Comparison of M4,RS5 and RCF by EVO
01-31-15, 06:20 PM
#64
Lexus Test Driver
You having difficulties in getting the point is most likely because you don't pay attention to what is written. It is not an insult of any kind. Nothing insulting here. (heck, you cannot even read a sentences in its entirety most probably because you read half of it and say "to hell with the rest" of it) and arguing with me over something you did not even understand and it is comical and laughable how you find it insulting when I asked you to pay close attention to what I wrote.
Still far less insulting (my request for you to understand what I am writing) than calling some "flying pigs and horses", ignorant or whatever and "obtuse etc. No comparison.
Why would I argue with someone who does not read what is written and simply misses my point? You probably would end up flipping out and end up putting things that will have to be cleaned up by moderators.
There is a very strong and very valid rational, objective and completely scientific factual explanation countering what you wrote, but for the sake of sparing the moderators having to clean up this thread, I am going to refrain from responding. Whether it is the RC-F vs SLS AMG torque curve or the cars you stated like MP4-12C or 650S etc. I can tell very confidently you have no clue how the MP4 was deliberately tuned and me informing you on how it was tuned would not accomplish anything.
I could put an interview up of rally legend and Porsche lead test driver/tuner Walter Rohrl explaining why he personally prefers N/A engines as better around the track than turbo engines (even with AWD) and how he prefers turbo engines over the autobahn, but still it would be futile.
You exhibit a self-righteous attitude here on knocking down anyone who tries to justify something seen as advantageous for the RC-F (or unfair against the RC-F), yet not a single time you EVER said one single thing against the M4. Somehow negatives in the case of M4 always become positives.
I can tell you people on this board are far more respectful and willing to give M4 the due credit than people on the M boards especially in what their perception of the RC-F is. There is no one over there policing them when they make fun of the RC-F or say negative things about it.
Still far less insulting (my request for you to understand what I am writing) than calling some "flying pigs and horses", ignorant or whatever and "obtuse etc. No comparison.
Why would I argue with someone who does not read what is written and simply misses my point? You probably would end up flipping out and end up putting things that will have to be cleaned up by moderators.
There is a very strong and very valid rational, objective and completely scientific factual explanation countering what you wrote, but for the sake of sparing the moderators having to clean up this thread, I am going to refrain from responding. Whether it is the RC-F vs SLS AMG torque curve or the cars you stated like MP4-12C or 650S etc. I can tell very confidently you have no clue how the MP4 was deliberately tuned and me informing you on how it was tuned would not accomplish anything.
I could put an interview up of rally legend and Porsche lead test driver/tuner Walter Rohrl explaining why he personally prefers N/A engines as better around the track than turbo engines (even with AWD) and how he prefers turbo engines over the autobahn, but still it would be futile.
You exhibit a self-righteous attitude here on knocking down anyone who tries to justify something seen as advantageous for the RC-F (or unfair against the RC-F), yet not a single time you EVER said one single thing against the M4. Somehow negatives in the case of M4 always become positives.
I can tell you people on this board are far more respectful and willing to give M4 the due credit than people on the M boards especially in what their perception of the RC-F is. There is no one over there policing them when they make fun of the RC-F or say negative things about it.
Wanna talk about insulting? You bandy this 'how hard is that to understand' about but say that EYE am insulting you? Anywho...
Never said that I was talking about YOU on that particular topic. Go back in the thread and notice who I replied to and when you jumped in. That may give you some context...
One...I would love to see those Dyno graphs. Not for any 'gotcha' moments but I've never seen a graph of an RCF dyno and would love to compare it's shape to my ISF.
Two...if it's making 90% of its torque at 3000 spins then I can pretty much guarantee that it's got AT LEAST '68%' of that available torque at 2000. Remember your argument saying that the SLS non Black made the majority of its torque at 1500-2000 and the condescending 'I don't know your definition of majority' quip (again...insulting) when I posted the dyno graph?
I'm always 'on the opposite arguing end' because people like you constantly ignore facts when either denigrating the opposition or propping up the RCF. I'm on my phone now....so I can't see when you joined...but I can pretty much guarantee that I've been here (and a lexus fan) longer than you. Defend the car all you want...hell, I'll prolly join you (as I have when trying to convince my wife to BUY one) but that doesn't mean I throw all objectivity out the window.
Do you really think that I'm just on this forum to troll? After being on this site for almost 15 years???
Obviously with rwd. So...does the 12C/650S have this problem? What about the M5/6? The supra never had such nervousness and that was yester-tech. Not the 300Zx.
No...bmw screwed the pooch with the suspension. We aren't talking about 600 lb/ft of torque here. And...just like lexus did with the isf...they will realize it and update it. Soften the rear so when the weight transfers on throttle the car has more grip. Or...they won't. I couldn't care less because the wife doesn't like the car because it doesn't have electric control of the tilt steering wheel. Women...
In the end...I would appreciate it if I wasn't branded a hater because I want to talk objectively about cars. Not necessarily the RCF. ESPECIALLY when I'm addressing a topic that has to do with someone asserting that low end torque is basically useless.
Never said that I was talking about YOU on that particular topic. Go back in the thread and notice who I replied to and when you jumped in. That may give you some context...
One...I would love to see those Dyno graphs. Not for any 'gotcha' moments but I've never seen a graph of an RCF dyno and would love to compare it's shape to my ISF.
Two...if it's making 90% of its torque at 3000 spins then I can pretty much guarantee that it's got AT LEAST '68%' of that available torque at 2000. Remember your argument saying that the SLS non Black made the majority of its torque at 1500-2000 and the condescending 'I don't know your definition of majority' quip (again...insulting) when I posted the dyno graph?
