Gojirra99

They better make that RC convertible ...

ISF001

The husky RCF is MORE than holding its own in the track tests. What performance issue?

The driver experience appears to be what most buyers in this class want based on how the orders are mounting at Lexus.

DrRick

if you read the article...i think you will find the answer to your question.

so look at what he said. he admits that its big...has dismissed it because of it...and called it an oaf (duffer). he was expecting it too understeer because of all of those qualities. he was 'shocked'...incredibly so...that it actually oversteered.

now...was that the conditions? was it a new suspension tune on this MY of the RS5? who knows but he acknowledged the weight and was even prejudiced by it. but the car performed better than his expectations.

and thats not me trying to carry the writer's water. but rather give my opinion as to what he was trying to convey...

hell...im not really even sure where he used the RC-F's weight to really ding the car. he seemed pretty complimentary of it, imo....

rominl

iTrader: (4)

totally agree, they should just do it. hopefully that's what the convertible concept was about

natnut

So that is one way where the RCF's weight was put to good use : to strengthen the chassis to beyond the Germans.

Almost all reviews state that the RC/RCF's chassis is like granite in terms of solidity.

TF109B

Wait, were hung up on numbers, but you just put out numbers. There isnt a weight issue on the RC F, its only a fake talking point these biased magazines want to bring up. The M4 is not 3500lbs. The magazines (bmw) want you to buy that story though. Once you start forming your opinions based on 'the media', you were led astray.
As for EVO calling it a bit of a duffer, they never mention the weight as an issue in the comparison in the way they do the RC F. Thats what I meant by you not answering the question as to why that is. They dont say a word, they even quote a false vehicle weight.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

also in the Drive+ review, Farah said the RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than the GS

jdmSW20

iTrader: (12)

see now that does give some more light into the weight topic, ill admit I didn't know they kind of Frankenstein the chasis together. I had assumed it was a "ground up" type design

rominl

iTrader: (4)

from a cost perspective it doesn't make sense, it will be way too expensive. the rc and rcf are not going to be super high volume cars (being coupe) so having a new dedicated platform / chassis design for this car is going to be very costly.

if they do something like bmw where they share platform with sedan it would have been cheaper, but obviously lexus chose not to. i think it has a lot to do with the fact that the IS design can't fit a v8.

so the only way it would work is to reuse chassis designs that they already have, and i think what we have now makes sense

Ryanmcd

I like how they all try to find a reason NOT to like the RCF, Also 99.9% of the time all of us will be driving under 80 MPH on a public road with bumps, this is when the weight and build quality will help make it a better drive.

I don't know anyone who got the RCF because it's a track monster, get a GTR or something else if your doing tracks weekly, for most it will be in traffic and in that case the RCF is a nicer car.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

Yaguchi wanted wider tires on the front, the GS front could accomodate the tire width he wanted as well as hold hte V8 better. Also having this bigger hood on a shorter midsection gives a more coupe like proportions vs an IS with 2 doors chopped off. Lot of things working together well here.

KevinGS

Uh, yes, to answer your question. It may be juvenile, but it sure is fun. LOL

Having driven both the M4 and the RCF, because I'm in the market for a GT coupe once my 4GS lease is up soon, the M4 feels godawful fast. The torque feels amazing for a turbo 6, IMO. I think that engine may actually be underrated in its stated torque figures. In second gear, I was still ripping up tires, and it'll chirp in third (I was in DCT). This thing is FAST.

But the RCF interior is awesome, with better seats, and a MUCH better engine sound. And it's fast too, especially once you're rolling. If you never drive (or see) the M4, the RCF is a great coupe.

Unfortunately, the M4 exterior is much cleaner and simpler, and more to my liking. And the pure thrill of speed (along with masterfuk handling, as less weight really matters when it comes to pure confidence on the street), I'll have to seriously consider the M4. I'll lease one for a few years, and then maybe come back to Lexus once they "refresh" the spindle grill.

But I'm waiting on the ATS-V coupe before I pull the trigger on the M4.

All in all, it's a great time in automobile history to have so many seriously fast GT cars to choose from.....and I'm glad Lexus is among them. You can't go wrong with any of them, unless you plan on keeping one for a long time.

