New RC F Q from a Track Enthusiast
12-02-14, 11:15 AM
#1
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New RC F Q from a Track Enthusiast
Hey all, new here. My question about the new RC F is are there any track upgrades available or will be available for the car? Any chance at a remap of the ecu to gain a bit on that 4.4 sec? I'm deciding on a replacement for one of my cars, a Mercedes and on the short list is the RC F but also the C63 AMG coupe, M4 and Audi RS 5. My other cars include a 2014 SRT Viper and Aston Martin Vantage. Thanks.
12-02-14, 11:43 AM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
RC-F did a 3.9 seconds 0-60 mph in Road and Track test, if that is what your concern is.
12-02-14, 01:47 PM
#4
Hey all, new here. My question about the new RC F is are there any track upgrades available or will be available for the car? Any chance at a remap of the ecu to gain a bit on that 4.4 sec? I'm deciding on a replacement for one of my cars, a Mercedes and on the short list is the RC F but also the C63 AMG coupe, M4 and Audi RS 5. My other cars include a 2014 SRT Viper and Aston Martin Vantage. Thanks.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...the-year-award
3.9...
12-02-14, 07:00 PM
#7
It's real. These are the instrumentation results and not the manufacturer's estimates.
The confusion in the beginning was seeded by Lexus using the detuned, preproduction cars for the media test drives.
I presume you are aware of the AMCI track test that included the RCF, M4, and RS5 with the RCF winning by over 2 seconds?
Lexus would never fund a new F car for development that was less than the current ISF.
Go to the "RCF Test Drive ..." thread for more on the topic.
The confusion in the beginning was seeded by Lexus using the detuned, preproduction cars for the media test drives.
I presume you are aware of the AMCI track test that included the RCF, M4, and RS5 with the RCF winning by over 2 seconds?
Lexus would never fund a new F car for development that was less than the current ISF.
Go to the "RCF Test Drive ..." thread for more on the topic.
Last edited by ISF001; 12-02-14 at 07:05 PM.
Trending Topics
12-03-14, 05:59 AM
#8
I agree. Something is not right with that 3.9 on that run for the RCF. It ties the M3 and beats the 505 HP Camaro at 0-60, all with weighing more than both of those cars. Why did it take the RCF 8.8 seconds to finish the 1/4 mile with the M3 taking 8.4 and the Camaro taking 8.2. Both cars pulled away quite easily after the 0-60 mark, something is wrong with that 3.9 on this test. If its true it must have been a once in a lifetime launch and even then why did the other cars pull away after the 60 mph mark.
12-03-14, 07:32 AM
#9
I agree. Something is not right with that 3.9 on that run for the RCF. It ties the M3 and beats the 505 HP Camaro at 0-60, all with weighing more than both of those cars. Why did it take the RCF 8.8 seconds to finish the 1/4 mile with the M3 taking 8.4 and the Camaro taking 8.2. Both cars pulled away quite easily after the 0-60 mark, something is wrong with that 3.9 on this test. If its true it must have been a once in a lifetime launch and even then why did the other cars pull away after the 60 mph mark.
There is always a variable introduced by the driver, climate/conditions, and machine on any given day.
There is nothing wrong with the 3.9. 3.9 is a 3.9...again, nothing that should not be expected from a car like this. The other unknown: how many of the RC Fs are still pre-production vehicles that were detuned and tested by the media versus the production vehicles now being driven and tested by the media? This is where Lexus could have eliminated the confusion.
Road & Track also 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!
The new Corvette Z51 came in at 54.80--substantially faster.
The GT-R at 53.76--substantially faster.
The Viper at 54.55--substantially faster.
But...
The Audi R8 V10 at 55.18--not far off the RC F.
The Cayman s at 56.73--the RC F beat it.
The M4 at 57.47--the RC F beat it.
The Porsche 911 Carrera S at 55.03--the RC F beat it.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19--the RC F beat it.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83--the RC F beat it.
The Hellcat at 56.37--the RC F beat it.
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.
The RC F is a rocket. Some of you need to get beyond the "weight" thing. The engineering in this car works, and the TVD is a major differentiator in how this car performs. The racing engine and its rev range do not hurt! I ran this new car, and the thrust is significant and strong throughout the rpm range.
Last edited by ISF001; 12-03-14 at 07:45 AM.
