When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The current gen M3/M4 has significantly improved the brakes, chassis, performance, MPG, technology, interior than the outgoing E92 M3. All while coming in over 200 lbs less thanks to heavy R&D and CFRP.
.
Thank you BMW marketing mouthpiece. The way you phrase everything, it looks like you have memorized BMW's marketing literature word for word and regurgitating that on this board.
For like the bazillionth time, the F30 M4 is not lighter than the E92 M3. It is basically the same weight. It has been tipping the scales at over 3600 lbs with M-DCT. The E92 M3 weighed as little as 3576 lbs with the 6 speed manual in a few tests. The M4 with M-DCT weighed 3604 lbs in a recent Motor Trend test.
BMW's clever and deceptive marketing strategy worked very well on people like you. I have some land in Florida to sell and you must be the perfect candidate to buy it.
If weight is the only thing that makes a chassis "boring" then the F30 M4 is boring as hell compared to say, a 400 pounds lighter E36 M3.
How much is BMW paying you to spread your obsessive love of the M4 on other boards?
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; Sep 16, 2014 at 05:23 PM.
The current gen M3/M4 has significantly improved the brakes, chassis, performance, MPG, technology, interior than the outgoing E92 M3. All while coming in over 200 lbs less thanks to heavy R&D and CFRP.
so BMW lists the F8X weight as almost 3600, I didnt know E92s weighed almost 3800#, because they never did. In fact, F80/82 and E90/92 are very close in weight when you compare similarly loaded ones with DCT. Loaded new M with sunroof and DCT is going to push near 3700#. New M is a tad lighter, despite getting bigger, but no where near 200# less than the E9X. BMW bambozzled a ton of people with their misleading weight numbers.
Not to mention 30# of the weight savings was through using a li-ion battery which introduces a big can of worms in tradeoffs. You dont want to know how much a li-ion battery costs, and you'll need a different charger to charge it. And you may not be able to get a jump from a running alternator if the other car is putting out too much voltage, which lead acid has no problem of taking. Li-ion protection relays will kick in and stop you from charging. Sounds like fun if youre stranded somewhere. I can still go on. Li-ion HATES the cold and loses a lot of charge when exposed to it. It also hates the heat and also loses charge but not as much as to the cold. Lead acid can take hard temperatures much better. Swapping out that battery to a more robust and available lead acid is worth gaining that 30# instead of dealing with the potential headaches. Be sure to thank the BMW engineers who are going to expose you to a lot of potential BS to save 30#.
The other consideration is cost. We figured a high-tech battery like this wouldn’t come cheap, and a quick call to a local dealer revealed the projected cost of these batteries is a little over $1,100.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; Sep 16, 2014 at 05:56 PM.
I sound ignorant? Is this coming from someone who was trying to sell people a juice box 4 tuned as stock? Seriously, you should look at yourself in the mirror before calling someone else ignorant.
It is also compounded by the fact that you are here to trash the RC-F coming from a BMW forums (look at your post count and see where exactly you post, it is common sense). You are making yourself look more and more silly with every post.
Why don't you go back to the bimmer forums and try to relish in the glory of your beloved M4 over there.
Btw, show me some facts to back up your biased FUD.
ROFL. That is hilarious!
You seriously think I would say anything without having the ability to back it up with proper evidence?
In a desperate attempt to save face, you are comparing a 6 speed manual with an 8 speed automatic. LOL
I've got some for you. M4,6MT 19" wheels, HK upgraded stereo, regular leather, M Adaptive, carbon roof.
We know nothing about that test. That picture you posted is completely meaningless without any proof about what the car's interior/exterior looks like. It could be on completely empty gas tank. The car might be stripped out of lots of equipment. There is no proof for or against that. A scale with no context or reference point means nothing. There is not a single test out there done by critics where the M4 weighed anything remotely close to what you posted.
Here you go BMW marketing mouthpiece
MotorTrend:
3604 lbs
For some comparison, the similarly sized and totally targeted BMW M4 weighs 3604 pounds, a 436-pound difference.
I could post more, but these two prove the point. Consistently, it weighs at least just under 3600 lbs or slightly over.
The literal elephant in the room here is the fact that the RC F weight pretty much ruined the cars potential.
The literal elephant in the room is, you are talking out of your behind in a desperate attempt to sell the M4. The weight alone never makes or breaks the car. You merely are cherry picking a few reviews that were less than favorable and the weight was deemed the issue while completely ignoring the other one's where the dynamics and handling were raved about. Using your own analogy, the M4's potential has been ruined because it is 400 lbs heavier than the E36 M3.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; Sep 16, 2014 at 07:16 PM.
