ToyLexFAM

Found on YouTube:

caymandive

iTrader: (2)

Pretty decent time and mph of 112.54. Seem inline with what the IS-F does.

05RollaXRS

In a head to head drag race, the RC-F would win, but the real difference would show in the higher speeds beyond the 1/4 mile. There are a few videos where IS-F runs 13s, but so far seems like the RC-F has been consistently in the 12s.

DrRick

gotta love all the toys those Ekanoo folks have...

aWorkOfArt

I just watched a video of a stock ISF doing 12.63, I hope the RCF can do better...

Razorthin1

Ouch!

Don't think this thread is going to end well. I predict some will blame the track, driver or moon phase for that time. Surely the mighty RC-F should be running repeatable low 12's easily, no?

Someone please post a video of an RC-F with a faster 1/4 than this. Or if it excels in faster speeds take it to a mile event ASAP. Thanks.

ISF001

This run is with the standard torsen RC F--not the carbon TVD.

We know the carbon TVD will run at least run the 12.5 as published/documented by Lexus. With effective torque transfer to the rear wheels, it would not take much through effective traction on launch to gain an additional couple of tenths for even better times. March is just around the corner.

The variables certainly need to be considered in all runs: fuel load, temp, driver, tires, yada yada, yada...and who knows what else.

We know the RC F shines on the track in the hard corners and long straightaways as documented already in the competitions with the M4 and RS5. As a point of comparison, most will also admit the 2012 IS F just can't corner like the new carbon TVD--not as a stock car.

ISF Time Data Points for reference

Road & Track
1/4 Mile 12.8 @ 113.3 mph

Car & Driver
1/4 mile: 12.7 @114mph

Motor Tend
1/4 mile: 12.7@113.4mph

The IS F is not a slow car.

It also is not the RC F carbon TVD with its unique handling capabilities, on-rails like cornering, and extended rev range.

MK4Sup_isF

iTrader: (10)

I know you love the RCF, I like it too. So you are discounting countless ISF owhere here on this board plus magazines clocked 1/4 mile in the 12.2 to 12.4 times. That's very convenient. RCF is not going to be a fast straight line car so stop defending it. Get back to me documented RCF runs 12.2-12.4. Stop dishing a 7 years older Lexus to make the RCF better. I have been a big defender of the RCF on this forums and Supraforums too. I just don't go and cherry pick data to blindly support the RC

oohpapi44

iTrader: (1)

Not trying to pick a 'fight' but you do seem to make every thread about you. Your "March around the corner" statement alludes to you receiving your F. So should we be eagerly anticipating matching documented runs from you? Props to you if so and I'm looking forward to it. But in the meantime until then, any documentation of runs with your current ISF for us to enjoy for comparison?

ISF001

Additional Data Points to Compare from the PCOTY Motown Run by R&T

Here they are ordered by their curb weight from lightest to heaviest:

1. Alfa Romeo 4C - 2455 lbs
2. Volkswagen GTI - Estimated 3150 lbs
3. Ferrari 458 Speciale - 3199 lbs
4. Porsche 911 (991) GT3 - 3269 lbs
5. Dodge Viper SRT TA - 3364 lbs
6. Subaru WRX STI - 3375 lbs
7. BMW M235i - 3511 lbs
8. BMW M3 - 3540 lbs
9. Ford Mustang GT - 3540 lbs
10. Chevrolet Camaro Z28 - 3856 lbs
11. Nissan GTR - 3880 lbs
12. Jaguar F-Type R Coupe - 3929 lbs
13. Lexus RC F - 4038 lbs
14. Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat - 4458 lbs

In order of 1/4 mile trap speed:

1. Dodge Viper SRT TA - 11.6 @ 126.7
2. Nissan GTR - 11.0 @ 126.6
3. Ferrari 458 Speciale - 11.1 @ 125.7
4. Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat - 12.0 @ 124.8
5. Porsche 911 (991) GT3 - 11.3 @ 123.4
6. Jaguar F-Type R Coupe - 11.9 @ 122.7
7. Chevrolet Camaro Z28 - 12.2 @ 118.3
8. BMW M3 - 12.3 @ 114.9
9. Lexus RC F - 12.7 @ 113.0
10. Ford Mustang GT - 13.0 @ 112.0
11. Alfa Romeo 4C - 12.9 @ 107.8
12. BMW M235i - Estimated 13.3 @ 106
13. Subaru WRX STI - 13.3 @ 102.8
14. Volkswagen GTI - 14.4 @ 98.7

In order of lap time for the 1.1 mile run (a true test for a car in my opinion)

