Anyone else rethinking their order?
09-07-14, 11:25 AM
#91
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
i too am a loyal lexus fan
hence the let down is greater
i was expecting alot for the next gen F
in stop form the ISF isnt that great in the handling deparment it in the last model runs they got better
move beyond obsession with the weight?
its a fact
a heavy car can not outperform a lighter car with similar power
the rcf now seems to be relying on electronics to do all the work
when did a drivers car become a computer controlling wheels?
turn off all the electronic aids and you have a heavy car that can not defy physics
it might handle well for its weight and power
but it will always never come close to a car that ligher with equal power and equal chassis technology
And talking about being planted on the road
weight is not the only factor that makes a car planted or feel planted its actually more of a supporting factor
its a combionation of suspension calibration and aero and such would u say a lotus elise or even a FRS or BRZ feels sketchy at speeds?
at the end of the day the car has grown fatter with much tech gear
as one of the members stated before its now heavy as a RS5 or the C63
but they do have more power
hence the let down is greater
i was expecting alot for the next gen F
in stop form the ISF isnt that great in the handling deparment it in the last model runs they got better
move beyond obsession with the weight?
its a fact
a heavy car can not outperform a lighter car with similar power
the rcf now seems to be relying on electronics to do all the work
when did a drivers car become a computer controlling wheels?
turn off all the electronic aids and you have a heavy car that can not defy physics
it might handle well for its weight and power
but it will always never come close to a car that ligher with equal power and equal chassis technology
And talking about being planted on the road
weight is not the only factor that makes a car planted or feel planted its actually more of a supporting factor
its a combionation of suspension calibration and aero and such would u say a lotus elise or even a FRS or BRZ feels sketchy at speeds?
at the end of the day the car has grown fatter with much tech gear
as one of the members stated before its now heavy as a RS5 or the C63
but they do have more power
Clearly my discussion points have been blurred my misunderstanding. Look at is this way, in 1993, Toyota's fourth generation Supra was not "class leader" but did excel in some areas (they held the C&D skidpad record at 0.98g for a long time, Motor Trend said the brakes were "the best brakes we've tested in 40 years of evaluating new automobiles). C&D was so impressed, the put Dan Gurney in one at Firebird to test head to head with "real" exotics to see if the Supra measured up. Toyota really stole the show. That car had a clear focus on weight management, and Toyota's marketing department went to town on the lengths they covered to keep the car lighter than the MkIII. Was it lightest in class? No, not by a long shot, the C4 Corvette was 200 lbs lighter. But it did perform extremely well in the magazine tester's hands. Mine weighed exactly what it should: 3415 lbs on a certified scale.
15 years later, the IS-F debuted. Not to the same kind of accolades, but enough to make some former M3 owners IS-F owners. The car has four doors, and mine weighed 3746 lbs. I expect some increased weight for the additional required safety junk like 10 airbags, stronger side impact protection (to ensure the airbags can do their job) and feature bloat. The Supra is pretty spartan compared to even the SC of the same vintage.
21 years later we have a two door GT (hmmm, sounds a lot like a Supra to me) weighing in at nearly 4000 lbs, and definitely over 400 lbs if you factor in the magic TVD.
Where is the technological superiority? I'm not seeing it in the raw numbers. I would expect a technologically advanced company to maintain parity with weight while adding features. This has not happened. In the mean time, the cars are made greener with paint so soft it chips if you look at it wrong, and windshields unable to survive a brief stint on a sandy freeway without becoming pitted to a point of pain. Again, where is the march of technology?
Why do we NEED 15" brakes? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Why do we need Atkinson cycle operation when a Corvette with an equally powerful engine easily makes 28 mpg on the highway? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Ask the ISF owners about brake pad service life, and then tell me weight isn't a big deal.
I've owned an IS since 2006 when I bought my IS350. I traded it in 2008 for an ISF. I've driven it long distance, and I've driven it at the track. It's a good car. It's not a great car. Given what I have experienced, and what is fatally obvious from a simple physics perspective, I am confident the RCF will be "a well mannered car for its heft" just like the ISF is. I'm not unhappy with my ISF. But the experience with it isn't strong enough for me to say I can't wait to put the RCF in my garage.
09-07-14, 11:50 AM
#92
Lexus Test Driver
at the end of the day the car has grown fatter with much tech gear
as one of the members stated before its now heavy as a RS5 or the C63
but they do have more power
as one of the members stated before its now heavy as a RS5 or the C63
but they do have more power
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 09-07-14 at 12:27 PM.
09-07-14, 01:02 PM
#93
I'm not currently in the market for the RCF, but I think it's gonna be stunning.
