear should be tail-heavy. Formula One's have a 35% front and 65% REAR weight distribution. This ultimately contributes to traction because the load pushes down to the driving wheels.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
And yes, whatever they chose to do and not do is contributing to repeats of what happened to the poor fellow in the red bimmer. Just search M4 crashes on the web.
Weight distribution is important, but weight transfer is of more significance, as has been discussed above
05-24-15, 10:10 PM
#1125
not to mention that F1 cars are closer to 45/55 than 35/65. hell...im not sure the 911s have 65% in the rear, anymore. and they are rear-engined....