lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

You really need to see the underside of the RC F. It's not a whole lot different from the IS F at all, and the places where they made improvements are all in the shell. 7 year old tech abounds in the RC F, just read the New Car Features. I did.

ISF001

Whatever the Frankenstein car has, it seems to work quite well.

I'm sorry. I know you have far more tech knowledge than I will ever have, but Yaguchi appears to have another winner here.

Again, we need to see what the carbons do on side-by-sides in March and April.

We know there will be wins and losses, but the new F, even in its detuned presence, performs with the best.

Peace.

NewSpace

Video is up: http://www.lexus.com/models/RCF/gall...-closed-track1

redspencer

iTrader: (1)

Hmm, I find it interesting that the official driver used for this AMCI testing was Justin Bell. Isn't he on Lexus' payroll?

Mr Bond

I think we must wait and see. Facts is that both of the tracks RC-F were tested at ( MT and R&T ) are small, uneven and especially one in really bad condition with very strange results, especially on the M3/M4 with a 2 sec diff.

I want to see Nurburgring, Monza , Silverstone, Laguna Seca or any other track that is good and fast enough to have real auto race series on it. Not something that reminds me of my backyard.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Precisely what I was thinking.

DrRick

well....that was objective. hahahahaha

TF109B

A win is a win. Justin Bell may be contracted by Lexus, but that shouldn't disqualify these lap times. RC F was faster in MT's test. Only 3 tenths behind at Streets of Willow. That margin can go either way.

Levi68

There has to be some balance somewhere.

Lexura1414

iTrader: (6)

RC-F was not faster in the MT testing. I say it's a driver''s race between the two on a track. That's because the RCF is slower technically but easier to drive and the M being faster but more difficult becuase of the oversteer.
Also, the type of track used will also factor in.

ISF001

The MT testing was a travesty TWICE! Come on--don't you believe there is a MASSIVE discrepancy between the R&T test and the MT dumbed down drive?

It's definitely a driver's race, but...the RCF runs a 3.9 and it has beaten the M4 and RS5 in AMCI testing.

This is a reputable source for investigation and substantiation of automotive product claims. Is BMW using AMCI?


AMCI TESTING

For nearly 30 years, AMCI Testing has been the single most sought after source for the investigation and substantiation of automotive product claims. We serve virtually every global automotive brand with absolute impartiality and total confidentiality. Our technical capabilities, proven methodology and attention to detail enable us to meet the strictest scientific standards-now and into the future. AMCI Testing has NDAs in force with all major manufacturers, and no information has ever been shared without authorization from inside our organization and our clients.
Automotive brand and product marketers are also interested in AMCI Testing's unbiased studies and perspectives to aid consumers in their purchase decisions. New reference guides are now in development that will aid buyers in their purchase decisions. These include the results of the most extensive product quality study in the industry.

ISF001

And you will.

If Lexus is true to form, as they have been with all the F cars, they beat the shi_ out of this car on Fuji International and Nurburgring, and the car has been designed to take it.

Those holding their breath for the M4 might want to ease up. (Forget the RS5.) The RCF is demonstrating remarkable performance...as I expected.

ISF001

AMCI regulated...and you think that they are accepting a payoff from Lexus over one car versus the vast number of investigations and substantiations they do...really?

You gotta be kidding.

TimboIS

Agreed.

TF109B

Sorry when I said MT it was supposed to be RT. I got the magazines mixed up.