When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Is it me, or is this the target audience for the RCF
Originally Posted by ISF001
Jat,
Like it or not, stock for stock, the new RCF will eat our ISFs up on the road and track. Our cars do not corner like this new beast, with or without the extra pounds. Just watch the Nurburgring videos on YouTube with pro drivers. The car eats up the asphalt.
Sure, slide cornering is lots of fun, but it is also slow. If our cars did not slide, we'd be in trouble.
Considering where the power is, I highly doubt that. Have you ever been able to track your ISF? Most people who are acquainted with the road course would agree that the RCF's power advantage isn't going to be very usable when bringing down the lap times. We will get to see for sure when the car gets properly road tested from 3rd party sources, but im expecting the RCF to be within a half second of the 12-14 ISF around any track in the 1-3 mile length.
Is it me, or is this the target audience for the RCF
Considering where the power is, I highly doubt that. Have you ever been able to track your ISF? Most people who are acquainted with the road course would agree that the RCF's power advantage isn't going to be very usable when bringing down the lap times. We will get to see for sure when the car gets properly road tested from 3rd party sources, but im expecting the RCF to be within a half second of the 12-14 ISF around any track in the 1-3 mile length.
The RC-F also has an advantage with the larger front and rear tire tread width compared to the IS-F (255F/275R for RC-F vs 225F/255R for IS-F). I'm fairly certain the difference in potential lap times between the two will be even smaller if a stock late model IS-F was blessed with wider, better tires from the factory.
they said one of the reasons they used the GS front was to fit wider tires, so they were pretty aware of the small fronts on the ISF. Plus to fit the V8
You do realize that the SAME publication Motortrend got much WORSE results for the RC-F.
See below:
0-60 in 4.5
1/4 mile in 12.9 at 110.3 mph
60-0 braking in 108 ft
Plus the Mustang GT tested was a manual, the Auto is probably faster.
Some of the posts here defending RCF are bordering on delusional.
Is it me, or is this the target audience for the RCF
Considering where the power is, I highly doubt that. Have you ever been able to track your ISF? Most people who are acquainted with the road course would agree that the RCF's power advantage isn't going to be very usable when bringing down the lap times. We will get to see for sure when the car gets properly road tested from 3rd party sources, but im expecting the RCF to be within a half second of the 12-14 ISF around any track in the 1-3 mile length.
I have not tracked the ISF, but there was a time when I drove supercharged Vets in the south reaching speeds of 140 on the straights. I know fast exotics (Ferrari and Aston Martin) and domestics, and I have logged enough hours. There are many in this club with much more experience.
As one 2012 ISF owner to another, the RCFs got what I want. Sure, it's faster than the ISF, and on the track a second or even a half second cumulatively matters. It does not matter to me. I am not really buying the RCF for MORE head rush. I get plenty of that with the ISF.
I want a super premium, high-performance, limited production go fast that turns my head every time I look at it. I want a sweet intake sound that never tires me, and the next generation engine and tranny to improve my driver experience. I also want a go fast that corners like a dream when the opportunity to safely take a ramp presents itself or an open, winding road beckons. I also want more muscle and a car that looks the part and delivers the experience.
I love the iSF, but the car needs a more exciting design and updated interior--what I am also getting with my new carbon RCF.
The new G-Force Artificial Intelligence system uses g readings from accelerometers in the shift-control. It downshifts readily and sequentially under hard braking, the TVD engages the outer wheel to bite the asphalt exiting the corner, and the best gear is selected to accelerate through.
I believe this mode will deliver the best times and ultimately prove in comparisons to deliver quite an edge.
Regardless, if you or any others need more rocket power, wait for the RCF-S. The 600 HP extended version of the RCF is expected to land in 2016. Anticipated price with full load: $110K. This is WAY more power than I need to race to the office.
Your post is too funny! You seem to be the one who is dellusional. Not me.
Do you even read what is written in this thread? This has been discussed to death. Did you even read the article? Or even try asking JoeZ. It is written in the MT article that the RC-F that were given for the Monticello event had a de-tune on it to prevent standing start burn-outs and hard launches, which severely limited the launching abilities. This was done by Lexus in order to prevent novice drivers trying to do burn-outs and losing control of the car since the cars were being driven on the road by all types of drivers. Not just professionals.
Using common sense, the IS-F in MT test put down a 12.7 sec@113.4 mph back in 2008 against the E90 M3 and C63 AMG. The RC-F with much superior power to weight ratio, wider torque spread, better tire, better and more efficient gearbox etc. will be substantially quicker than that.
You do realize that the SAME publication Motortrend got much WORSE results for the RC-F.
See below:
0-60 in 4.5
1/4 mile in 12.9 at 110.3 mph
60-0 braking in 108 ft
Plus the Mustang GT tested was a manual, the Auto is probably faster.
Some of the posts here defending RCF are bordering on delusional.
^
Would have, should have, could have.....i love all these excuses.
What about weight???
What about braking???
Where is there any statement from Lexus that these were detuned RC-Fs???
Please stop this nonsense.
RC-F is a great car in its own right and im sure any one of us will be happy to own it but lets not downplay the competition especially when the FACTS show they provide BETTER Performance figures!!!
^
Would have, should have, could have.....i love all these excuses.
What about weight???
What about braking???
Where is there any statement from Lexus that these were detuned RC-Fs???
Please stop this nonsense.
