View Poll Results: How has your opinion of the RC F changed with the announcement of official specs?
Positive - I am pleased with the specs
22
27.50%
Indifferent - My opinion hasn't changed
25
31.25%
Negative - I am disappointed with the specs
33
41.25%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: Your opinion on the RC F now that official specs and reviews are available
09-07-14, 06:45 PM
#1
Poll: Your opinion on the RC F now that official specs and reviews are available
I know that there has been a lot of back and forth since official specs and reviews became available on September 4th, so I wanted to publish a poll to gauge overall perception.
Now that we know the numbers and have read the first round of reviews, how has your opinion of the RC F changed?
Now that we know the numbers and have read the first round of reviews, how has your opinion of the RC F changed?
09-09-14, 04:19 AM
#2
I know that there has been a lot of back and forth since official specs and reviews became available on September 4th, so I wanted to publish a poll to gauge overall perception.
Now that we know the numbers and have read the first round of reviews, how has your opinion of the RC F changed?
Now that we know the numbers and have read the first round of reviews, how has your opinion of the RC F changed?
09-09-14, 04:19 PM
#4
09-10-14, 07:20 PM
#5
I'm sure it is going to be a great all around vehicle just like the ISF, but it should be way ahead of the ISF since it is a brand new release...and it doesn't appear to be with its porkiness. I like the new power from the (still) NA engine, but it is easily 400 lbs heavier than it should be. Toyota/Lexus always seems to do so many things right, but can't produce a vehicle without at least one glaring issue. It is crazy to think that the new MB C63 AMG will likely be hundreds of pounds lighter than the RCF considering the fact the new C400 4MATIC tips the scales UNDER 3600 lbs.
09-10-14, 07:36 PM
#6
I'm sure it is going to be a great all around vehicle just like the ISF, but it should be way ahead of the ISF since it is a brand new release...and it doesn't appear to be with its porkiness. I like the new power from the (still) NA engine, but it is easily 400 lbs heavier than it should be. Toyota/Lexus always seems to do so many things right, but can't produce a vehicle without at least one glaring issue. It is crazy to think that the new MB C63 AMG will likely be hundreds of pounds lighter than the RCF considering the fact the new C400 4MATIC tips the scales UNDER 3600 lbs.
Let's see what surfaces when the real pros push it to the limits with instrumentation to quantify their results.
Trending Topics
09-11-14, 05:08 AM
#8
I'm sure it is going to be a great all around vehicle just like the ISF, but it should be way ahead of the ISF since it is a brand new release...and it doesn't appear to be with its porkiness. I like the new power from the (still) NA engine, but it is easily 400 lbs heavier than it should be. Toyota/Lexus always seems to do so many things right, but can't produce a vehicle without at least one glaring issue. It is crazy to think that the new MB C63 AMG will likely be hundreds of pounds lighter than the RCF considering the fact the new C400 4MATIC tips the scales UNDER 3600 lbs.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 09-11-14 at 05:13 AM.
09-11-14, 08:14 AM
#9
It's not only ahead of our ISFs (my 2012, your 2008)--it's a new class of breakthrough car, dynamics and engine. As an F owner, you know it took you time to master the vehicle. A day at the track is hardly sufficient to master this new beast.
Let's see what surfaces when the real pros push it to the limits with instrumentation to quantify their results.
Let's see what surfaces when the real pros push it to the limits with instrumentation to quantify their results.
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=30817
"BMW can rest easy, and Lexus has probably arrived at a 2014 party in 2008 clothes, but the RC F still has something about it"
09-11-14, 09:55 AM
#10
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Lexus needs to do the same thing they did with the IS-F. A road show driving event in major cities around the country. Even better if they can offer a full day as they did with the IS-F so potential owners can drive the car in multiple events and get a better feel for what the car will and won't do.
If it were my decision, I'd include the competition so people could drive the other brands as well. I'd also publish the maintenance costs for providing those other brands vs. Lexus to give prospective owners perspective on the real cost of ownership under severe duty. If there is one thing I am sure about - the RCF may not be the quickest around the track, but it will be the least expensive to operate and maintain. My IS-F has not had a single track day cut short for a mechanical issue I didn't self-induce, and it has been a very fun car at the track.
If it were my decision, I'd include the competition so people could drive the other brands as well. I'd also publish the maintenance costs for providing those other brands vs. Lexus to give prospective owners perspective on the real cost of ownership under severe duty. If there is one thing I am sure about - the RCF may not be the quickest around the track, but it will be the least expensive to operate and maintain. My IS-F has not had a single track day cut short for a mechanical issue I didn't self-induce, and it has been a very fun car at the track.
Last edited by lobuxracer; 09-11-14 at 09:58 AM.
09-11-14, 09:58 AM
#11
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ME
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning - novella incoming...
My opinion of the car hasn't changed, but I was bitterly disappointed in the media response.
I have a bias, so let's get that out of the way quickly. I have owned Japanese vehicles my entire life. Mostly Honda, one Mitsubishi (never again,) one Jeep, and now an IS350. The Jeep and friends' experiences with various other domestic marques are enough to keep me out of a domestic for the foreseeable future. Thus, no Corvette. Bummer, too, since it really meets my performance desires, and the recent Top Gear Magazine Speed Week issue said that the Vette ate the M4 for lunch. But yeah, no domestics for me.