However, after these premature reviews, and this thread, I am rethinking my thinking that it will be stunning. I mean, look at the weight...In fact, I think I'm gonna get rid of my ISF too, even though it makes me extremely happy every single day.
In all seriousness, if I had pre-ordered an RCF, I would certainly need to drive it before deciding whether or not to purchase it. I like magazine articles/reviews too, but I take them with a large grain of salt...I mean, every other month the cover features a Vette, 911, or both.
However, after these premature reviews, and this thread, I am rethinking my thinking that it will be stunning. I mean, look at the weight...In fact, I think I'm gonna get rid of my ISF too, even though it makes me extremely happy every single day.
In all seriousness, if I had pre-ordered an RCF, I would certainly need to drive it before deciding whether or not to purchase it. I like magazine articles/reviews too, but I take them with a large grain of salt...I mean, every other month the cover features a Vette, 911, or both.
09-07-14, 01:26 PM
#94
Well said.
And let's not forget one thing - CARBON FIBER!
Where is the carbon fiber? Where are the take aways and trickle down from the LFA?!
BMW has delivered an entirely new CF based body for the i3. They can sell that at a profit at about half the cost of the RC F.
Let's face it, It's a half-assed job that Lexus did on the RC F, and they will pay for it in sales.
There is absolutely no excuse for a 2015 MY year, that remember lexus will probably sell for 7-8 years, to weight MORE than the previous generation. Not in this day and age, when Toyota has so much carbon fiber experience, and so much money.
Don't be lured by false advertising.
I'll happily buy the RC F when it weighs less than the M, is just as fast, and is more practical on the road. Until then, I'd rather put up with some reliability issues from a BMW.
And let's not forget one thing - CARBON FIBER!
Where is the carbon fiber? Where are the take aways and trickle down from the LFA?!
BMW has delivered an entirely new CF based body for the i3. They can sell that at a profit at about half the cost of the RC F.
Let's face it, It's a half-assed job that Lexus did on the RC F, and they will pay for it in sales.
There is absolutely no excuse for a 2015 MY year, that remember lexus will probably sell for 7-8 years, to weight MORE than the previous generation. Not in this day and age, when Toyota has so much carbon fiber experience, and so much money.
Don't be lured by false advertising.
I'll happily buy the RC F when it weighs less than the M, is just as fast, and is more practical on the road. Until then, I'd rather put up with some reliability issues from a BMW.
This is NOT the next generation ISF!
09-07-14, 01:34 PM
#95
Spot on, and from an IS-F owner who has truly tried to press the limits of the platform in actual competition.
Clearly my discussion points have been blurred my misunderstanding. Look at is this way, in 1993, Toyota's fourth generation Supra was not "class leader" but did excel in some areas (they held the C&D skidpad record at 0.98g for a long time, Motor Trend said the brakes were "the best brakes we've tested in 40 years of evaluating new automobiles). C&D was so impressed, the put Dan Gurney in one at Firebird to test head to head with "real" exotics to see if the Supra measured up. Toyota really stole the show. That car had a clear focus on weight management, and Toyota's marketing department went to town on the lengths they covered to keep the car lighter than the MkIII. Was it lightest in class? No, not by a long shot, the C4 Corvette was 200 lbs lighter. But it did perform extremely well in the magazine tester's hands. Mine weighed exactly what it should: 3415 lbs on a certified scale.
15 years later, the IS-F debuted. Not to the same kind of accolades, but enough to make some former M3 owners IS-F owners. The car has four doors, and mine weighed 3746 lbs. I expect some increased weight for the additional required safety junk like 10 airbags, stronger side impact protection (to ensure the airbags can do their job) and feature bloat. The Supra is pretty spartan compared to even the SC of the same vintage.
21 years later we have a two door GT (hmmm, sounds a lot like a Supra to me) weighing in at nearly 4000 lbs, and definitely over 400 lbs if you factor in the magic TVD.
Where is the technological superiority? I'm not seeing it in the raw numbers. I would expect a technologically advanced company to maintain parity with weight while adding features. This has not happened. In the mean time, the cars are made greener with paint so soft it chips if you look at it wrong, and windshields unable to survive a brief stint on a sandy freeway without becoming pitted to a point of pain. Again, where is the march of technology?
Why do we NEED 15" brakes? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Why do we need Atkinson cycle operation when a Corvette with an equally powerful engine easily makes 28 mpg on the highway? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Ask the ISF owners about brake pad service life, and then tell me weight isn't a big deal.
