Anyone else rethinking their order?
09-20-14, 08:48 PM
#211
In general, automedia is not trustworthy. I just got my best buddy to buy 520d, which is supposed to be the best diesel engine in the world, and now since A6 was facelifted, 520d has a lot of faults that it did not have last year. Somehow it is rough engine, transmission likes to hunt when cruising and real world mileage is poor. Last year it was superb, quiet, perfect transmission combo and hybrid beating mpg. You just cant trust media guys for nothing.
So I give a lot more credence to our members posting their own opinions than automedia.
09-20-14, 10:12 PM
#212
Driver
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: HI
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough. However, I didn't think folks loaded 2-4 extra buddies or wife and kids and take them on a spirited cruises, commute to work, haul groceries and so forth. I asked a friend with a 2013 M3/M4 how often he has had anyone in his backseat in the year he owned it, he replied "almost never" matter of factly.
All my 2-door vehicles have atleast a 2+2 configuration (gt-r, fr-s, g35 coupe before as well). I prefer to maximize interior load capacity if possible and I only purchase new typically. I use to only drive rwd sports sedans (is300, is350, is-f). I'm not a fan of strictly 2-seater sport cars unless it's a LFA or other exotic.
09-22-14, 06:06 AM
#213
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: ON
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe anyone is arguing the explosive power of the GTR.
With regard to the M4 and RCF discussion, you need to explore the math...
I expect to see, as a result of independent testing, the low-end acceleration of the production (non-pre-production prototype) car to be closer to the M4 and pull at least a 4.1 0-60. Why? The ISF has a power-to-weight ratio of 9.08 hp per pound versus the RCF with 8.47 hp per pound. The ISF is spec'd by Lexus at 4.6, yet it runs a 4.2 in the right driver's hands. We'll see if this extrapolation holds water in the months ahead. BTW: As a point of comparison, the M4 has a power-to-weight of 8.30 hp per pound versus the 8.47 of the RCF.
The top end is 170 for the RCF and 155 for the M4--stock for stock.
Let's get the M4 and RCF in a side by side and see how it plays out. I am expecting plenty of close shaves.
With regard to the M4 and RCF discussion, you need to explore the math...
I expect to see, as a result of independent testing, the low-end acceleration of the production (non-pre-production prototype) car to be closer to the M4 and pull at least a 4.1 0-60. Why? The ISF has a power-to-weight ratio of 9.08 hp per pound versus the RCF with 8.47 hp per pound. The ISF is spec'd by Lexus at 4.6, yet it runs a 4.2 in the right driver's hands. We'll see if this extrapolation holds water in the months ahead. BTW: As a point of comparison, the M4 has a power-to-weight of 8.30 hp per pound versus the 8.47 of the RCF.
The top end is 170 for the RCF and 155 for the M4--stock for stock.
Let's get the M4 and RCF in a side by side and see how it plays out. I am expecting plenty of close shaves.
The M3 has a HIGHER power to weight than the RCF. That's why it's faster.
The RCF does not have 8.47 hp per pound! That would give it about 33,500 hp!
M3 auto
HP - 425
LBS - 3585
RCF
HP - 467
LBS - 3958
M3 has .1185 hp/lb
RCF has .1179 hp/lb
And you can't use this to predict 0-60 times. Torques plays a bigger role in 0-60, and the M3 has tons of torque, at very low rpm.
09-22-14, 07:40 AM
#214
You may want to check your math, as it's completely wrong.
The M3 has a HIGHER power to weight than the RCF. That's why it's faster.
The RCF does not have 8.47 hp per pound! That would give it about 33,500 hp!
M3 auto
HP - 425
LBS - 3585
RCF
HP - 467
LBS - 3958
M3 has .1185 hp/lb
RCF has .1179 hp/lb
And you can't use this to predict 0-60 times. Torques plays a bigger role in 0-60, and the M3 has tons of torque, at very low rpm.
The M3 has a HIGHER power to weight than the RCF. That's why it's faster.
The RCF does not have 8.47 hp per pound! That would give it about 33,500 hp!
M3 auto
HP - 425
LBS - 3585
RCF
HP - 467
LBS - 3958
M3 has .1185 hp/lb
RCF has .1179 hp/lb
And you can't use this to predict 0-60 times. Torques plays a bigger role in 0-60, and the M3 has tons of torque, at very low rpm.
09-22-14, 09:32 AM
#215
Correct... Forgive the unintentional confusion.
I don't believe the RCF will run a 12.2, but it will come mighty close.
The "ton" of torque you refer to is apparently not a significant advantage on tough cornering when the M4 introduces massive deceleration. Here is where the RCF TVD will shine, actually delivering torque where it matters on such corners.