I also put a LOT of research into BMW when I was cross-shopping the M3 with the IS350. The reports of dealer-service-induced VANOS failures (destroying the engine) were widespread enough to make me very wary. Further research into resale on the M3 showed that the resale PLUMMETED when the car got within 10k of the end of the factory bumper-to-bumper (never own a BMW out of warranty?). Since then, BMW dialing back the boost on the 335i (twice, if I'm not mistaken?) to improve reliability is all the more telling. Then there are the Z3's that had a habit of tearing the differential out of the body with the 6-cylinder motor. Never mind the issues already reported with the M3/4...
So in short, the M3/M4 are out for me. They could be the best-performing cars made today, but there's no way I'd buy one. The Mitsubishi has me gun-shy with performance cars that are always about to break. I truly can't enjoy a vehicle if every time I floor it I'm worried how big my next repair bill is going to be.
The Cayman GTS has me curious, but Porsche had enough baggage with crank-walk on some past motors. And that was BEFORE I read about the IMS bearing failures and the various fixes for it. And let's not forget the GT3's that had a habit of catching fire. That said, the reports of their current reliability being better have me intrigued. Though I'm not sure how those 20" wheels are going to hold up in the Northeast. Still, a test-drive is most definitely in order.
Honda has nothing on offer in this category right now, so unfortunately they're out before it ever starts. The rumors of the new NSX are compelling, but with the amount of tech they're supposedly cramming in there, it's very likely to be out of my price range for this round.
So for me, the RC F has pretty much won by default before any of the reports came out. So why the disappointment, then?
I was REALLY hoping for another LFA love story. Not the lightest, not the most powerful, not the best handling, but the best overall CAR in its class. When you can get Jeremy Clarkson to fall in love with a Japanese performance car, you've done it right.
So I was REALLY hoping for another round of that with the RC F. We knew going in it would not be the lightest, not be the most powerful, not be the best handling. But there was the hope that it would be so much the best CAR that the automotive press would be forced to set aside their bias (and well-paid-for endorsements) to admit that this time Lexus really did get it right. And that didn't happen. For whatever reason. Was it a realistic hope? Probably not, but it was still what I was hoping for. "The best all-around, daily-driver-reliable performance car available below $100k" - that's the headline I was hoping to see. Apparently most of the reviewers consider reliability to be an afterthought, so that's where we have to part company...
The weight for me really isn't that big a deal. It's less than 200lbs heavier than the IS F, with 51hp more. In the old days, 100lbs equaled plus 0.1s in the quarter, and 10hp equaled minus 0.1s. So by that math it should be about 0.3s quicker than the IS F stock-for-stock with the same driver. Throw in the bigger tires, and maybe it's 0.4s?
I'm looking for a boulevard bully. My personal skill level is so low, and the performance of even my IS350 so high, that I rarely drive it at 7/10ths, and certainly not in corners - bodywork is expensive! So the writer saying the RC F was great at 7/10ths is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I'm never going to track it. And its 0-60 and 1/4-mile will be close enough to the M4 that it'll come down to car-to-car variations and reaction times.
As for whether or not I'd like more power, I'm torn. When Top Gear compared the C63 AMG, M3, and RS4, the general consensus was that the AMG was already overpowered. I think the RC F is on the hairy edge of the limit. Clarkson said years ago that 500hp was the ceiling - any more than that and the electronics do more of the work than the driver. If the new AMG really does make as much power as some are suggesting, it'll be completely un-driveable. Even Car and Driver said that 1st gear in the M4 is completely useless - traction control "on" short-shifts so much that it doesn't even go until 2nd, and if you kill the TC, you're more likely to smoke the tires than get a good launch.
So anyway, there it is. I'm not disappointed in the car, just the reaction it got out of what I hope are just some heavily biased media. I'll test drive a few of the competitors, but when it comes time to sign the paperwork, it's almost 100% likely that it'll be a CPO 2016 RC F sometime in 2017. Preferably in black with red interior and the base wheels...
I have a bias, so let's get that out of the way quickly. I have owned Japanese vehicles my entire life. Mostly Honda, one Mitsubishi (never again,) one Jeep, and now an IS350. The Jeep and friends' experiences with various other domestic marques are enough to keep me out of a domestic for the foreseeable future. Thus, no Corvette. Bummer, too, since it really meets my performance desires, and the recent Top Gear Magazine Speed Week issue said that the Vette ate the M4 for lunch. But yeah, no domestics for me.
I also put a LOT of research into BMW when I was cross-shopping the M3 with the IS350. The reports of dealer-service-induced VANOS failures (destroying the engine) were widespread enough to make me very wary. Further research into resale on the M3 showed that the resale PLUMMETED when the car got within 10k of the end of the factory bumper-to-bumper (never own a BMW out of warranty?). Since then, BMW dialing back the boost on the 335i (twice, if I'm not mistaken?) to improve reliability is all the more telling. Then there are the Z3's that had a habit of tearing the differential out of the body with the 6-cylinder motor. Never mind the issues already reported with the M3/4...
