bobraynard

I don't really give a damn what some snobby euro-journalist has to say about my RC F.
People can debate the crap out of anything and never make the decision to just go for it.
I bought mine for what it is and I freakin' love it.
At the end of the day that's all that matters to me.

05RollaXRS

Because if 4000 lbs was not "too fat" back in 2007, it certainly is not today. Mind you, the C63 competition back in 2007 also used to be in the 3600 - 3800 lbs range (as it shows in the PDF I posted). Wasn't it? Relatively speaking, it is the same. That makes your point moot.

It should not be an issue when one is driving the car. Many of the most hypercars/supercars/sports cars even are in the 4000 lbs region. Nissan GTR, Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Aventador, Ferrari F12, Porsche 918 Spyder (test weighed recently around 3900 lbs mark), Aston Martin V12 Vantage etc. all are around the 4000 lbs mark.

Again, RC-F is a GT 2 + 2 car and not comparable to those cars, but the weight all by itself should not qualify it as "too fat". Yet, it pulls 0.92g on the skidpad and a slalom speed of 70 mph. That was simply unimaginable for so-called "light" sports cars from days of yore from the 90s. It would run circles around majority of those sports cars from the 90s and 00s. It is not just the increased power, it also shows the progression in chassis development and suspension tuning. The streets of willow lap times speaks for itself.

I am not a RC-F weight apologist. It would have been awesome, if it weighed around 3700 lbs, ideally. I am only rationalizing that the whole weight issue has been blown way out of proportion.

imherenow

i just saw the top gear...and was blown away by his review of the RCF..and i think he was right. the design is not very good looking ,it looks very big and heavy. its no way near like the LFA. i was think he would be like same sprit and soul of LFA but thats just sad. and was surprised that the lap time with the bmw. the RCF is that slow!!?..

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

why would people think this would be like the LFA? Yes the RCF loses in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile, yet on the track its quite similar to the M4

dchar

Just watched the latest episode of Top Gear and was kinda surprised that Clarkson hated the RCF. He called it fat, useless, and lurchy. He spent about half the review complaining about it and the other half raving about the LFA. The RCF lost miserably in a drag race with the M4. He complained about the styling, performance, handling, and most of all, weight. In a way, I don't blame him since I kinda expected more from the RCF too when it first came out. Lexus tends to be one of the lightest in its class, so I was disappointed when the RCF was the heaviest. Granted, most owners will not track it or power slide it like Clarkson does in his reviews but imagine how much better it would be if it lost 400 lbs. I was amazed he didn't mention anything about the wonderful sounding V8 over the artificial V6 sounds of the M4, but maybe the sounds of the LFA V10 blinded him. Clarkson was so disgusted and disappointed with it that he didn't even let the Stig take it around the track for a lap time. Before you say that Top Gear is more of an entertainment show rather than a legit car show now, Clarkson isn't the only one complaining about the weight. It seems like every review about the RCF brings up the issue of excessive weight.

I had a chance to compare the RCF and the M4 on a small track during a Lexus event, and came away with the conclusion that I would get the RCF over the M4. Yes the M4 seemed better around corners and a little faster off the line, but as a street car, I would enjoy the RCF more. I like the aggressive styling, adaptable comfort, reliability of Lexus, and the sounds and character of the V8. Not to mention, M4 are starting to popup everywhere here in SOCAL so the RCF would be a bit exclusive. But I might consider the other competition over the RCF: Audi RS5 (classy styling,V8 bark, and AWD) and MB C63 (awesome sounds of 6.3L V8), both lighter than the RCF. I hope Lexus F department is paying attention and makes improvements on the next gen RCF. Keep the V8, lose some weight!

Razorthin1

The RCF may/may not weigh in the same range as the cars you've listed (didn't check), but does it offer the same performance they do?

05RollaXRS

So you are comparing the RC-F straight line performance to those cars from 2007. Yes?

Ryanmcd

I am with you, call it a fat pig and worst car ever made, but I am not going to purchase something someone tells me that I will never talk to.

I hope the bad reviews keep coming so when I get mine I will print it out and get a discount lol 5 more weeks

Razorthin1

What? My point is who cares what was acceptable in 2007. The RCF should be compared to its current competition: The M4, new C63 and upcoming RS5. If you want to compare it to other vehicles in regards to weight, that's fine. But use the most current version, not the one that fits your narrative.

05RollaXRS

The argument was "too fat". You completely are going in a different tangent. Clarkson was not comparing or doing performance number tests. He was going squarely by how the car felt when he was doing his drive. It is completely agnostic to how it stacks up to the competition.

Again, calling RC-F as feeling "too fat" because of the 4000 lbs is silly and quite honestly hypocritical. Clarkson never said "C63 felt fat" during his review back in 2008.

05RollaXRS

The video is online. Watch it while you can before it gets taken down. I was not expecting this. This is worse than I thought.

It looks more like an LFA review to me than the RC-F.

DOC4LEX

unfortunately i have to agree with Jezza on this one Lexus did not work in synergy with engineers and Chief Engineer of the LFA when the RCF was being conceived especially in the weight department,the styling is subjective can't really fault it there, the V8 engine sound is just fine. when Lexus invested and took 10 years to develop the LFA and spending millions in R&D and making a loss at same time.Why not take that same investment redeploy it in a mass production of your next product and try to recoup those cost? For me that would be a no brainer.Lets be honest i know that Jezza can be a blunt and brutal car journlist but after watching this clip and comparing it to what Chris Harris review their are both saying the same thing as i have asking before what Lesson did the RCF learn from the LFA at end of it 500 units production?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZjwzM35scY#t=6

obturator

Why? Bean-counting and trying to kill multiple birds with one stone. Still a great car, IMO. More car than I can handle anyway...

Roffles

bClarkson wasn't so caught up in the C63's weight because it has a 6.3L 443flb-ft torque V8 to pull it forward with greater enthusiam. Believe what you want, but the 5.0L doesn't have enough torque to apologize for the curb weight. I knew from day one this car would be panned for its weight. The only surprise here is that other people don't understand the criticism. Heavy cars feel heavy.

I would still choose the RC F over the M4 for a road going car... that turbo 6 has too much torque for its low curb weight and every review I've read of the car says the torque makes the car unstable at the limit.

RoiteTrom

I was just as surprised as you. I felt like he was trying too hard to compare the LFA to the RC-F. Yes, they are both F cars. But the LFA is a limited edition supercar that cost 400 grand (and even at that price, Lexus still lost money for each LFA). The RC-F is a luxury sports coupe that competes against the M4.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, stop comparing the RC-F to the LFA, they are different tiers. Compare the RC-F to the M4 (which I didn't hear him compare to at all, unless I've turned deaf.) But I do agree with him on the weight.