Having had great luck with previous Toyota products I was more than ready to pull the trigger on the RCF but the weight issue, poor braking performance, and possible headroom issues have turned me off. At this point I'd really rather have a gently used ISF or roll the dice on the M4. Heck,maybe even a Cayman S. Such a shame for Lexus.
Having had great luck with previous Toyota products I was more than ready to pull the trigger on the RCF but the weight issue, poor braking performance, and possible headroom issues have turned me off. At this point I'd really rather have a gently used ISF or roll the dice on the M4. Heck,maybe even a Cayman S. Such a shame for Lexus.
Heck, where did you drum up this stuff? Oh, from the few biased reviewers? The new RCF is more of a beast than my 2012 ISF.
These are absurd conclusions.
But I will agree: this ride is definitely not for you.
Toyota clearly has the expertise to develop a chassis worthy of the 2UR-GSE. They chose not to as no one would design a performance oriented vehicle with the goal of adding heft. At the end of the day, power to weight is key and with a denominator like that, the car was DOA in its goal to be a high performance coupe.
And the M3, while having nice leg room for 2 rear passengers in the back, comes in nearly 400 pounds less. It's baffling really.
The RC is more of a touring coupe than the M4, and also more of a tweener between the IS-class and the GS-class, since it uses parts from both. The platform is a middle ground between an M4 and an M5, which explains the weight.
Weight itself isn't going to DOA this car, how the suspension handles the weight will decide that. So far so good on that front.
The RC-F is in many ways more desirable than the M4, because it offers its own set of unique attributes. Lexus was wise not to just clone the M4 philosophy because that would be pointless.
For those who want the feel, sound, and power of a big V8, the RC-F has got one of the best under its hood. That alone is plenty reason to sway buyers and fans.
Not to mention it has a body, paint, presence, and overall impression of quality that no BMW in this segment can match.
Last edited by Mr. Burns; Sep 16, 2014 at 07:16 PM.
It is what it is. Just like the fact that the S55 doesn't sound as good as the S65. I can live with that, but I can't live with a car that pretends to play in the same arena but falls short miserably.
Look at the difference in that trap speed.So it weights a ton and it's slow.
And to say the M4 is limited to 155 mph to "protect the engine" just might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Dinan just put out a kit that does not void bmw's warranty that make 516hp/489tq on stage 1.
Why all of the hate? Am I not on topic with this thread? It seems that all you want to do is make excuses for the car and deny facts and data points found all over. It's slow and fat, plain and simple.
Chris Harris is a known BMW fanboy and former M3 owner who had a short go of a preproduction car at a Lexus held press event where he even admits he was jet lagged. I guarantee he is an even bigger M car fanboy than you are.
Chris Harris and rather no one has yet properly driven or reviewed this car, let alone true head to head comparisons where bias and rose tinted glasses step aside in favor of direct comparison. We won't see that for a while still.
Also 7 tenths of a second difference in track speed does not make the difference between an amazing car as you claim the M4 is and a mediocre one that you claim the RC-F is. There is a lot more to these cars than trap speed, if that's all you care about strap a Honda Civic Si motor to a Golf cart and have at it.
And you sound completely ignorant. The literal elephant in the room here is the fact that the RC F weight pretty much ruined the cars potential. Btw, show me some facts to back up your biased FUD. I've got some for you. M4,6MT 19" wheels, HK upgraded stereo, regular leather, M Adaptive, carbon roof.
the guy was running 1/8th of a fuel tank. So when he gases up that's over 3525# for a stripper build AND he had removed some parts from the car so its going to be a even higher. Getting real close to that 3580# figure quoted on BMWUSA. Its even higher when you load it with options especially sunroof and DCT. Bimmerpost did a huge analysis on the weight and concluded it weighed 86# less at best. Even more confirmed when C&D weighed the cars and got similar weights.
Stopped by FlatOut Motorworks in Tempe to throw her on the scales. Car was low on gas about 40 mile range or 1/8th tank, has the spacers of course still. I removed floor mats, tire kit, tools, manual, and trunk panel.
It is what it is. Just like the fact that the S55 doesn't sound as good as the S65. I can live with that, but I can't live with a car that pretends to play in the same arena but falls short miserably.
Look at the difference in that trap speed.So it weights a ton and it's slow.
