Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Yup, the human thirst for labels (i.e. who is the best) never ends.

Mr. Burns

The M4 and RC-F are very different cars, and Lexus was smart by not just making a Japanese clone of the M4 with the RC-F, which is what I suspect Cadillac is doing as we speak with the upcoming ATS-V.

Both the M4 and RC-F are fast, well handling performance machines. There are those who prefer the sound, response, and displacement of the 5.0 V8, and those who prefer the torque of the turbo 6. That's what it comes down to.

Personally I think the RC-F is a more special car. The styling is rarer and more exotic, the paint work and interior are a step above the BMW, the engine is bespoke and sounds magnificent, and the car is overall more exclusive.

AussieISF

They are going to be very different animals. M4 is going to be slightly faster around the track, but does it really matter? RCF is definitely the more comfortable one to be in. The M4 will drive you nuts with the rattles: http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1009814

If you want a track car, buy an Evo or a GTR that will eat a M4 anyday.

I think Lexus was right to stick with the V8 and the great sound, because SOUND matters in this segment. It's one of the reasons why I love my ISF so much is when I listen to that exhaust note, it's just so addictive. I do light track work in the ISF, and I think RCF buyers will too. It won't be a serious track car - if you want a serious track car, GET a dedicated track car.....I think the RCF will be like the ISF, a very fast street car that can handle its own on the track, but it won't be able to keep up with dedicated track cars (which it isn't designed to).

I was considering the M4, but I completely lost interest in it when I realised it sounded like this. The RCF will turn heads way more than this. And isn't this what a luxury car is for?

05RollaXRS

That sounds like a piece of cr*p! Absolutely horrible. I have seen many BMW fans (minus the BMW forums representative we have here bench racing without a single shred of proof) calling it a "lawnmower". It is a very unexciting and boring engine with a plummeting torque curve after 6000 rpm.

You are correct on the visceral and emotional appeal to buyers. Even Sutcliffe said, the S55 M4 engine cannot come close to the RC-F V8 in terms of sound and throttle response. It is just in a different league.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

Not sure what your point is, the regular C7 destroyed the M on C&D lightning lap. And the Z06 costs the same as a loaded M. So imagine how bad a Z06 would destroy it. If you want to argue pure track performance why are we even here talking M and RCF there are much faster cars in this price range than the M. Not everyone wants a Z06 which will probably be brutal to DD. Not everyone wants an M, yes it is faster than the RCF, but it sounds terrible, questionable reliability, and looks like every other 3/4 out there . Even with a $7k akropovic exhaust it still sounded bad.

It weighs the same as other V8 coupes in its class, C63 AMG and RS5, fire those designers too?m The NA V8 is one huge consideration that sets this car above others, even if its slower. NA V8s are endangered and this maybe one of the last of the great V8s. I have the feeling the next gen F cars will not be NA V8 as CAFE gets stricter.

AussieISF

Again, I don't see the point of the M4. Sure, it's quick. But it's full of rattles, it sounds like a fart cannon, and it's still slower than a GTR. And BMW's reliability is extremely questionable. I've owned BMWs in the past as have many owners on this site. If I ever own one again, it will be a very short affair, I will never own one again out of warranty.

So we have the RCF which is a GT car for minor track work at this end of the spectrum, and then cars like the GTR and Porsches which are track-cars masquerading as road cars. The M4 I don't know where to put yet, we'll have to wait for the track tests to see how much quicker (if it is) around the track compared to the RCF it is.

I track my car maybe twice a year, if I'm lucky. So I'm more of a street car driver. I'd pick sound, exclusivity, comfort and reliability over a couple of seconds of track time. It's not like the RCF is going to be a slouch on the street either. There are quite a few M4s around where I live, nobody even gives them a second glance whereas the ISF gets quite a bit of attention. That exclusivity is pretty darn cool. So yes, it's probably a good thing that more people aren't going to be buying RCFs. :-)

As for weight, there's always a reason. It's probably going to be cost, plus all that technology that they had to cram into the car. Sure they can make it 200kg lighter, but then the cost would be prohibitive.

Another point to note is I don't really think that Lexus views BMW as a rival. I spoke to a Lexus manager where I live candidly, and his response was "we don't really view BMW as a rival, we do things our way. We make our cars last." Remember that Lexus is a luxury arm of Toyota/Scion, they're not really in a fight for survival. They can always use their other business units to offset any losses. Whereas BMW needs to move units to survive, Lexus can make the RCF exclusive and being its halo car, it is NOT designed to be a volume seller. So I don't think they are going to be even worried about all the reviews. They will incrementally improve the car, just like they did with the ISF. Because with Lexus, the only way is the hard way.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the ISF weighed 3800# and the RCF is longer and wider, TVD, bigger brakes, wider tires, and it weighs 4000. Sounds reasonable to me, anyone expecting it to weigh less than the ISF was dreaming. Lexus was up front with the weight too back in January so dunno why people are acting so surprised on the weight.

dannyk8232

Agreed. I think people tend to be a bit emotional about something they want yet can't have yet. Once the RCF is released, then people can take the intangibles into account and make an informed decision. The speculation is a bit much, but that's just human nature.

natnut

Incoming BMW troll alert.