Forgive the unintentional confusion.I don't believe the RCF will run a 12.2, but it will come mighty close.
The "ton" of torque you refer to is apparently not a significant advantage on tough cornering when the M4 introduces massive deceleration. Here is where the RCF TVD will shine, actually delivering torque where it matters on such corners.
Last edited by ISF001; 09-22-14 at 04:50 PM.
09-22-14, 03:09 PM
#216
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
09-22-14, 04:02 PM
#217
Lexus Test Driver
The M4 launch control has built-in mechanism that pulls back torque in the 1st gear in order to put the power down properly.
The ZR-1 with 600 ft-lbs literally most of the time it had the same 0-60 mph time of 3.8 - 4.0 seconds as the Z06 C6 with 145 HP less because the ZR-1 could not put its power down properly until it got to very high speeds.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 09-22-14 at 04:57 PM.
09-27-14, 04:19 PM
#218
im sticking with the ISF the 4 door that weighs less and still gets me excited when i jump in it and is paid off. i can keep 80k for something else or mod up the ISF to take out an RCF for a fraction of the cost IMO to each is own personally i think the RCF is ugly but i didnt know the numbers were mediocre i thought the was going to blast the ISF away. still want to see it in person once its gets to the dealerships. im not sold.
09-27-14, 05:19 PM
#219
im sticking with the ISF the 4 door that weighs less and still gets me excited when i jump in it and is paid off. i can keep 80k for something else or mod up the ISF to take out an RCF for a fraction of the cost IMO to each is own personally i think the RCF is ugly but i didnt know the numbers were mediocre i thought the was going to blast the ISF away. still want to see it in person once its gets to the dealerships. im not sold.
It will out run the ISF stock for stock on the street and the track. Our rear does not perform the way the TVD does on the new RCF--just a fact.
However, who said the cars are meant to compete?
This is a new class of car for Lexus and signals the direction they are taking,
If it's not for you, that's fine. Take the $85k and trick out your ISF. My 2012 ISF is hard to give up, but it is going back to Lexus when I pick up my carbon RCF.
09-28-14, 06:28 AM
#220
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I applaud lexus for finally coming out with an obtainable sports coupe, but you could have at least made it perform better than the competitions outgoing models. It's slower or barely equal to the performance in the outgoing C63, outgoing RS5, and already gone e92 M3. Bmw raised the bar and we haven't even seen the others. Its like their living on an island or something.
09-28-14, 03:16 PM
#223
I applaud lexus for finally coming out with an obtainable sports coupe, but you could have at least made it perform better than the competitions outgoing models. It's slower or barely equal to the performance in the outgoing C63, outgoing RS5, and already gone e92 M3. Bmw raised the bar and we haven't even seen the others. Its like their living on an island or something.
09-28-14, 04:04 PM
#224
I agree. Why I am cross shopping the C63, RS5 and the RC-F? Though, we do not have any REAL comparisons yet, I believe the C63 507and RS5 will out accelerate the RC-F from various speeds and it might be a toss up on the track for all 3. I think Lexus does not have the technical know how to outperform the AMG and RS without sacrificing reliability and quality.
This comparison wiill always be a matter of opinion as we are talking minute differences in performance.
I view the PROTOTYPE RCF to be the best in class in overall performance. If you want fair and actual comparison between the new RCF and the other sets of wheels, you will néed to wait until February, when the RCF with TVD appears on the seen.
I'm waiting for nothing. The RCF will easily beat the Yaguchi conservative spec on 0-60 and quarter mile with knowledgeable drivers in the right climates.
Here is another opinion:
Last edited by ISF001; 09-28-14 at 04:52 PM.
09-28-14, 04:07 PM
#225
I agree. Why I am cross shopping the C63, RS5 and the RC-F? Though, we do not have any REAL comparisons yet, I believe the C63 507and RS5 will out accelerate the RC-F from various speeds and it might be a toss up on the track for all 3. I think Lexus does not have the technical know how to outperform the AMG and RS without sacrificing reliability and quality.
You are drawing conclusions based on what? Journalists driving results with detuned prototype coupes or what?
No one will know what the numbers are until the RCF carbon TVD hits the roads in February. Until then, this is all hyperbole.
As for the M4, BMW will be significantly challenged to deliver a car with the sophistication and versatility of the RCF. If I were BMW, I would be concerned. The buyer for the RCF will not seriously consider the M4 based on reliability, luxury, engine technology and sound, and overall performance.
Last edited by ISF001; 09-28-14 at 04:28 PM.