12-03-14, 09:33 AM
#10
Its power to weight ratio. I'm still waiting to see a dyno run on the RCF. If it dynos 467 to the wheels then I will believe a 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. If it was a rocket...the 1\4 mile times would not be the same as the ISF. We all know it will not dyno that number. I will agree to disagree. I don't believe the 3.9 0-60. But that's my opinion.
12-03-14, 10:23 AM
#11
Its power to weight ratio. I'm still waiting to see a dyno run on the RCF. If it dynos 467 to the wheels then I will believe a 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. If it was a rocket...the 1\4 mile times would not be the same as the ISF. We all know it will not dyno that number. I will agree to disagree. I don't believe the 3.9 0-60. But that's my opinion.
I too will agree to disagree.I would not question the validity of the Road & Track PCOTY tests. They take these most seriously, as do the manufacturer's, and most folks view them as a highly credible source. You are implying that their instrumentation used to measure performance for 44 cars is wrong?
Really?The dynamics of the two cars are different, and the sum of the RC-F parts and TVD is what generates these positive results. The IS-F is lighter and consequently its harder to put down the power to the asphalt. The RC-F beat the Hellcat in the Motown Mile. It puts down the power. Go drive one.
I am a big believer in the IS-F, but folks are dreaming it they think it will run with this car. Its quarter mile is not the same as the IS-F. I will say it again: it will destroy the IS-F, stock for stock, on a track, and it will pull ahead in a 0-60 run. The tranny is very quick--better than the one in our IS-F. The downshifts are instantaneous.
Quarter Mile
IS-F=12.7-13.1 sec (driver variance)
RC-F-12.5 sec (conservatively spec'd by Lexus and most likely will be better)
0-150 MPH
IS-F= 27 seconds (best time I can source)
RC-F=24.8
It's more than 2 seconds!
I am talking about non-modified cars. There will be plenty of side by sides, so hold your horses. The carbon TVDs will be landing on the shores in March/April.
Two great but VERY different Fs. The RC-F is faster...weight or no weight.
12-03-14, 10:51 AM
#12
I agree 3.9 is a great time as long as its actually 3.9, Im going to need to see if it can duplicated by other testers to see if that time can be matched or at least come close, if it can't be than the 3.9 is an anomaly for whatever reason. If the RCF pulls as hard as you say it does, it should not be losing that much ground to the M3 or Camaro after being pretty much equal after 60 mph.
We can't explain everything and with good reason.
There is always a variable introduced by the driver, climate/conditions, and machine on any given day.
There is nothing wrong with the 3.9. 3.9 is a 3.9...again, nothing that should not be expected from a car like this. The other unknown: how many of the RC Fs are still pre-production vehicles that were detuned and tested by the media versus the production vehicles now being driven and tested by the media? This is where Lexus could have eliminated the confusion.
Road & Track also 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!
The new Corvette Z51 came in at 54.80--substantially faster.
The GT-R at 53.76--substantially faster.
The Viper at 54.55--substantially faster.
But...
The Audi R8 V10 at 55.18--not far off the RC F.
The Cayman s at 56.73--the RC F beat it.
The M4 at 57.47--the RC F beat it.
The Porsche 911 Carrera S at 55.03--the RC F beat it.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19--the RC F beat it.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83--the RC F beat it.
The Hellcat at 56.37--the RC F beat it.
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.
The RC F is a rocket. Some of you need to get beyond the "weight" thing. The engineering in this car works, and the TVD is a major differentiator in how this car performs. The racing engine and its rev range do not hurt! I ran this new car, and the thrust is significant and strong throughout the rpm range.
There is always a variable introduced by the driver, climate/conditions, and machine on any given day.
There is nothing wrong with the 3.9. 3.9 is a 3.9...again, nothing that should not be expected from a car like this. The other unknown: how many of the RC Fs are still pre-production vehicles that were detuned and tested by the media versus the production vehicles now being driven and tested by the media? This is where Lexus could have eliminated the confusion.
Road & Track also 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!
The new Corvette Z51 came in at 54.80--substantially faster.
The GT-R at 53.76--substantially faster.
The Viper at 54.55--substantially faster.
But...
The Audi R8 V10 at 55.18--not far off the RC F.
The Cayman s at 56.73--the RC F beat it.
The M4 at 57.47--the RC F beat it.
The Porsche 911 Carrera S at 55.03--the RC F beat it.
The Shelby GT500 at 56.19--the RC F beat it.