And to say the M4 is limited to 155 mph to "protect the engine" just might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Dinan just put out a kit that does not void bmw's warranty that make 516hp/489tq on stage 1.
Why all of the hate? Am I not on topic with this thread? It seems that all you want to do is make excuses for the car and deny facts and data points found all over. It's slow and fat, plain and simple.
This is an RCF PROTOTYPE comparison to a BMW full production car. It's inaccurate at this time.
The RCF and M4 will ultimately be compared, but for the wrong reasons.
If you have not read this interview with Biermann and Yaguchi, now is a perfect time. For the Lexus enthusiast, you will rapidly see that he did EXACTLY what he wanted to (and said he would) do.
The passion in Yaguchi resonates in his terse comments.
What car did you benchmark?
Biermann: The predecessor, first of all. That was our main benchmark. The target was to make the best M3 ever. Now we call the coupe the M4, but the job was to make the best M3.
Yaguchi: No benchmark. I don't care about the competitors. I want to create what I want, which is a really high-performance car offering driving pleasure to anybody, even regular drivers.
What is the best high-performance car out there today?
Biermann: That is a hard to answer question because I think we need to cut this in slices for segments, you know? But the best one would be the M1 successor -- if there were a successor.
Yaguchi: Porsche 911.
If you were to give the previous car a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being best, what number would you give the M4/RC F?
Biermann: Oh, that's a tough one. I mean, if it comes to lap times, speeds, overall acceleration, then we would be in a different league than the M1 successor. As a driver's car and driving involvement, it pretty much goes to a 10.
Yaguchi: The Porsche has different axis to measure. The 911 goes this direction and the RC F goes that direction. So, 10 score 911; 10 score RC F. Just different axis.
What are the five things about your car that you'd want people to know?
Biermann: First of all, to go on with the tradition of bringing race car technology onto the road. That's the job of the M3 and the M4. And there's a lot of race car concept in the new car. Then, our completely new engine, where we bring the high-revving aspects of the predecessor's naturally aspirated engine together with the efficiency and the performance of a modern -- very modern -- turbo engine. Then all the focus we put on the car regarding light weight. There's so much technological substance in the new M4, with carbon-fiber technology, like a carbon-fiber driveshaft, carbon-fiber roof. The trunklid inside layer is carbon fiber, so it's lighter, less weight than the predecessor. That's a very important statement. And then, for sure, the precision and the agility of the driving experience. We put a lot of effort into developing everything around the steering system -- the kinematics, the front axle, the rear axle, how they interact, and that was a big focus on the car. Last one is performance on a racetrack. This is not a pretender. Like all the M3s before, this a track car.
Yaguchi: First of all, styling -- the coupe design. And then the engine -- the new engine we're going to introduce. And then the handling, with a really rigid body. Then the fourth: electronic devices, which help not only just professional drivers, but those beginner drivers, who can drive really easily and enjoy. And last, everybody can be smiling when they drive the RC F.
What are your thoughts on the RC F/M4?
Biermann: I need to understand more about the technology [Lexus] put into it. If [RC F] is just another IS F with a big engine, that would not make a competitor to an M3. I can only imagine that, for their customers, [5.0-liter V-8 and eight-speed automatic] is the right way to go. That would definitely not be the right way to go for our customers. We have kind of a race car engine -- the character of our engine is almost like a race car engine. Very precise, although it's a turbo, but it's very responsive and it revs up to 7600 rpm. Very sharp. And it's a car for the track.
Yaguchi: It's kind of typical M product, which means they don't change horsepower quite a lot, but they just reduced the weight to enhance the driving performance—the typical M way. So, that's my observation. At this moment, for Lexus F, we think the non-turbo engine provides the best performance balance and also response. But I don't want to reject any performance engine's potential. If needed, I'm going to certainly study. I want to provide linear torque and power by a naturally aspirated engine.
Trapping @ 110.3 MPH with a 476hp NA V8 is...well laughable.
Source: Motortrend
Two caveats. One is that the car we tested was an early build prototype and the engine management software has reportedly been updated since we touched it. The other is that Lexus claims that accessible performance will define the F brand going forward and that somehow superquick acceleration scares people who can’t drive as well as others. I say losing 400 pounds would make the car as quick as its competitors. Either way, the new software should shave precious tenths off those elapsed times.
Heck, where did you drum up this stuff? Oh, from the few biased reviewers? The new RCF is more of a beast than my 2012 ISF.
