RC F Test Drive on the Back Roads--Much More than the IS F
12-03-14, 02:58 PM
#61
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...
12-03-14, 03:48 PM
#62
Lexus Test Driver
12-03-14, 04:05 PM
#63
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
12-03-14, 04:09 PM
#64
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Yes, mine is on order.
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.
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.
The number is documented.
Last edited by ISF001; 12-03-14 at 04:24 PM.
12-03-14, 04:42 PM
#65
Driver
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: HI
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, mine is on order.
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.
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, 04:51 PM
#66
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only claim under 4.0 seconds that I can find for a car that comes in at 8.4lbs per horsepower is this one claim for the RC F. I cannot find any vehicle over 8.0lbs per hp that claims to touch the 3's. You have to understand my skepticism.
Now, if the actual horsepower or weight of the RC F is significantly different from the advertised information, then the possibility does exist.
I will be interested to see more independent confirmations, and as someone stated earlier, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are not a factor in my decision to purchase this vehicle.
12-03-14, 04:54 PM
#67
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
470hp, 3,958lbs, then select RWD then AWD. It's just one calculator, but you'll see what I am talking about.
If AWD was quicker than RWD, top fuel dragsters would be AWD.
12-03-14, 05:04 PM
#68
I would be careful with that statement, a pre-production Z06 just ran a 3.0 sec 0-60 time on street tires in the latest issue of Car and Driver. As tire compounds continue to evolve, and the systems in vehicles become more and more capable, these super cars will become more and more capable of putting down some insane runs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a production Z06 break into the two's on a good day.
12-03-14, 05:14 PM
#69
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I would be careful with that statement, a pre-production Z06 just ran a 3.0 sec 0-60 time on street tires in the latest issue of Car and Driver. As tire compounds continue to evolve, and the systems in vehicles become more and more capable, these super cars will become more and more capable of putting down some insane runs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a production Z06 break into the two's on a good day.
Again, I want to get more on the testing from the source. I don't know about most of the members, but I am not an automotive engineer.
In the mean time, here is the PCOTY Motown data and comprehensive results. Someone had interest in seeing what I did not present in my post.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...he-motown-mile
Last edited by ISF001; 12-03-14 at 05:20 PM.
12-03-14, 05:56 PM
#70
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please punch the numbers in here: http://www.autosnout.com/0-60-Calculator.php
470hp, 3,958lbs, then select RWD then AWD. It's just one calculator, but you'll see what I am talking about.
If AWD was quicker than RWD, top fuel dragsters would be AWD.
470hp, 3,958lbs, then select RWD then AWD. It's just one calculator, but you'll see what I am talking about.
If AWD was quicker than RWD, top fuel dragsters would be AWD.
12-03-14, 06:00 PM
#71
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be careful with that statement, a pre-production Z06 just ran a 3.0 sec 0-60 time on street tires in the latest issue of Car and Driver. As tire compounds continue to evolve, and the systems in vehicles become more and more capable, these super cars will become more and more capable of putting down some insane runs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a production Z06 break into the two's on a good day.
12-03-14, 06:38 PM
#72
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL you are basing facts off of online acceleration calculators instead of real world examples and physics? What fantasy world do you live in? While we are at it we should be able to plug the driver, weather and surface conditions into your fantasy calculator too. I am sure that would really narrow down your scientific approach. Comedy
In time, we will know if the 3.9 0-60 time can be backed up.
12-03-14, 06:55 PM
#73
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand your abrasive tone? I stated that I can find no real-world examples of any vehicle with a ratio of 8.0lbs per horsepower or higher running under a 4.0 0-60 time (with the exception of this one claim). The calculators are nothing more than another piece of supporting evidence.
In time, we will know if the 3.9 0-60 time can be backed up.
In time, we will know if the 3.9 0-60 time can be backed up.
12-03-14, 07:00 PM
#74
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they could get weight down to 3700 lbs and add a bit more hp, this car would dominate the class it's in.
Hopefully they can use the carbon model to take off 100lbs . . . then pull the spare tire and jack to get another 50 lbs down, add an exhaust and the car will be pretty healthy as weekend car
Hopefully they can use the carbon model to take off 100lbs . . . then pull the spare tire and jack to get another 50 lbs down, add an exhaust and the car will be pretty healthy as weekend car
12-03-14, 07:02 PM
#75
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand your fantasy world, you can call that abrasive. I am not doubting your 8.0 lbs per bla bla bla. I am simply stating that you referencing online calculators as factual or "supporting evidence" is ridiculous.. GTR is case in point. Plug in its numbers and you get a 4.11 0-60 time. Don't believe everything you see on the internet. While weight to horsepower ratio are big factors in acceleration times there are many other factors that can affect the outcome
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/...sepower-column