ISF001

I've not driven the M4 nor will I even own another BMW. Based on the M4 test videos and reports, this is a car that likes to arm-wrestle its way through the tight corners--on a track or on uneven pavement. It's a car that was built to achieve numbers for print more than deliver on a balanced driver experience.

Yes, the RCF will attack the M4, RS5, etc. on a track, and more often than not match times or win. The RCF handles like no other car I've driven as of late.

So, many state the M4 "FEELS" faster as torque is achieved earlier in the acceleration run, but once achieved you've got what your going to get. The Randy Pobst comparison between the RCF and M4 was eye-opening for many in that the RCF delivered on the track while the M4, with all of its grunt, was extremely difficult for a pro driver to manage. My point is pulling it all together for track work or even serious driving is ultimately what makes for a great machine.

Winding Road says of the M4: "Gobs of power come on quickly at mid-range revs, but then remain relatively flat to 7600rpm. While it certainly does away with any qualms about the previous generation's lack of torque, it also doesn't really encourage the driver to seek out the upper limits of the powerband, either."

"Those who've been lamenting BMW's move from natural aspiration to turbocharging in M cars, we're not going to sugar coat it for you - the S55 is not lag-free. BMW engineers were well aware of this concern, and fit the S55 with low mass turbos, electronic wastegates, and other tweaks to minimize this undesirable effect. While they've done an admirable job, repeated sprints around Road America made it clear that, even for the M division, turbo lag is almost impossible to eliminate altogether."

Given power delivery quirks resulting from the turbo lag, the M4 can be an unpredictable creature. The new F is confidence inspiring and will perform at the level of its driver--novice, intermediate, or advanced. Oh, you can smoke the tires if that's your idea of fun, but you can also experience the joy of a masterfully engineered V8 that loves to rev, allows you to explore the upper limits of the powerband, and responds without hesitation, and I never wonder if the car is going to unpredictably react (overpower or underpower) and bite you--even at certain limits.

The F's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ride, and I abhor Dr. Jekyll in traffic. Driving in traffic is frustrating as I feel that I am holding back a stallion that really wants to stretch its legs.

They are all great cars, and despite my unpalatable past experience with BMW, the non-turbo powered M3 is quite a car and holds a special place in my past.

These days, "F" comes before "M" in my driver's dictionary.

oohpapi44

iTrader: (1)

Agree completly Kev. I've squeezed into the M recently and had a ball throwing it around a few corners. Wouldn't own one but if i'm getting either for fun alone, it's going to be the M right now.

Let me know when you pull the trigger and I'll be on the lookout for ya... My Busa is still sitting in Occoquan...

KevinGS

Wasssup, Papi!

Yes, being the juvenile that I am, I don't need a well-composed GT coupe. I want the boy-racer GT that's a handful, because, well, you know how I drive. LOL That's the M4. It's sooooo fast, soooo much fun. The RCF just feels a little too docile for me, though it has the best sound by for. The M4 needs an exhaust, just to increase the sound quality alone. But it'll never sound as good as the RCF or the RS5.

And I definitely don't want an AWD car, because that defeats a good burnout.

The Lexus interior is pretty slick, but the M4 is bigger, which I do like, when I need to throw adults in the back on occasion.

And since I always own multiple cars, any new GT couple is rarely going to see any rain. And if I do get caught in the rain, I'll stay to the right and drive like a 80-year-old grandma, it's not a problem for me. That entire con in the article for the M4 means nothing to me, and completely negates the advantage of AWD for me. Give me burnouts over wet weather stability any day. When the roads have ANY participation, I drive very docile. Maybe a sophisticated AWD vehicle could conquer the rain, but I always fear all those other people who don't know how to drive in the rain. Sometimes you can't adjust for other's silly actions when the roads turn slippery.

The RCF is so close, but I need slightly toned-down styling, and more engine (or less weight).

The 4GS lease is up soon. Nice car, but I won't miss it too much. I needed more engine, and the V6 didn't do it for me, so I got the hybrid. It's a great executive sedan, but not nearly juvenile enough for me. I would need a lot of mods. Most days I'd rather in my dark cherry 2GS. Yes, I still have it! 290,000 miles and counting.

If you come through MD, holla!!!!