I've owned an IS since 2006 when I bought my IS350. I traded it in 2008 for an ISF. I've driven it long distance, and I've driven it at the track. It's a good car. It's not a great car. Given what I have experienced, and what is fatally obvious from a simple physics perspective, I am confident the RCF will be "a well mannered car for its heft" just like the ISF is. I'm not unhappy with my ISF. But the experience with it isn't strong enough for me to say I can't wait to put the RCF in my garage.
Clearly my discussion points have been blurred my misunderstanding. Look at is this way, in 1993, Toyota's fourth generation Supra was not "class leader" but did excel in some areas (they held the C&D skidpad record at 0.98g for a long time, Motor Trend said the brakes were "the best brakes we've tested in 40 years of evaluating new automobiles). C&D was so impressed, the put Dan Gurney in one at Firebird to test head to head with "real" exotics to see if the Supra measured up. Toyota really stole the show. That car had a clear focus on weight management, and Toyota's marketing department went to town on the lengths they covered to keep the car lighter than the MkIII. Was it lightest in class? No, not by a long shot, the C4 Corvette was 200 lbs lighter. But it did perform extremely well in the magazine tester's hands. Mine weighed exactly what it should: 3415 lbs on a certified scale.
15 years later, the IS-F debuted. Not to the same kind of accolades, but enough to make some former M3 owners IS-F owners. The car has four doors, and mine weighed 3746 lbs. I expect some increased weight for the additional required safety junk like 10 airbags, stronger side impact protection (to ensure the airbags can do their job) and feature bloat. The Supra is pretty spartan compared to even the SC of the same vintage.
21 years later we have a two door GT (hmmm, sounds a lot like a Supra to me) weighing in at nearly 4000 lbs, and definitely over 400 lbs if you factor in the magic TVD.
Where is the technological superiority? I'm not seeing it in the raw numbers. I would expect a technologically advanced company to maintain parity with weight while adding features. This has not happened. In the mean time, the cars are made greener with paint so soft it chips if you look at it wrong, and windshields unable to survive a brief stint on a sandy freeway without becoming pitted to a point of pain. Again, where is the march of technology?
Why do we NEED 15" brakes? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Why do we need Atkinson cycle operation when a Corvette with an equally powerful engine easily makes 28 mpg on the highway? Maybe because the car is so bloody heavy? Ask the ISF owners about brake pad service life, and then tell me weight isn't a big deal.
I've owned an IS since 2006 when I bought my IS350. I traded it in 2008 for an ISF. I've driven it long distance, and I've driven it at the track. It's a good car. It's not a great car. Given what I have experienced, and what is fatally obvious from a simple physics perspective, I am confident the RCF will be "a well mannered car for its heft" just like the ISF is. I'm not unhappy with my ISF. But the experience with it isn't strong enough for me to say I can't wait to put the RCF in my garage.
Lots of extrapolation here with questionable impact on what the RCF will prove to do and not do in the months ahead.
This is not the next ISF--why is this fact so hard for some to understand? It's a new class of car for a new class of buyer--what I believe was the strategy for designing the car.
It is not built to be the nemesis of the squealling M4. The competitive concerns for all who want a pure "track" car can be readily solved by simply going to the nearest BMW dealership and signing on the line to endure the BS that will prove to be the consumer experience.
In fact, this may not be the right thread.
09-07-14, 01:43 PM
#96
Lexus Fanatic
The LFA was $380,000+ and Lexus still lost money on each one. Sure they could have used carbon fiber in the RC but it would have made the car a lot more expensive. Lest you forget, the M4 actually is considerably more expensive than the RC-F. The BMW i3 is an entirely different sort of car engineered for an entirely different purpose than the RC. Comparing the two makes no sense. We can write a really long list of what the RC-F does have that an i3 does not.
If you want an M4...buy an M4. How all of a sudden the only measure of success was going to be making it lighter and faster than an M4...a goal that the RC's designers have said repeatedly was not theirs. There are tradeoffs either way. To me a huge one is the V8 vs the 6, and the Lexus better on road driving dynamics (which is an assumption on my part but I'm pretty confident in it). So...if you choose an M4 it will be lighter, but a little less forgiving on the road and more expensive optioned similarly..if those tradeoffs make the M4 more what you want...buy it.
I'd rather have a heavier car with a real V8 thats a little more forgiving on the road...and that option for option is $10-15k less.
The RC- F is not supposed to be a "Lexus M4" lol
Last edited by SW17LS; 09-07-14 at 01:55 PM.
09-07-14, 02:55 PM
#97
Pole Position
The RC- F is not supposed to be a "Lexus M4" lol
09-07-14, 03:18 PM
#98
Lexus Fanatic
To me, if I didn't have some need for a sedan, styling, interior and technology would be reason enough to trade an IS-F for an RC-F. The IS-F was a car I never would have bought, too boy-racerish...but the RC-F is a car that I really find appealing.
