With the LC coming in at 300+ pounds over the RCF, how is Lexus publishing a 0 to 60 time of 4.4? Is the new 10 speed slush box geared that aggressively?

 

Yeah, from what I read, the gear ratios are spaced equally and fairly short so yes, it is more aggressively geared. My guess is, it will be 4.3 - 4.4 seconds.

 

I've heard and read two different numbers, 4.4 and 4.5. What I don't understand, Lexus is saying the new LS 500 will do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

 

Could it be that the new LS 500 times are quoted with the new twin turbo setup. Therefore, providing improved acceleration due to the ample torque curve. I'm just curious to see what the real world speeds will be with the LC. Not that any one shopping for this car is looking for pure 0 to 60 times but if we use the RCF as a barometer then 'Lexus speak' of 4.4 can translates into 4.8ish in the real world. Which is slow for a 100K vehicle but acceptable for someone in the market for a good looking GT.

 

The shorter gears explain the times just as well, although we do not know if this is assisted with a differential (not released).

 

That was the 0-60 time for the new LS 500 with the twin turbo engine. Still hard to believe the time with a big heavy sedan.

 

what?!?! 300lb more than my RCF after they deleted the rear seats?
I need to have a word with these designers!

 

Well we have our first 3rd party validation of our concerns. The weight and 10 speed transmission are indeed hampering the performance of the LC. A 0 to 60 of 4.8 and a 13.2 quarter mile time is ok but a bit low for a car in this price range. Yes, I agree with the MT review that the car is more than its numbers but we have to admit that low 13 sec is a bit weak.

 

LOL, concerns. Like mentioned before, anyone buying this car certainly has a stable of other, faster cars. NO ONE buys a Lexus for 0-60 times.

With that said, I'm guessing their test results will be proven wrong by others. It would be very rare for manufacturer to overestimate performance these days. i.e. Lamborghini rates Huracan at 3.2s, but you'd have to be inept to get those times. I've pulled 2.8s, and others even 2.5s. So we all know how that game is played.

 

From the MT article: "Test driver’s notes reveal that the best run was achieved in Normal mode with the transmission in Drive, rather than Sport+ mode or manual shifting."

 

You are almost right. nobody buys a lexus for 0-60. But at the price tag 100k or above, that is another story. i am never a bmw fan, but it hurts me a bit when i see a 100k lexus 0-60 is so much slower than M4 and M3. Come on, if you can't make the engine a bit more powerful, a sexy obesity baby at least can and should loose some weight...

 

this is just a base model car. i wouldn't care about performance numbers until a real F edition comes out.

 

...or you could get a Hellcat. LC in a different league than M3/4 or 6 for that matter. And honestly, for the target demographic for LC, $100K isn't that much, and it's not the 20-, 30- or even 40-something crowd. And will likely be a 2nd or 3rd car, and probably their daily driver. People are not going to be tracking these cars. I'm sure it's got more than enough power to merge and get to highway cruising speed swiftly.

If anyone thinks otherwise, they clearly don't get Lexus or the LC.

 

then clearly very few would buy lc 500. as you said: 1, not typical 20-40 crowd, 2, 2nd or 3rd car, 3, daily driver 4, don't track it 5, RICH .. lexus probably doesn't expect to sell that many either.
I mentioned M3 not to compare these two cars , just to show people how heavy lc 500 is. With much more powerful engine, lc 500 is 1 second slower than m3 0-60...

 

Not that big of a deal. We all know cars costing $200,000+ that aren't as fast as the LC500 and no one complains. It's gunna be a "buy it or not" type deal. The LCF will be the one to satisfy you speed needs for a grand touring car. I'm still excited to hear all the details on it this fall/winter!

V.