RC F Test Drive on the Back Roads--Much More than the IS F
12-02-14, 10:33 PM
#46
Driver
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: HI
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that really surprises me is that both Vipers (2013 and 2015) beat the best Vette on the list. It seems that the ZR1 has always beat the Vette due to a clunkier (and manual, and longer gears) gearbox, and harder to put more of the power down. I need to up my respect again for the Viper after seeing this.
Also, the M3 beats the RC-F, but the RC-F kills the M4? Didn't know there was such a difference.
Also, the M3 beats the RC-F, but the RC-F kills the M4? Didn't know there was such a difference.
Hey, I am an IS F owner and enthusiast.
. And I am not playing with anything here. I believe the times for the RC F are conservative.
The 3.9 for the RC F and the 4.2 for the IS F are great times. They are also realistic times.
The quarter mile time for the RC F will obviously be much better than the manufacturer's estimated 12.5. We know how Lexus works here, and we know much of the outcome is in the driver's ability.
Road & Track just published the following comparative times for their "Motown Mile." The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among an impressive stable of 44 cars. The Lexus LFA ran it in 55.48!
I expect to see a 3.8 in the RC-F. It IS much faster than my 2012 ISF... My simple point.
The new Corvette Z51 came in at 54.80. The GT-R at 53.76; the Viper at 54.55; the Audi R8 V10 at 55.18; The Cayman s at 56.73; The M4 at 57.47; the Porsche 911 Carrera S at 55.03; the Shelby GT500 at 56.19, the Audi RS5 at 56.83, and the Hellcat at 56.37. This can be viewed as a measure of a car as a track weapon but also shows how adaptable, confidence inspiring and fast the car is in the real world.
Straight line speed entered substantially into the final numbers here. The RCF beat a lot of awesome machines and came close to the new Vette.
I love both cars too. But, the facts are the facts. Stock for stock, it will crush my current car on the track and run away on an open straight run. In comparison to other top machines, it holds its own extremely well.
. And I am not playing with anything here. I believe the times for the RC F are conservative.The 3.9 for the RC F and the 4.2 for the IS F are great times. They are also realistic times.
The quarter mile time for the RC F will obviously be much better than the manufacturer's estimated 12.5. We know how Lexus works here, and we know much of the outcome is in the driver's ability.
Road & Track just published the following comparative times for their "Motown Mile." The RC F ran the course in 56.08 and came in 19th among an impressive stable of 44 cars. The Lexus LFA ran it in 55.48!
I expect to see a 3.8 in the RC-F. It IS much faster than my 2012 ISF... My simple point.
The new Corvette Z51 came in at 54.80. The GT-R at 53.76; the Viper at 54.55; the Audi R8 V10 at 55.18; The Cayman s at 56.73; The M4 at 57.47; the Porsche 911 Carrera S at 55.03; the Shelby GT500 at 56.19, the Audi RS5 at 56.83, and the Hellcat at 56.37. This can be viewed as a measure of a car as a track weapon but also shows how adaptable, confidence inspiring and fast the car is in the real world.
Straight line speed entered substantially into the final numbers here. The RCF beat a lot of awesome machines and came close to the new Vette.
I love both cars too. But, the facts are the facts. Stock for stock, it will crush my current car on the track and run away on an open straight run. In comparison to other top machines, it holds its own extremely well.
12-03-14, 04:04 AM
#47
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
One thing that really surprises me is that both Vipers (2013 and 2015) beat the best Vette on the list. It seems that the ZR1 has always beat the Vette due to a clunkier (and manual, and longer gears) gearbox, and harder to put more of the power down. I need to up my respect again for the Viper after seeing this.
Also, the M3 beats the RC-F, but the RC-F kills the M4? Didn't know there was such a difference.
Also, the M3 beats the RC-F, but the RC-F kills the M4? Didn't know there was such a difference.
The new Viper has more juice. It is still too raw in my opinion, but that's what those buyers want. It had a lot of issues when first launched, but it appears they have worked it out.
12-03-14, 11:25 AM
#48
I suggest replacing "exact same" with "substantially improved." I admire IS F owners who are loyal to the brand and their cars, but the facts are coming out.
My statements are grounded in comparative drives, facts and personal experience:
Track Comparison: IS F and RC F
http://www.torquenews.com/1083/track...lexus-has-come
0-60 Acceleration:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...the-year-award
The RC F ran a 3.9 for Road & Track's driver in the PCOTY testing. Testing for the 2014 IS F was no doubt the least impressive for all of its years coming in at 4.6-4.8 0-60. The 2008 at BEST ran a 4.2 with 4.4 as an average. The RC F is much faster off the line.
Standing Quarter Mile Times:
Around 12.9-13.1 for the IS F and a 12.5 for the RC F.
O-100 Times:
IS F-10.7; RC F 9.7
0-150 Times:
IS F-29.3 ; RC F 24.8
It only takes a little imagination to see how a drag race would go. The RC F has already documented gains in performance. Don't get me wrong. The IS F is still a great choice over the competition.
Undeniably--stock for stock--the RC F is a leap forward for the F line. The car performs at a significantly improved level.
Suggestion: Log time in an IS F, if possible, then go test drive the RC F. You'll become a believer.