I love how you are making so many expert claims when no one including yourself has driven both cars back to back in any meaningful head-to-head comparison. Yet here you are, claiming to be objective and non-biased, covering the M4 in your BMW fanboy drool and proclaming it as so much more superior to the RC-F.

ISF001

There is a need for verity in the conversation.

And so, it is time for some factual information.

1. What metrics are available on the RCF? Please send me the performance metrics for the PRODUCTION vehicle. To my knowledge, these will not be available until late November when my car arrives and the others that made the first production build.
2. What do we know? Lexus says it will run a minimum of a 4.4; Lexus says it will hit 170 mph. We know the M4 runs a 4.1 and shuts off (to prevent engine damages) at 155 mph.
3. The mighty C7 has been PULLED off the market. The car is catching fire, air bags are going off, the brakes are failing--another great build on the part of GM. Drivers struggle--pro drivers--to hit the published low-end 0-60 speed.
4. BMW DCTs have been plagued with issues even in the previous E9X M3 generation and are occurring in the M4. They are not used in racing at all due to complexity, weight, bulky and reliability issues especially when handling high revs for extended periods of time. The throttle response has been said to be soft and fluffy, and even made worse by a seven-speed flappy-paddle gearbox that offers no creep. It has also been said that the gearbox is flawed and the turbo-charge 6-cylinder engine is a step backwards.
5. Reliability is what matter to most buyers of cars--at least for me and my car friends.
6. The worst part of the BWM experience is how you are treated as a customer spending $80,000 on a car. Been there before.
7. Despite the M4 diet, there are those who believe the M4 "feels" heavy during driving; the opposite comment was made about the RCF by several reviews, despite its penchant for bulk and stability.

I am not sure this is the best place to attempt to bash a new breakthrough Lexus that has not even been driven as a production model at this time.

If the RCF makes you uncomfortable, and it appears to be doing that, it is with good reason. Lexus has challenged the old guard. I suggest that BWM, Merc and Audi pay attention. This car is changing the way people evaluation the "accessible" characteristics of high-performance vehicles.

Lexus will capture plenty of marketing share with this breakthrough vehicle. However, if you must have a precious couple of tenths to race another go fast to the light, be my guest. Driving is about overall performance--the thrill and pleasure of the ride.

Read this article on the M4

The Clarkson review: BMW M4 (2014)

Call up the old gang, Mr T - this paint job needs attention

By Jeremy Clarkson
Published 21st July 2014

IT’S ALWAYS been said that technology and ideas developed in Formula One motor racing improve the cars we drive to work every day. Er, right. I see, so does your Nissan Juke have tyres that lose their ability to grip after 24 miles? Does your Toyota GT86 crash if the rear spoiler falls off? Can your Audi A3 be serviced as you drive it down the A38?

You do, of course, have antilock brakes, rain-sensing wipers, automatic headlights, inertia-reel seatbelts and a starter motor. But none of that lot — nothing that really matters — came from F1. And there’s more. If F1 really were developing technology that eventually filtered down into road cars, then you would expect Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes to be at the forefront of hybrid technology. And they’re not.

The car company that is at the forefront of hybrid technology right now is BMW, which isn’t involved in F1. Its little i3 is intriguing, and, as I mentioned last week, the car I’m most looking forward to driving this year is the i8, which by all accounts is comparable to the Porsche 911. Except that it does 134.5mpg.

My worry — and I mentioned this too — is that BMW, like every other company in the world, has a limited pool of talent. And if the brightest and the best have been drafted into the hybrid projects, we have to assume it’s the B-team that is charged with developing the car you see photographed on this page — the new M4. So does that mean it’s not as good as it could have been?

My initial reaction when the car was delivered was to feel slightly sick. That is because it had been painted in quite the most revolting colour I’ve seen. BMW calls it Austin Yellow, suggesting that it would have suited an Allegro back in the day. And it would. But Baby Diarrhoea is nearer the mark.

It’s hard really to judge a car when it is such a horrible colour. It is like trying to learn to understand the moods of a bald dog. And to make matters worse, the other colours on offer are not much better. Best, I think, to go for black.

There’s another advantage to this. If the car is black, you don’t notice quite so quickly that the stylists simply didn’t know when the time was right to step away from the drawing board. Every detail is garnished with yet more detail, and the end result is fussy. The door mirrors are especially annoying. Possibly the company has done this to make the two-door M4 coupé stand out more from the four-door M3 saloon, but I’m really not sure it was necessary.

Eventually, though, I was able to put the styling and the colour out of my mind and concentrate on the car, which — on paper at least — looks a step back from its predecessor, which was called the M3 coupé. That car had a glorious V8 that screamed and hollered as the revs rose and then howled in an orgy of what sounded like BDSM ecstasy as it neared the red line.

