toyotatom

How can a car this nice score so bad against the Cadillac ATS and S5 Audi. C & D Didn't like anything about it, power, Interior, or handling. Is C & D always this anti Lexus. No link to post too new of an article I guess.

Booster

strange indeed, because the articles and reviews from car and driver are positive on the rc 350.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review

chris2k5

You Lexus fanboys really need to lighten up. Car and Driver ranked the IS350 F Sport first in a comparison so it's not like they are anti-Lexus.

Maybe the RC isn't the best coupe in the class. Did that ever cross your mind?

Booster

uh... ok. what an odd post.

Thesil

I Don't agree that C&D gave the RC 350 a bad review ; as a matter of fact, it wasn't bad at all. Where did you get that? From what I read, they gave it a nice going over. Remember, it's all subjective anyway and car and driver has always been all about Bmw's. So , that being said, it was a pretty good article considering their Bimmer bias

dseag2

Maybe this will make you feel better...


He definitely preferred the RC350 to the BMW 4 Series. Re: how the car compares to the S5, you'd have to drive both and draw your own conclusions.

TangoRed

I'm not surprised the RC350 suffered in this test. They liked it in isolation but these comparison tests always put things in perspective.

I think its funny you mentioned their "Bimmer bias" when the BMW was absent from the comparison test. I think that's outdated anyways seeing as how Audi's have been dominating comparison tests as of late.

toyotatom

I read this months C & D magazine, I can't remember one thing they really liked about it. The final grading scores were Audi 209, Cad. ATS 195 and the RC350 165, that's getting trounced in my estimation, subjective or not. They didn't like the power, didn't like the handling, they didn't even like the interior or the exterior. Really not sure what you read but if think this was a good review for the RC you must have read between the lines, a lot of them. These are their comments, "Needs more power, less weight, better handling, and a more intelligent interior" " Lexus please dig a little deeper in your LFA database to help out this poor child" Only good thing they said " Quiet and composed for a pleasant ride home through clotted traffic, Earns a front row from parking attendants." To me that was a sarcastic statement on the good thing they liked. I like the car Im just surprised it scored so low in the test.

tfischer

"Earns a front row from parking attendants" means the car look spectacular, and for someone as vain and as superficial as me, that's a major reason for buying a car. Also, every review I have seen says that the car is too heavy, which it may be, but I enjoy the benefits of that extra weight: the car remains "Quiet and composed for a pleasant ride home." I bought one and I like it a lot.

toyotatom

I agree the car is spectacular to look at, the best of the three cars there IMO. The reason I said the "good comments" were sarcastic was they gave the RC a 5 out of 10 for exterior appearance gave the Caddy an 8 and the Audi a 9. Really only 5 out of 10. Enjoy the car.

tfischer

That 5 for the RC is pretty low, and no Caddy since 1959 deserves more than a 6. Audis have all looked the same since the 5000, and get a 5 for blandness, just like most BMWs. This appearance thing seems highly subjective - perhaps there is no accounting for taste.

elusive

iTrader: (2)

These are the only 2 points I'll have to agree with them on. Lexus could've kept the same engine and just reduced the weight, but maybe that's easier said then done. The RC weighs more than the 4GS by 22lbs.

tfischer

I have read that some of that weight comes from the frame parts in the RC that come from the IS convertible. This is heavier due to the stiffness needed in a convertible frame. The result is that we get the weight, we can cut off the tops of our cars if we want, but we also get a very tight heavy frame that yields a firm, smooth quite ride. It's not so fast off the line, but everything in auto design is a trade-off.

Booster

The RC is not too heavy. Not at all actually. What all these reviewers and car magazines and youtubers are really saying is that the RC is a bit underpowered when compared to some other cars. If you take the identical RC, and add a turbo to boost the power to say... 360-380... all of a sudden, they would be saying "This thing is a BEAST! The engine is amazing and the chassis is bank vault solid!"

The problem with the RC (in the eyes of the reviewers that are currently awash in turbo powered cars) is that it's naturally aspirated. Both the 350 and the F are getting major flack for it too. Remember, turbo = massive torque at low rpm. A 240hp, 280 lb ft tq will feel every bit as fast as the current 350. The 0-60 times will be VERY close.

Even the RC 200t will probably receive praise across the board. Why? Because they will be comparing it to the 428i and the Audi A5, both with a 2.0t powerplant. Right now, the RC 350 F Sport has no real competitors. It's like in it's own world of car type. I think probably the most appropriate car to compare it to would be the G37S Coupe. That's about it.

Lexus needs to make a RC 200t with 250ish+ hp to compete with 428i and A5

and...

Lexus needs to make a RC 300t with 350ish+ hp to truly compete with the 435i and S5.

and...

Lexus needs to make the RC F a 3.5t good for about 450hp and shed about 200 pounds to truly compete with the M4.

dseag2

I guess "bland" and "refined" are easily confused. I don't think anyone would call the A7 bland. And even though the S5 has been around for 7 years, even the auto reviewers still think it is a classic beauty. Heck the SC300/400 is over 20 years old and I wouldn't call it "bland" just because it doesn't have every new fake vent and cutline known to man.