THE LEADERBOARD
1 2014 Ferrari458 Speciale 51.92 sec 142.1 mph
2 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo 51.93 sec 141.7 mph
3 2014 Porsche 911 GT3 52.18 sec 139.7 mph
4 2015 Dodge Viper SRT TA 52.36 sec 137.2 mph
5 2013 Ferrari F12Berlinetta 52.97 sec 144.4 mph
6 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo 53.02 sec 140.5 mph
7 2014 Mercedes SLS AMG Black Series 53.66 sec 135.8 mph
8 2014 Nissan GT-R Track Edition 53.76 sec 135.6 mph
9 2013 SRT Viper 54.55 sec 138.9 mph
10 2014 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 54.66 sec 131.2 mph
11 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 54.80 sec 135.5 mph
12 2013 Porsche 911 Carrera 55.03 sec 133.5 mph
13 2014 Audi R8 V10 55.18 sec 135.9 mph
14 2012 Lexus LFA 55.48 sec 130.6 mph
15 2015 BMW M3 55.53 sec 132.3 mph
16 2015 Jaguar F-Type V8 55.84 sec 134.4 mph
17 2013 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 55.86 sec 133.9 mph
18 2013 BMW M6 Competition Pack 55.89 sec 133.8 mph
19 2015 Lexus RC F 56.08 sec 128.8 mph
20 2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 56.19 sec 134.8 mph
21 2013 Jaguar XFR-S 56.33 sec 131.6 mph
22 2015 Dodge Challenger Hellcat 56.37 sec 131.5 mph
23 2015 Jaguar F-Type R 56.37 sec 133.5 mph
24 2014 Porsche Cayman S 56.73 sec 125.1 mph
25 2015 Ford Mustang GT 56.81 sec 127.2 mph
26 2014 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE 56.83 sec 126.2 mph
27 2013 Audi RS5 56.83 sec 126.0 mph
28 2014 Aston Martin Rapide S 57.01 sec 130.7 mph
29 2014 Chevrolet SS 57.43 sec 127.1 mph

05RollaXRS

You are acting all riled up as an IS-F owner. All I said was, the RC-F should be quicker in a head to head race. I disagreed with what he said that it is right around the IS-F territory. Just an isolated run without anything to compare against is not enough proof of that.

The fastest time by magazines was 12.7 seconds for the IS-F by car and driver. The slowest was 13.2 seconds. If there was a magazine/journalist that clocked a quicker time bone stock than this then I would like to see proof of that. No way on earth an IS-F would run a 12.2 seconds stock without stripped out interior, mods, drag radials or anything like that. 12.2 - 12.4 seconds stock is C63 AMG territory.

Hate me for saying that all you want, all things being equal, in a head to head race, the RC-F should in theory win (better PWR, better tires, broader torque band across rpm etc.). That is what I am saying and I will stand by that.

ISF001

Cherry picking? Blind support?

I presented three sources with which most should be familiar.

We may not agree, but these were stock runs, albeit under difference conditions. Nothing emotional here: just test data. There are plenty of exceptional runs for the IS F with outstanding drivers who know their cars. There is also a documented time of at least 12.5 for the carbon TVD with an exceptional driver. Your point is ...?

I've presented additional data points in another post for the 14 cars running the 1.1 mile run with plenty of straight.

The RCF obviously runs in the straights and pulls it nicely together.

05RollaXRS

Have you been to a track?

Elevation (density altitude), heat, temperature, moisture all affect engine/tire performance especially naturally aspirated engines.

This video illustrates it best. This test was done 5000 feet above sea level to illustrate exactly that. Due to the increased engine powertrain loss of N/A engine at high altitudes, the IS-F was slower than the M235i that was affected less due to the turbo engine.

It does not mean the IS-F is not quicker or not more powerful. Just that the altitude is sapping power from the N/A engine

DrRick

i'd be interested to know what kinda times he's gotten with HIS isf, as well. one would expect as vocal as he's been about the performance of the RC-F that he was just as enthused about his current car.

honestly, this 12.69 sec run in the video shouldnt really surprise anyone (although i would expect a better trap seeing that i ran a near identical trap in my ISF with 30 less hp to the wheels). the RCF is gonna run times VERY similar to those run by its 4 door sibling. its just physics. 10.8 lbs/hp vs 10.4 lbs/hp is not gonna give you any kinda significant difference.

if anything...this video proves that its a DRIVER'S race, in a straight line, between the two...

DrRick

but you were just quoting magazine stats that use corrected times, no?

and can someone tell me how a TVD is going to impact straight line acceleration MORE than a torsen diff?