ISF001

Credit for what? It is called "reporting." There are no Pulitzer prizes being given out here for investigative reporting.

Razorthin1

I think you are giving some people too much credit...

A 3.9 second 0-60 combined with a 12.7 second quarter mile does not pass the "common sense" test. Just like losing all objective tests and somehow concluding that the RC-F is a better performing vehicle.

The good thing, as others have said, is more test will be published over time. Instead of trying to defend an almost mathematically impossible 3.9 0-60 (then taking it a step further and claiming it is "repeatable") people will have no choice but to simply say they prefer the RC-F over the competition for whatever subjective reason is important to them. Contrary to popular belief, that is a PERFECTLY sound reason to purchase the RC-F.

These cars are close enough in performance to pick whatever one speaks to you personally. But to keep denying that the M3/4 is quantitatively superior to the RC-F is ludicrous, and the lengths some are going through to continue that argument is starting to make them look disingenuous (FYI in case people care about maintaining their credibility).

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

one of the biggest reasons to get a RCF is where else are you going to find a Japanese performance V8 coupe. This engine wont be around in a few more years once the emission and mpg regs start squeezing it even more.

obturator

Wow, the lengths you guys go to prove each other wrong... You guys are truly enthusiasts, to say the least. Very entertaining.

gyrase321

Not sure I understand why the OP gets pilloried for quoting 3.9 secs that was sourced from R&T, erroneously it turns out. It was the mag's mistake. R&T is the one that should get pilloried. This is the problem with depending too much on magazines for validation of your purchase decisions. The other problem is using the M4 as some sort of benchmark for the RCF, when even the Lexus designer himself said that that should not be the case. Buy the car because it meets your needs, not because some magazine validated your thought process.

toyotatom

This was your quote below and its nothing but further from the truth in fact your direct communications did nothing but make it worse. You claim they repeated the 0-60 time many times and effortlessly I believe. What were the testers looking at with all these test results, something in their equipment should have said 4.3 I would think. Your right there are no Pulitzer prizes given out especially when trying to take credit for other peoples information, anyways your buying a great car and I know you will love it, I'm a Lexus fan and I'm hoping to get the RCF myself when my lease is up in 2 years. Maybe by then it will actually do a 3.9 0-60 Good luck with yours when you get it.

"As it ends up, my direct communications with the magazine are what unearthed the editorial error."

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Tom (and others), let's give it a break and move forward. R&T made an error and it was corrected.