So in short, the M3/M4 are out for me. They could be the best-performing cars made today, but there's no way I'd buy one. The Mitsubishi has me gun-shy with performance cars that are always about to break. I truly can't enjoy a vehicle if every time I floor it I'm worried how big my next repair bill is going to be.
The Cayman GTS has me curious, but Porsche had enough baggage with crank-walk on some past motors. And that was BEFORE I read about the IMS bearing failures and the various fixes for it. And let's not forget the GT3's that had a habit of catching fire. That said, the reports of their current reliability being better have me intrigued. Though I'm not sure how those 20" wheels are going to hold up in the Northeast. Still, a test-drive is most definitely in order.
Honda has nothing on offer in this category right now, so unfortunately they're out before it ever starts. The rumors of the new NSX are compelling, but with the amount of tech they're supposedly cramming in there, it's very likely to be out of my price range for this round.
So for me, the RC F has pretty much won by default before any of the reports came out. So why the disappointment, then?
I was REALLY hoping for another LFA love story. Not the lightest, not the most powerful, not the best handling, but the best overall CAR in its class. When you can get Jeremy Clarkson to fall in love with a Japanese performance car, you've done it right.
So I was REALLY hoping for another round of that with the RC F. We knew going in it would not be the lightest, not be the most powerful, not be the best handling. But there was the hope that it would be so much the best CAR that the automotive press would be forced to set aside their bias (and well-paid-for endorsements) to admit that this time Lexus really did get it right. And that didn't happen. For whatever reason. Was it a realistic hope? Probably not, but it was still what I was hoping for. "The best all-around, daily-driver-reliable performance car available below $100k" - that's the headline I was hoping to see. Apparently most of the reviewers consider reliability to be an afterthought, so that's where we have to part company...
The weight for me really isn't that big a deal. It's less than 200lbs heavier than the IS F, with 51hp more. In the old days, 100lbs equaled plus 0.1s in the quarter, and 10hp equaled minus 0.1s. So by that math it should be about 0.3s quicker than the IS F stock-for-stock with the same driver. Throw in the bigger tires, and maybe it's 0.4s?
I'm looking for a boulevard bully. My personal skill level is so low, and the performance of even my IS350 so high, that I rarely drive it at 7/10ths, and certainly not in corners - bodywork is expensive! So the writer saying the RC F was great at 7/10ths is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I'm never going to track it. And its 0-60 and 1/4-mile will be close enough to the M4 that it'll come down to car-to-car variations and reaction times.
As for whether or not I'd like more power, I'm torn. When Top Gear compared the C63 AMG, M3, and RS4, the general consensus was that the AMG was already overpowered. I think the RC F is on the hairy edge of the limit. Clarkson said years ago that 500hp was the ceiling - any more than that and the electronics do more of the work than the driver. If the new AMG really does make as much power as some are suggesting, it'll be completely un-driveable. Even Car and Driver said that 1st gear in the M4 is completely useless - traction control "on" short-shifts so much that it doesn't even go until 2nd, and if you kill the TC, you're more likely to smoke the tires than get a good launch.
So anyway, there it is. I'm not disappointed in the car, just the reaction it got out of what I hope are just some heavily biased media. I'll test drive a few of the competitors, but when it comes time to sign the paperwork, it's almost 100% likely that it'll be a CPO 2016 RC F sometime in 2017. Preferably in black with red interior and the base wheels...
09-11-14, 10:06 AM
#12
Lexus needs to do the same thing they did with the IS-F. A road show driving event in major cities around the country. Even better if they can offer a full day as they did with the IS-F so potential owners can drive the car in multiple events and get a better feel for what the car will and won't do.
If it were my decision, I'd include the competition so people could drive the other brands as well. I'd also publish the maintenance costs for providing those other brands vs. Lexus to give prospective owners perspective on the real cost of ownership under severe duty. If there is one thing I am sure about - the RCF may not be the quickest around the track, but it will be the least expensive to operate and maintain. My IS-F has not had a single track day cut short for a mechanical issue I didn't self-induce, and it has been a very fun car at the track.
If it were my decision, I'd include the competition so people could drive the other brands as well. I'd also publish the maintenance costs for providing those other brands vs. Lexus to give prospective owners perspective on the real cost of ownership under severe duty. If there is one thing I am sure about - the RCF may not be the quickest around the track, but it will be the least expensive to operate and maintain. My IS-F has not had a single track day cut short for a mechanical issue I didn't self-induce, and it has been a very fun car at the track.
Regards,
- Kirk
09-11-14, 10:13 AM
#14
That's great! You'll be driving it with the new engine management software that is expected, according to Motor Trend, to shave tenths off of the numbers. They were detuned prototype versions and, according to Joe Z, also would not allow drivers to do stand still burnouts.
See my new thread on New Engine Management Software.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...onticello.html
Last edited by ISF001; 09-11-14 at 10:18 AM.
09-11-14, 10:31 AM
#15
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)