ISF001

I wanted to share this with the group. You will read that the software used at Monticello was not what will be released with the car. While I am pleased to hear that this could shave tenths off of the metrics, why the heck did Lexus use early build prototypes and an early release in the engine management system with the media?... Shoot me!

I am optimistically looking for close to 4.0-4.1 flat with this new engine management software. Again, we'll see soon enough.

"Lexus says that the RC F will hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds. Our testing revealed that the car needs 4.5 seconds. A small discrepancy, some might say. Others might say that the BMW M4 hits 60 mph in 4 seconds flat, while the Audi RS 5 takes 3.9 seconds. Just to toss it in there, the out-of-production AMG 507 two-door needed only 3.8 seconds. The RC F is able to dispatch the quarter mile in 12.9 seconds at 110.3 mph. Comparatively, the M4 does the deed in 12.2 seconds at 117.8 mph, the RS 5 takes 12.3 at 112.2 mph, and the AMG 507 Coupe finishes in 12.2 seconds at 117.4 mph. Not so hot for the new Lexus. 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. The other is that Lexus claims that accessible performance will define the F brand going forward and that somehow superquick acceleration scares people who can’t drive as well as others. I say losing 400 pounds would make the car as quick as its competitors. Either way, the new software should shave precious tenths off those elapsed times."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz3D1Y685J1

Joe Z

iTrader: (10)

These test cars were also locked out of doing standing still burnouts...!!!!

Don't ask me how I know..

So hoping when they get some 2nd round of testing done, numbers will reflect finalized versions..

~ Joe Z

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

We all know Lexus knows how to make that engine sing. They proved it in the CCS-R at Thunderhill. Providing a detuned version for the media is just asking to get Kerriganed.

ISF001

Unbelievable...

The new engine management software is now available, so I am hoping what follows in test will be based on this new production release.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

now i can't wait to get mine for testing

Gojirra99

Lexus have done similarly "dumb" things with their new models with the press before, so not at all surprised.

I still vividly remember back in 2007, they gave a pre-production then new model LS equipped with really crappy tires to a mag for a comparison with other brand production cars in the same class (for what reason, one can only speculate).
It got bashed in particular for it's ~170 ft+ (60-0) (IIRC) stopping distance, which they ridiculed as comparable to a big SUV, whereas the real production car with proper tires later tested 60-0 stopping distance of ~103 ft, which was comparable with the C6 Z06 corvette. But they already tarnished the early impression of the car with the car press (most of which have bias against the Lexus brand already), as well as the car crowd on the internet ......

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

Getting rid of the NSX?

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

Honestly, if Lexus provided prototypes that were slower or not truly reflective of the final car, then they absolutely deserve the bad press the car got.

I mean, seriously? If they did that, some heads should roll.

TimboIS

Seriously doubt it will make much, if any, difference. Certainly not more than 1-2/10ths, hence the observed 4.5s runs. Maybe now they'll be within 4.4s spec. Lexus isn't that stupid, but I guess you can hope.

ISF001

Unfortunately, I think this was a mistake on their part and the new engine management software was supposed to have been installed before the event and was delayed. I work for a software company, and I know what can happen with releases.

If the engine was detuned to prevent stand still burnouts, there will indeed be noticeable gains. Even if there were a half second gain, it's not going to drastically change my driving style.

We'll soon see the results from this production release.

Levi68

@TimboIS: I don't think the RC F is important for you. If you get smoked, pull out your Lambo.


Isn't Lexus doing the opposite of overpromising and underdelivering? That is what the Germans do. But somehow for them it works in their favour, for the Japs, doing on the contrary does them even less favour.

One thing is sure, by the end of the life-cycle, the Lexus will be to 100% better than the M4. Could it be BMW got their hands on the RC F and got scared? There are just now new running prototypes of the M4 GTS.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

hahaha don't think i will be selling the nsx nor would i choose the rc f / m4 over the nsx

but car reviews have to be done one way or another

TheBatman

That's PR spin. The RC-F was never designed to outperform those German vehicles. It was designed to be a better all around machine than the rivals. But Lexus needs to save face for all the dense folks who just focus on raw track numbers.

ISF001

Batman,

We are a dynamic duo.

We vehemently agree! that's why I bought the carbon model. If it comes down to a few tenths of 0-60 or the overall driving experience on and off the track, I am taking the later.

Ninja10r

I can understand why,it would be like me giving you my RC-F to test drive on a racetrack,or your car to me , would I tell you about a software change....humm good question ,so I can understand why Lexus would not update the pre-production sofeware , may not be the reason Lexus didn't , but it would be mine.....now if you were to say let's test a RC-F vs. M4 it would be a whole new ballgame , I know it's heavy ...had to say that, but I drive my IS-F in sport mode paddle shifting , holding gears to redline , burning gas and having fun ,knowing I have a well built vehicle that will hold some value ,have lower maintenance cost's and still be BAD ***