Levi68

3.9 is typo.

ISF001

I am sorry, but based on this brief response, you need to open your eyes and read the R&T validated responses. The editors are not idiots. I had exchanges with three of the individuals involved with PCOTY testing at Road & Track...including the test driver.

If you are a bimmer fan, understand that Lexus has caught up and in many regards surpassed the M4.

And it's about time.

ISF001

DrRick--You did. EVERYONE...relax!

There is a series of mistakes Lexus made with this launch. I understand the reason for handing over detuned cars to a fleet of editors (a fact)--many of whom love cars but are not accustomed to driving powerful machines.

Road & Track and AMCI Testing results are validate--they are NOT definitive--but valid. Yet, they show what the production CARBON TVD RC-F car can do in the right environment and with the right driver. This was not the torsen.

I was hopeful but suspicious about the ability of the car to repeat the 3.9. Sooo....I went back to the test driver, again, and asked how easily was he able to duplicate the run. This is the verbatim response:

"Oh yeah, ISF001. It's really no sweat, sounds great too!" They were all stand still runs.

We have not seen a lot of the runs with the CARBON TVD. It obviously gets up and goes.

Those who are moving into the driver's seat will no doubt enjoy the car. Report back on performance and your driving experiences. Those who are not--enjoy your preference in cars. In the end, the majority of our choices represent the best rides in the world--not a bad thing.

toyotatom

You should have asked if the 12.7 1/4 mile time was repeatable also and if a 12.7 final time seems odd with a 3.9 0-60 time. Anything I read says it is.

toyotatom

ISF concentrated on the 3.9 0-60 time and really didn't acknowledge the 12.7 final time at first. I don't know how he could have missed it, it was right there in the PCOTY testing results. I think he later said he couldn't explain everything with the results.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

I never really cared about corrected time because I'll never achieve it with my driving skill, nor do I care about bragging rights. You can make a correction factor for everything if you really wanted too. I ran a 0-60 in 4.0 seconds, but I can actually get 3.8 if you correct for my 150 lbs overweight body

Lurker9

What's wrong with Lexus fanatic selling/defending Lexus on a Lexus forum? I am sure the people with the RCF would chime in if something is out of line.

NotnFsport

iTrader: (10)

I read the methods used and alot of car editors are idiots so I still dont believe a 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.Other car magazines tested the production RCF and still only got a 4.3 0-60. The new ATSV is a hell of alot lighter with more torque and the RCF is doing the same 0-60? I for one dont buy it.But again...Ill agree to disagree.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

AussieRCF, TimboIS,

Please exit this thread. Continue the personal commentary and you'll lose access to this subforum.

Use the ignore list if you have recurring issues with another member's posts
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/pro...?do=ignorelist

ISF001

I believe this is the first full production CARBON TVD tested by any of the magazines.

The numbers are real and verified.

The test was run many times. I mentioned that earlier.

I will see what I can unearth on the 12.7 quarter mile time.

NickZ

I agree that people need to chill out a bit, I think it's awesome that ISF001 was able to go back to the guys at Road and Track to get this insight for us.

I opened my Car and Driver test of the RC F, and if you look at the data, the RC F is geared very aggressively in 1st and 2nd gears, and to some extent even 3rd gear. It can only achieve 42 MPH in 1st, 70 in 2nd, and 103 in 3rd where it hasn't even hit the quarter mile yet. This tells me they leveraged the lower gears in the 8 speed for acceleration and track conditions, and then started leveling off the gearing in 4th through 8th for top speed and cruising.

I am in no way an engineer, but it isn't impossible for Lexus to achieve the run we are seeing by aggressively gearing the car in the lower gears and then impacting the quarter mile somewhat by leveling off the gearing to achieve a quiet ride as well as decent EPA numbers.

If it can run a 12.5 in the quarter, that's pretty darn impressive considering it would only be off by about .2 seconds to the M3/M4 which are considerably lighter but probably running the same if not more horsepower than the RC F as the Germans typically underrate their engines.

I'm not saying I'm right here, just my two cents and some additional insight if you will.

ISF001

I just received a response from the test driver on the quarter mile. It basically echoes what you just wrote. I asked about the impact of temperature/environment and if the RC-F is capable of running a 12.3, and this is the response. He did not dispute the car's ability to achieve the 12.5 time published by Lexus. I did not ask how the launches occurred for the quarter mile, if the car was cold, hot, etc.

He wrote this:

"A 12.3 sounds optimistic to me. Perhaps if the engine and transmission are at perfect operating temperature and the launch in pristine.

Also a refinement in calibration in the trans might do it."

Also remember the RC-F ran the Motown Mile only a half second behind the LFA, so the speed is clearly there. We will clearly need to better understand the workings of the RC-F through hands-on experience.

spwolf

important part here is that they all run together at the same track, same driver, same conditions, right? At least, IMHO.

NewSpace

Might be good to take a step back and remember the design philosophy behind the RC F

http://youtu.be/-VX6IQGTlKI

rjmalm

Thanks for passing on the quotes.

Do you know what the settings were for TVD and driving mode for the R&T tests, e.g. mode: M or Sport S+, TDV:Standard? and what about VDIM: Expert or off or what?

What did you test drive it in?