DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Guys if the personal comments don't end, this thread is going to get closed and some members are going to have some time off the forum for personal reflection.

Knock it off.

05RollaXRS

The explanation I have heard, is that Lexus was allowing both novice and car critics to take the RC-F prototypes for test drives around town as well as on Monticello race track. Lexus wanted to avoid any liability issues of someone crashing while trying to do a burn out or a hard launch, which is why Lexus put a restriction in the ECU where it did not allow burn outs and hard launches.

Plus, these prototypes (as always is the case) are very expensive.

Mr. Burns

Please save me the bull****. Porsche on average makes $20k profit on every car sold, among the highest in the industry, thus they are among the most overpriced. Their VW rebadged SUVs and that hideous Panamera are especially bad.

The 911 is perhaps the only respectable Porsche save for the supercars, but the guy's 911 GT3 costs $130k, which unless you track it regularly is a colossal waste of money. There are countless cars for less than half the price that provide similar levels of on-road driving enjoyment while offering more desirable traits in more practical areas. The RC-F is a good example.

GTsport

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but when I read this I just had to.

1. I do track my car but not often due time restrictions. I would've just bought a regular 911 if I didn't have the intention of tracking my car.

2. You're SO wrong about the Panamera and especially the SUVs ( The Macan). The Panemera is probably the best in its class. Hell a Panemera Turbo is cheaper, faster and more capable than the Rapide! The Macan is also one of the best all round vehicles one could buy. Fantastic vehicle.

3. If you seriously think the RC-F or even the M4 would provide similar levels of driving enjoyment as a GT3 would I really don't know what to say to you. :thumb up:

And finally, yes, Porsche makes a big profit on each car they sell. This is completely irrelevant though because if you want a Porsche no other other will satisfy you. The value of my GT3 to me is infinite regardless of it's cost.

itsmike177

iTrader: (3)

Motortrend posted results with "final production tuning.".

4.3 to 60mph
12.7 @ 112 mph quarter mile

Weight is 4040 lbs, meaning it must be the TVD.

Not looking so good, was expecting near 120mph trap speed like its' competitors.

eoph

http://wot.motortrend.com/1409_lexus...s_clocked.html

ISF001

HAHA...the big boy can run. And with more experienced drivers/owners tapping into the power of the RCF with TVD, I expect to see folks running a 4.1-4.2.

Some points of comparison for quarter mile based on Motortrend:

M4 takes 12.2 seconds at 117.8 mph
AMG 507 Coupe finishes in 12.2 seconds at 117.4 mph
RS 5 takes 12.3 at 112.2 mph
RC F took 12.7 seconds @ 112.2 mph (Best time achieved by Motortend's driver--expecting to see 12.3-12.5 runs with experienced drivers/owners--Lexus specs it at a minimum of 12.5) Of course, inconsistent Motortrend tested the RCF in a hot desert!)

Motortrend did not retest these metrics that were based on the prototype RCF last week.

Handling...
The RC F’s peak lateral grip was 0.95 g and it completed our figure-eight test in 24.7 seconds -- the exact same time it takes the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat and one of the three Alfa Romeo 4Cs we've tested. WIth the tune and new engine management software, I expect the number to be 24.5--moving it from third to second place.

The M4 can pull 0.98 g and run the figure eight in 24.2 seconds.

The RS 5 pulls a max of 0.99 and takes 24.6 seconds.

The AMG 507 pulled only 0.91 g and needed 25.2 seconds.


The new numbers are plenty fast enough for me and indicate how Lexus is conservative with its F car specs, and we are talking tenths across a group of outstanding machines--truth be told.

Based on several reviews, I would rank this group of cars for overall performance--sophistication, speed and the "fun" factor--as follows:

RCF--best overall driving experience for road and track--top daily driver
BMW M4--the better track car in the group and less the daily driver
AMG 507--2nd best overall driving experience for road and track and daily driver
Audi RS5--better track car than the 507 and a solid daily driver.

Clearly, Motortrend has eyes on what we are discussing at Club Lexus.

I will be interested in seeing what the Road & Track drivers achieve and how the RCF is ranked as one of the top ten 2014 performance cars of the year. Unfortunately, the BMW M4 did not make the top ten list, so that point of comparison will be missing.

MW M3
ALFA ROMEO 4C
DODGE VIPER TA 2.0
BMW M235i
SUBARU WRX STI
CHEVY CAMARO Z/28
JAGUAR F-TYPE R COUPE
FERRARI 458 SPECIALE
DODGE CHALLENGER SRT HELLCAT
FORD MUSTANG
MINI COOPER S
NISSAN GT-R NISMO
LEXUS RC F
VOLKSWAGEN GTI
PORSCHE 911 GT3

redspencer

iTrader: (1)

I also noticed that the RC-F is slower around the Motor trend figure eight course and pulled less lateral Gs than the 2012 IS-F that was previously tested.