RC-F is a great car in its own right and im sure any one of us will be happy to own it but lets not downplay the competition especially when the FACTS show they provide BETTER Performance figures!!!
The car was detuned--spoke to someone in Lexus corp--Joe Z also broke the news to the group before I pulled the trigger. The engine management software was also updated after the journalist drives. We are looking at tenths being shaved off of the production car times.
You apparently have no hands on experience with the Fs. They are difficult to master, and you do not become a pro after one day on the track or on the road.
Spec--you can't have a final spec until there is a production car. Lexus also over delivers and understates on their F specs. I am expecting to see the same here as I saw with my 2012 ISF.
Until there is a documented test of a production car, give us all a break.
You are just a BMW troll. You are launching this attack here on my out of spite.
Why don't you ask JoeZ? Lexus told him that was the case.
You seriously have to be completely lacking common sense, if you truly believe a car with much better power to weight ratio, better gearing, better tires and wider torque spread would actually post a slower trap speed and be actually slower through the 1/4 mile.
The official Lexus 1/4 mile time is 12.5 seconds and it is a good half second than Lexus' own tests. It simply does not add up.
You can mock all you want, but I will be sure to remind you and poke some fun on you once the real tests start coming around on production cars and you are proven wrong.
Even MotorTrend mentioned that the software was reflashed after the Monticello event was done. That is why I said you don't even read anything in this thread. You simply hunt for posts where you can jump to insult someone.
"Two caveats. One is that the car we tested was an early build prototype and the engine management software has reportedly been updated since we touched it. "
Originally Posted by RNM GS3
^
Would have, should have, could have.....i love all these excuses.
What about weight???
What about braking???
Where is there any statement from Lexus that these were detuned RC-Fs???
Please stop this nonsense.
RC-F is a great car in its own right and im sure any one of us will be happy to own it but lets not downplay the competition especially when the FACTS show they provide BETTER Performance figures!!!
You are just a BMW troll. You are launching this attack here on my out of spite.
Why don't you ask JoeZ? Lexus told him that was the case.
You seriously have to be completely lacking common sense, if you truly believe a car with much better power to weight ratio, better gearing, better tires and wider torque spread would actually post a slower trap speed and be actually slower through the 1/4 mile.
The official Lexus 1/4 mile time is 12.5 seconds and it is a good half second than Lexus' own tests. It simply does not add up.
You can mock all you want, but I will be sure to remind you and poke some fun on you once the real tests start coming around on production cars and you are proven wrong.
Even MotorTrend mentioned that the software was reflashed after the Monticello event was done. That is why I said you don't even read anything in this thread. You simply hunt for posts where you can jump to insult someone.
Im a troll now???
I have been a member here for longer than you my friend.
I have posted nothing but FACTS!
Not opinions.
Mods is this CL now - where if one posts something that is a fact that is not in Lexus favor, they get called a troll? Thats pathetic.
Instead of name calling - please post facts to defend ur position.
Based on your previous pattern of posts, that is the impression people get. The way you mocked me without being properly informed of the handicaps of the RC-F clearly show you are just fishing for posts where you can criticize.
I posted solid facts. Even MotorTrend admitted the car was detuned and was updated with new engine management software after the test. JoeZ who had conversations with the Lexus tech, confirmed the engine has restrictions on ability to do standing burn outs, donuts and brake torqueing. Why don't you go and talk to him as I have asked numerous times?
Biggest thing is, RC-F is superior to IS-F in pretty much everyway including a much better power to weight ratio, gearing, tires and torque spread. It is literally impossible for it to be slower unless there were some external influencing factors.
How about the fact that Lexus' own test show a 12.5 seconds 1/4 mile? That MT number is almost half a second slower.
If you refuse to believe any of the above, just wait and see when the real tests roll out.
Originally Posted by RNM GS3
Im a troll now???
I have been a member here for longer than you my friend.
I have posted nothing but FACTS!
Not opinions.
Mods is this CL now - where if one posts something that is a fact that is not in Lexus favor, they get called a troll? Thats pathetic.
Instead of name calling - please post facts to defend ur position.
You do realize that the SAME publication Motortrend got much WORSE results for the RC-F.
See below:
0-60 in 4.5
1/4 mile in 12.9 at 110.3 mph
60-0 braking in 108 ft
Plus the Mustang GT tested was a manual, the Auto is probably faster.
Some of the posts here defending RCF are bordering on delusional.
i dont get what the Mustang GT has to do with RC-F?
Are people actually crosshopping those two or what?
IJoeZ who had conversations with the Lexus tech, confirmed the engine has restrictions on ability to do standing burn outs, donuts and brake torqueing.
This video shows an Rc-F doing exactly the restrictions stated above. Made by Lexus themselves before this event took place, I suppose ? Did they gave any plausible reason why they restricted press cars ? Would be very interesting to hear.
torque still drops after 6k rpm even after tuning, which is obviously due to the small turbos. Thats the sacrifice that you have to make with small lower lag turbos, top end suffers. You can certainly buff the plateau in the midrange a lot. But if you want to correct the top end, turbos will have to be changed out to bigger, higher lag ones. No doubt turbo cars are easy to mod and generate gains.
yeah exactly man. thats why i dont see the point in the giant debate lol. with the bmw typically being more mod friendly that car will be the car people will jump on down the road. turbo cars being so easy to mod and make power is a huge advantage
even though im sure the Lexus will be the nicer of the 2 cars, thats almost automatic these days
09-19-14, 05:32 AM