The Audi RS5 at 56.83--the RC F beat it.
The Hellcat at 56.37--the RC F beat it.
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.
The RC F is a rocket. Some of you need to get beyond the "weight" thing. The engineering in this car works, and the TVD is a major differentiator in how this car performs. The racing engine and its rev range do not hurt! I ran this new car, and the thrust is significant and strong throughout the rpm range.
12-03-14, 11:29 AM
#14
Super Moderator
Realistically, I don't think it will even for the next generation , , not by that much anyway except possibly for an ultra limited stripped down track edition ......
, , not by that much anyway except possibly for an ultra limited stripped down track edition ......
12-03-14, 11:31 AM
#15
Boy you sure pick and choose what you want to make your argument.
The instrumentation you talk about is accurate most of the time, but the humans running it are not sometimes. Everyone knows the Hellcat is made for straight line racing and not track racing. You fail to mention the RCF loses in the 1/4 mile, which is expected with that HP. Not a big deal.
You said the ISF can run a 12.7 and the RCF can run a 12.5 conservatively. Why do you believe the 3.9 from the PCOTY and not the 12.7 final time they timed with the RCF in the same test? The 12.7 is right in line with the ISF according to you, that makes them pretty close from what I can see.
I too will agree to disagree.
I would not question the validity of the Road & Track PCOTY tests. They take these most seriously, as do the manufacturer's, and most folks view them as a highly credible source. You are implying that their instrumentation used to measure performance for 44 cars is wrong? Really?
The dynamics of the two cars are different, and the sum of the RC-F parts and TVD is what generates these positive results. The IS-F is lighter and consequently its harder to put down the power to the asphalt. The RC-F beat the Hellcat in the Motown Mile. It puts down the power. Go drive one.
I am a big believer in the IS-F, but folks are dreaming it they think it will run with this car. Its quarter mile is not the same as the IS-F. I will say it again: it will destroy the IS-F, stock for stock, on a track, and it will pull ahead in a 0-60 run. The tranny is very quick--better than the one in our IS-F. The downshifts are instantaneous.
Quarter Mile
IS-F=12.7-13.1 sec (driver variance)
RC-F-12.5 sec (conservatively spec'd by Lexus and most likely will be better)
0-150 MPH
IS-F= 27 seconds (best time I can source)
RC-F=24.8
It's more than 2 seconds!
I am talking about non-modified cars. There will be plenty of side by sides, so hold your horses. The carbon TVDs will be landing on the shores in March/April.
Two great but VERY different Fs. The RC-F is faster...weight or no weight.
The instrumentation you talk about is accurate most of the time, but the humans running it are not sometimes. Everyone knows the Hellcat is made for straight line racing and not track racing. You fail to mention the RCF loses in the 1/4 mile, which is expected with that HP. Not a big deal.
You said the ISF can run a 12.7 and the RCF can run a 12.5 conservatively. Why do you believe the 3.9 from the PCOTY and not the 12.7 final time they timed with the RCF in the same test? The 12.7 is right in line with the ISF according to you, that makes them pretty close from what I can see.
I too will agree to disagree.I would not question the validity of the Road & Track PCOTY tests. They take these most seriously, as do the manufacturer's, and most folks view them as a highly credible source. You are implying that their instrumentation used to measure performance for 44 cars is wrong?
Really?The dynamics of the two cars are different, and the sum of the RC-F parts and TVD is what generates these positive results. The IS-F is lighter and consequently its harder to put down the power to the asphalt. The RC-F beat the Hellcat in the Motown Mile. It puts down the power. Go drive one.
I am a big believer in the IS-F, but folks are dreaming it they think it will run with this car. Its quarter mile is not the same as the IS-F. I will say it again: it will destroy the IS-F, stock for stock, on a track, and it will pull ahead in a 0-60 run. The tranny is very quick--better than the one in our IS-F. The downshifts are instantaneous.
Quarter Mile
IS-F=12.7-13.1 sec (driver variance)
RC-F-12.5 sec (conservatively spec'd by Lexus and most likely will be better)
0-150 MPH
IS-F= 27 seconds (best time I can source)
RC-F=24.8
It's more than 2 seconds!
I am talking about non-modified cars. There will be plenty of side by sides, so hold your horses. The carbon TVDs will be landing on the shores in March/April.
Two great but VERY different Fs. The RC-F is faster...weight or no weight.