My statements are grounded in comparative drives, facts and personal experience:
Track Comparison: IS F and RC F
http://www.torquenews.com/1083/track...lexus-has-come
0-60 Acceleration:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...the-year-award
The RC F ran a 3.9 for Road & Track's driver in the PCOTY testing. Testing for the 2014 IS F was no doubt the least impressive for all of its years coming in at 4.6-4.8 0-60. The 2008 at BEST ran a 4.2 with 4.4 as an average. The RC F is much faster off the line.
Standing Quarter Mile Times:
Around 12.9-13.1 for the IS F and a 12.5 for the RC F.
O-100 Times:
IS F-10.7; RC F 9.7
0-150 Times:
IS F-29.3 ; RC F 24.8
It only takes a little imagination to see how a drag race would go. The RC F has already documented gains in performance. Don't get me wrong. The IS F is still a great choice over the competition.
Undeniably--stock for stock--the RC F is a leap forward for the F line. The car performs at a significantly improved level.
Suggestion: Log time in an IS F, if possible, then go test drive the RC F. You'll become a believer.
12-03-14, 11:33 AM
#49
Super Moderator
So I have the Road and Track issue that covered PCOTY, and they show the RC F ran a 4.3 second 0-60. I clicked on the link you provided and it showed the 3.9 second time that you quoted. I wonder which one is actually the time we should believe, one of the times has to be wrong, but they do show the same quarter mile time in the magazine that the link you provided shows. Just curious....
There is always a range with these stats, the fastest one recorded only means it's possible, but not always achievable at any given day/location/ driver , etc. ......
12-03-14, 12:04 PM
#50
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
So I have the Road and Track issue that covered PCOTY, and they show the RC F ran a 4.3 second 0-60. I clicked on the link you provided and it showed the 3.9 second time that you quoted. I wonder which one is actually the time we should believe, one of the times has to be wrong, but they do show the same quarter mile time in the magazine that the link you provided shows. Just curious....
The 3.9 was released on November 10th.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...he-year-award/
The point is the 3.9 is achievable just as all of the 0-60 times for the cars are "achievable" based on the drivers.
All good...
Last edited by ISF001; 12-03-14 at 12:07 PM.
12-03-14, 12:12 PM
#51
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know confusing...you are looking at the yellow highlighted manufacturer's estimates in the magazine, which preceded the actual results--"all you need to know."
The 3.9 was released on November 10th.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...he-year-award/
The point is the 3.9 is achievable just as all of the 0-60 times for the cars are "achievable" based on the drivers.
All good...
The 3.9 was released on November 10th.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...he-year-award/
The point is the 3.9 is achievable just as all of the 0-60 times for the cars are "achievable" based on the drivers.
All good...
The 12.5 1/4 is theoretically possible.
12-03-14, 12:15 PM
#52
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is one possible calculator, but they almost all are within margin of error:
http://www.autosnout.com/0-60-Calculator.php
http://www.autosnout.com/0-60-Calculator.php
12-03-14, 12:46 PM
#53
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
R&T ran a 3.9--right climate and right driver--why would they lie about it?
The detuned, preproduction car ran a 4.3 for Motortrend.The folks at R&T sure as _ell are not taking it down.
You need to catch up on the reviews thread. It's all in there.
12-03-14, 12:55 PM
#54
Lexus Test Driver
Flawed argument. Other variables are big factor such as, gearing (spacing of gear ratios, final drive ratio), traction available off the line etc.
12-03-14, 01:07 PM
#55
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
During my drive, I felt the RC-F had excellent off the line grip. I can't speak to the ratios, but it was sticky on take off and highly responsive on the shifts--faster than the current 8-speed in the IS-F.
12-03-14, 01:20 PM
#56
Lexus Test Driver
12-03-14, 01:58 PM
#57
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car is faster than you can imagine--faster than my 2012 IS-F. Drive it--didn't you already secure one?
R&T ran a 3.9--right climate and right driver--why would they lie about it? The detuned, preproduction car ran a 4.3 for Motortrend.
The folks at R&T sure as _ell are not taking it down.
You need to catch up on the reviews thread. It's all in there.
R&T ran a 3.9--right climate and right driver--why would they lie about it?
The detuned, preproduction car ran a 4.3 for Motortrend.The folks at R&T sure as _ell are not taking it down.
You need to catch up on the reviews thread. It's all in there.
I've read the reviews, and only one is claiming a 3.9 0-60. I simply disagree based on the majority of the tests, and calculations do not support the claim. I am not calling anyone a liar.
AWD requires more energy to operate, and most often a RWD setup will run faster 0-60 times. Again, the calculations back this up.
Go to any 1/4 mile or 0-60 calculator, and you will find they are very close to real-world times.
I do not believe a 4,000lb car with 470bhp is capable of running a 3.9 0-60. Calculators back up my belief.
If that particular vehicle ran a 3.9 0-60, then either the car did not weigh 4,000+lbs with driver, it was producing in excess of 550bhp, or someone made a mistake.
12-03-14, 02:06 PM
#58
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-03-14, 02:18 PM
#59
Lexus Test Driver
Another example, Audi RS5 makes only 444 HP and weighs 4000 lbs yet, it does a 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds because of its superior off the line traction. However, the acceleration drops off quickly after that compared to the RC-F.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 12-03-14 at 02:39 PM.