Well, you can forget all that. The new car is fitted with a turbocharged straight six. Turbocharging? In an M car? That’s like putting gravy on an ice cream. However, this and the electric power steering are necessary these days if a car is to meet EU emissions regulations. It’s not the end of the world, because you get even more power than you did from the old V8, and a huge spread of torque. On the downside you lose those top-end shenanigans. And the throttle response is a little more squidgy, a problem that’s made worse by a seven-speed flappy-paddle gearbox that offers no creep. Unlike a standard automatic, the car won’t move until you put your foot on the accelerator. Which makes parking a jerky bloody nightmare.

And while we are on the subject of the gearbox, I was forever being told by bongs and rude messages that I might not turn off the ignition until I had put the gearlever into Park. But as far as I could see, there was no Park. What you have to do to solve the problem is to slam the lever this way and that while swearing.

So, to recap, the colours are awful, the styling is blingtastic, the door mirrors are annoying, the gearbox is flawed, the engine is a step backwards and parking is hard. It sounds, then, as though BMW’s B-team hasn’t been able to overcome the emissions regulations, and as a result the car is not as good as the previous model. Yes, and there’s more.

The M4 is not a particularly heavy car. Much plastic and carbon fibre is used to keep the weight, and therefore the fuel consumption, down. But it feels, as you potter about, as if it weighs more than a football stadium. You really do have to manhandle the wheel, and when you run over a bump, there’s a sense it is simply being squashed.

There are, however, some good points. It’s a very easy car to use: all the command systems are as natural as breathing. It is also fitted with fabulous seats. And I loved being able to select tracks on my iPod from a list shown on the head-up display. Oh, and I nearly forgot: it is truly marvellous to drive.

Yes, the engine is different in character from the old V8, but if you sit in the big meat pie of torque rather than at the summit of the power, you find you get all the oomph you want and total control over what the rear wheels are doing. Millimetric movements of your right foot are translated instantly into shifts in how the car behaves, and you can feel it all through the steering wheel, even though it’s not really connected to the car.

The differential is fantastic, the brakes are wondrous, the antilock system is spot-on and the noise is a big bass-baritone that comes from the engine, not some laptop-activated exhaust valve.

It’s fast too. The figures don’t tell you all the story, because when you put everything in Sport Plus mode and plant your foot into the carpet, the car sets off like a disturbed shark. I honestly haven’t enjoyed driving a vehicle as much as this for months.

There was a time, of course, when the M3 was hijacked by the nation’s squash-playing dealmakers. People in braces who didn’t really know what it was; only that it made them look good. It was an accessory, like Oakley sunglasses.


Today these people are driving fast Audis and, to a certain extent, Mercedes AMGs. Which means the M3 and the M4 can be bought once more by people who simply want a seriously good car.


I just wish BMW’s A-team had been involved in its design, though. Because I feel sure the stylists would have fitted less stupid door mirrors and made certain that some of the colours at least didn’t leave you feeling physically ill.

Clarkson’s verdict ★★★★☆

Not bad for the B-team


BMW M4 specifications

Engine 2979cc, 6 cylinders in line
Power 425bhp @ 5500rpm
Torque 405 lb ft @ 1850rpm
Transmission 7-speed dual-clutch sequential/automatic
Acceleration 0-62mph in 4.1sec
Top speed 155mph

SW17LS

Again...I don't drive a car on the track. I drive it on the road, so the M4 being lighter and having better track times and whatever means nothing to me. I haven't driven an M4, but I have driven M3s and I would never buy an M3 to drive myself on the road...its just not a vehicle that appeals to me.

I also have not driven an RC or an RC-F, but based on the 4GS and 3IS vehicles I've driven I have a feeling I will really like the way it drives on the road. To say the only thing the RC-F has going for it "is sound" I don't think is an accurate statement.

dannyk8232

What???

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the intoxicating sound of the RC-F

MRxSLAYx

I know just how good the 2ur is... there probably isn't another person who has one as serious as mine: )

I don't really care much about the rpm, turbo is where the money is. Lexus/toyota needed a car that will change things like the supra did. Most supras don't make 1300up, but everyone loves them because they all can.

05RollaXRS

Then definitely you are not the target customer for the RC-F. Yaguchi had made it clear, his priority as far as torque band characteristics, sound, rpm and throttle response could only be met by a naturally aspirated V8. The target was customers who appreciate these characteristics and almost everyone on this board does.

Certainly nothing wrong with a turbo engine, but everything and anything these days from a 328 to 335 to a Sonata has a turbo engine. It is like a dime a dozen. RC-F is unique in that sense.

RC-F is getting the highest praises for its engine especially how vastly improved it has become over the IS-F version. Most critics like Chris Harris, Sutcliffe etc. have said, they prefer the RC-F V8 over the lacklustre M4 TT i6. Only criticism has been the weight of the car.

M4 is the perfect car for you, if you can live with that horrendous sound and rather unexciting engine (plummeting torque after 6000 rpm).

ISF001

Weight is not an issue with the RCF. It's an issue for you, and I will conjecture that you are focused on beating the go fast to the next light. Guess what, you have the wrong car.

Have you ever taken an ISF to task, approaching the limits? It's not a light car.

Log some hours and come back. Otherwise, you know what they say about opinions...