09-07-14, 03:22 PM
#99
Lets put it this way, those of you who DO NOT own IS-F's, buy the RC-F. Then come back to us IS-F owners 5 or 6 years from now when the next/second generation RC-F comes and it comes out to be heavier and ONLY marginally better. In probabilities, you will slam that next generation..
09-07-14, 03:36 PM
#100
Lexus Fanatic
But thats just the thing...the RC-F is not the next generation IS-F. Its a different model entirely. Are you going to say that the GS-F is also the next generation IS-F? It has about as much in common with the IS-F as the RC-F does.
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
09-07-14, 04:04 PM
#101
Despite the fact that I have a real need for 4 doors, I have been following the RCF like a like of other ISF owners and Lexus enthusiasts. I was never going to be one of the pre-order or 1st model year crowd, but I was thinking that maybe in late 2016 or early 2017 I'd be finally ready to trade in my ISF for something new, and I was going to figure out a way to make the RCF work for me despite the lack of space.
I can't say what I'm going to do car-wise in the future, but given the fact that the RCF's performance for the type of driving that I do (non track) doesn't seem to blow away that of the ISF, I can't say I'm likely to sacrifice my need for 4 doors. If the RCF was far and away better than my ISF, yeah, I'd have tried to make it work, but it doesn't seem like it will be.
I plan on riding it out with me ISF for a few more years and seeing what else is out there. If they do bring back the ISF, that's almost certainly going to be the car I get down the road. The GSF is also on the list, and both would rank ahead of the RCF.
I can't say what I'm going to do car-wise in the future, but given the fact that the RCF's performance for the type of driving that I do (non track) doesn't seem to blow away that of the ISF, I can't say I'm likely to sacrifice my need for 4 doors. If the RCF was far and away better than my ISF, yeah, I'd have tried to make it work, but it doesn't seem like it will be.
I plan on riding it out with me ISF for a few more years and seeing what else is out there. If they do bring back the ISF, that's almost certainly going to be the car I get down the road. The GSF is also on the list, and both would rank ahead of the RCF.
09-07-14, 04:09 PM
#102
Lexus Fanatic
Did I miss a review somewhere that was based on non track testing? I'm legitimately curious. How have we determined that the RC-F's performance off the track isn't better than the IS-F?
09-07-14, 04:48 PM
#103
Well, I'd also like to see the review showing same for same road performance. Given the way the RCF is engineered, I am hard pressed to believe that there will not be substantial improvements on handling dynamics, shift speed (it was said to resemble a DCT), corning with the TVD and a lower center of gravity, wider tires, etc.
It seems most folks are thinking about light speed--light to light performance. Is that really what this car is about?
09-07-14, 06:21 PM
#104
But thats just the thing...the RC-F is not the next generation IS-F. Its a different model entirely. Are you going to say that the GS-F is also the next generation IS-F? It has about as much in common with the IS-F as the RC-F does.
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
I am not arguing with you that the RC-F is not the successor to the IS-F. EVERYBODY knows that it is not the next generation. Please stop this as I am tired of you saying that. Also, do not make assumptions that we never really wanted the car. We wanted the car to succeed like any Lexus fan boy. But when you read luke warm reviews after the highest of expectations, we have the right to express our disappointment.
Funny that you mentioned moderators, you know LOBUX is a moderator, correct?And he is also one of the current IS-F owners not pleased with the RC-F.
09-07-14, 06:45 PM
#105
Lexus Test Driver
But thats just the thing...the RC-F is not the next generation IS-F. Its a different model entirely. Are you going to say that the GS-F is also the next generation IS-F? It has about as much in common with the IS-F as the RC-F does.
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
And...proclaiming its only marginally better when you haven't even driven it. Like I said, compare the 2IS to the 3IS...the 3GS to the 4GS. On paper..."marginally better". In reality...significantly better.
If you're so ready to dismiss the car when you haven't even driven it, and based on the reactions of SOME (not all or even most) reviews based on one day's track event for the press, then you never really wanted the car or wanted it to be successful in the first place.
Seriously...its crazy. This is supposed to be the biggest Lexus enthusiast site on the internet right? Where's the benefit of the doubt? We've got moderators running the thing down without even driving it because of ONE stat? Glad you guys aren't supposed to be my fans LOL
We are not here to post just post positives or worship it bec its a Lexus like some posters do here.
I rather see both sides and experience the car myself to come to my own conclusion.....