ISF001

We are talking ONE TENTH here and it pulled more Gs.

2012 ISF--24.8 seconds at 0.79 g

2015 RCF-- 24.9 seconds. Average lateral g came in at 0.92g

We do realize that we are comparing two DIFFERENT classes of car. This is meant to be a new line and driving experience. Some of us may not be pleased with this direction. I for one am.

The RCF was not designed to compete with my 2012 ISF.

redspencer

iTrader: (1)

If you're familiar with Motor Trend testing, there are two sets of lateral g #s. One is taken from the figure eight course (with many of the high performance cars pulling numbers in the high 70s-low 80s) and the other is from a skidpad.

The way the RC-F article is written, it reads (at least to me) that the 0.92 is the skidpad lateral g. If this is the case, the 2012 Lexus IS-F averaged a 0.96g around the same skidpad:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._f_first_test/

chris07is

iTrader: (10)

i understand the critism here in regards to weight and horsepower, but ANY OF YOU GUYS ARE PROFESSIONAL RACE CAR DRIVER? does it really matter? none of us here have driven the RC F and all this car article are seems pretty bias. who cares if its faster and lighter than competitior, who cares if its faster than HELLCAT. Buy it and enjoy it!

RNM GS3

This car is an AUTOMATIC - a blind person can drive it in a straight line with NO experience required. Owners would be happy to match these figures......

The RCF offers less Performance than competition. PERIOD

Ppl should buy it if they want RELIABILITY, V8 engine, and like the styling.

ISF001

I am going to dismiss your comments as you have no idea what you are talking about. This is not a 535. There is a manual mode that locks the torque converter in gears 2-8. The new g-force AI is superior to anything BMW can offer. When the M4 gets in trouble with the driver, it simply shuts down or worse. The RCF intervenes and takes the car through maneuver.


Speaking of stability control, Lexus calls theirs “Vehicle Dynamic Integrated Management (VDIM) system.” It’s a system that monitors and coordinates a slew of different variables, from the powertrain, ABS, electric power steering, and traction control (TRAC), to the Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) systems. This allows it to subtly keep you on the road once you’ve pushed the car just beyond its limits. But unlike the stability control of other manufacturers (looking at you, BMW), Lexus does its job so subtly that you barely notice it happened. While a BMW experiencing a loss of traction will simply cut power to the engine, causing a mass deceleration, the RCF simply dials it down a notch, but still keep on pushing. The result is that you’ll barely lose any speed, but just enough to keep you on the track. It’s seamless and it’s the one thing that makes this car so accessible.

Read more: http://www.ohgizmo.com/2014/09/10/be...#ixzz3DyJg5XAd
Follow us: @ohgizmo on Twitter | ohgizmo on Facebook


Your comments are best appreciated among your BMW enthusiasts.

The RCF will prove to be the best car in its class and Lexus' first stab at designing an all-purpose car with an exotic design. A mere 2-3 tenths on the low end means nothing to the majority of the RCF buyers. If speed is so important to you, we can ask the RCF owners to wave at the M4 drivers as they pass them at 155 on way to 170. How's that for speed?

05RollaXRS

Road And Track will be publishing a "Best Performance Car" competition soon and both RC-F and M4 will be tested in a straight line and around the race track on the same day. Hopefully, that would give more comparable results.

MT sucks pretty badly for having inconsistent testing standards. You mentioned RS5 in your previous post, MT has a discrepancy in numbers in three different tests. Their own numbers are so extremely different and a substantial 4 mph trap speed variation. Unlike the RC-F, the RS5 has launch control so the launching method is the same every time, which makes it more baffling. Which one to believe more?

Normally, testing should be normalized for weather, altitude, heat, surface variations etc. in order to make the numbers comparable, but MT's testing results still are hugely inconsistent.

12.5@110 mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ec_first_test/

12.8@108 mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

12.3@112 mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

ISF001

Motortrend unintentionally IMO ran a 4.3 in the bloody desert--two tenths down from the prototype car. The car is also spec'd at a minimum of 12.5 for the quarter. It will run at least a 12.3 -12.4 with the right driver in cooler climates.

Given the potential to run the RCF in environments other than Death Valley, I expect to see even more impressive times for the big beast.

Even more fair would be testing the M4 and the RCF with the same driver, same day, and same external conditions (temp, fuel, etc.). I am looking forward to the Road and Track results and story.