I'm always 'on the opposite arguing end' because people like you constantly ignore facts when either denigrating the opposition or propping up the RCF. I'm on my phone now....so I can't see when you joined...but I can pretty much guarantee that I've been here (and a lexus fan) longer than you. Defend the car all you want...hell, I'll prolly join you (as I have when trying to convince my wife to BUY one) but that doesn't mean I throw all objectivity out the window.
Do you really think that I'm just on this forum to troll? After being on this site for almost 15 years???
Obviously with rwd. So...does the 12C/650S have this problem? What about the M5/6? The supra never had such nervousness and that was yester-tech. Not the 300Zx.
No...bmw screwed the pooch with the suspension. We aren't talking about 600 lb/ft of torque here. And...just like lexus did with the isf...they will realize it and update it. Soften the rear so when the weight transfers on throttle the car has more grip. Or...they won't. I couldn't care less because the wife doesn't like the car because it doesn't have electric control of the tilt steering wheel. Women...
In the end...I would appreciate it if I wasn't branded a hater because I want to talk objectively about cars. Not necessarily the RCF. ESPECIALLY when I'm addressing a topic that has to do with someone asserting that low end torque is basically useless.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 01-31-15 at 08:38 PM.
01-31-15, 07:02 PM
#65
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
05RollaXRS, DrRick, take it to PM please.
01-31-15, 11:45 PM
#66
Lexus Champion
the RS5 was in the comparo because its in the segment. the RS5 weighs what it does because it has AWD. and that AWD helped produce a 2.5 sec gap on the field in this test. what part of the RC-F's weight benefits it in performance? give me ONE thing where its extra heft benefits it?
so when you look at it like that...you should understand why the Audi's weight is given a pass. even with AWD its still 120+ lbs lighter than the F. maybe instead of asking why the Audi gets a pass for its weight, you should ask why the F weighs so much with only one driveshaft and differential?
or.....you can just enjoy the car for what it is. a fantastic grand touring car that is both luxurious and fast.
so when you look at it like that...you should understand why the Audi's weight is given a pass. even with AWD its still 120+ lbs lighter than the F. maybe instead of asking why the Audi gets a pass for its weight, you should ask why the F weighs so much with only one driveshaft and differential?
or.....you can just enjoy the car for what it is. a fantastic grand touring car that is both luxurious and fast.
On top of it all, I didnt even ask why the Audi gets a pass. I noted that its the case. Kinda ruins your argument when you got that key aspect wrong.
02-01-15, 12:13 AM
#67
One wonders if no paper specs were given, will the opinions differ? Or will mags just about say anything to justify giving the win to the M4? In the comparo, both cars are faster and apparently easier to handle than the M4 on this track. Yet the M4 comes out on top. What will it take for a Lexus to beat these Euros? I'm not saying the RCF is better. I'm asking what will it take? GTR-like numbers for $70k with a luxurious interior?
02-01-15, 01:08 AM
#68
Whoa buddy, you should take a couple steps back and read what you said. I mentioned the article notes the RC F's weight as such a bad thing but not the RS5's. You said apples to oranges. How is that apples to oranges if the two cars are in the same comparison test? Just because its 4wd its ok for the Audi to weigh 4000+ lbs. but the RC F shouldn't? Not sure where you get the "120lbs. lighter" than the RC F. Must be one of those special decontented models because every source I see says the RS5's curb weight is 4009-4045lbs. The RC F curb weight is 3958lbs. Even with the TVD its the same weight. You talk about a 2.5 second gap to the Lexus, but it was even bigger to the M4, oh yeah- on a wet track On top of it all, I didnt even ask why the Audi gets a pass. I noted that its the case. Kinda ruins your argument when you got that key aspect wrong.
On top of it all, I didnt even ask why the Audi gets a pass. I noted that its the case. Kinda ruins your argument when you got that key aspect wrong.and where did i get 120 lbs lighter? pretty sure the article... which is the topic of this thread ...states that the RS5 is 50kg lighter than the RCF. forgive me if my conversion was off by a few pounds...
Last edited by DrRick; 02-01-15 at 01:13 AM.
02-01-15, 08:13 AM
#69
That is a great point, do the test with not knowing anything about the cars. I will guarantee you the drivers would have said nothing about the weight difference with the M4 and RCF literally inches apart on track tests. Unfortunately that's not real world when it comes to testing cars.
One wonders if no paper specs were given, will the opinions differ? Or will mags just about say anything to justify giving the win to the M4? In the comparo, both cars are faster and apparently easier to handle than the M4 on this track. Yet the M4 comes out on top. What will it take for a Lexus to beat these Euros? I'm not saying the RCF is better. I'm asking what will it take? GTR-like numbers for $70k with a luxurious interior?
02-02-15, 07:12 PM
#70
Lexus Champion
02-02-15, 11:01 PM
#73
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are so hung up on numbers that you forget that it's not the weight figure by itself that's the issue, it's how much the weight impacts the driving experience and/or performance. It's funny you mention the C63 yet it runs sub 4s 0-60 and low 12s. And let's not talk about the GTR. If the automaker can hide the weight by compensating with other things like hp, awd, suspension, etc. then it's not a problem. Lexus did not do a good job of hiding the weight on the RC-F, and that's the general consensus. That's pretty straightforward to me.
02-03-15, 05:10 AM
#75
a normally overlooked spec, the RC has the best crash test rating in its class for those who care about it. BMW 3 which the 4 was based on was rated marginal and A4/A5 were poor
http://www.torquenews.com/1083/2015-...-car-its-class
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/lexus/rc
http://www.torquenews.com/1083/2015-...-car-its-class
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/lexus/rc