F1nALMSfan

Well I saw that this year’s Car and Driver Lightning Lap has been published, and even with high hopes, I came away disappointed in the results. The car did a best lap of 3:05.8, which is just a tad shy of the best time the ISF did, at 3:05.4, and well behind the current competitors in its class. The ATS-V rocked it at 2:59.2, as did the AMG C63 S. The M4 was tested in last year’s running, and did so in 3:00.7.

They stated the car ran very consistent laps, but oversteer and weight kept it from a better time. They seemed to like everything about the car, saying “the RC F needs only a diet to be faster. I suppose all of us as owners though, already know this. Judging by the huge increase in track prowess the ISF gained in the years from 08-14, I will wager the RC F will follow suit and become a very close contender for the other cars in its class.

JCtx

I'm afraid that timing is mostly due to the lack of torque all other FI engines have. Having said that, the article complains about UNDERSTEER, not oversteer (what tire sizes did the IS-F have, and what was its weight?). And yes, most of us are fine with the weight disadvantage because that's partly what makes this car such a great tourer. And to be honest, it handles extremely well for its weight IMO. Another easy way for track rats to obtain better handling is a more aggressive alignment (could it be the difference vs the IS-F?). This car seems to have very little negative camber needed for good track figures, but would love to see the factory specs (anybody?). All in all, doubt anybody here bought the RC-F expecting it to beat a much lighter (and torque rich) M4 on a track, right? At least I didn't. Thank you for posting this. Will read the whole article out of curiosity.

F1nALMSfan

I honestly was expecting it to do a little better than the last ISF tested, just knowing that the power/acceleration numbers are about equal, but the RC F has more suspension tuning as well as a TVD. I guess this is proof it's very hard to hide weight. I don't live or die by the numbers either though, so it certainly doesn't diminish my liking of the car. Unfortunately this doesn't help with the perception Lexus launched the RC F with, that it was a car designed for the track. At the end of the day though, it's still a fairly respectable time, just a little more off pace of the competition, just as the ISF was back in 08.

I love the C&D Lightning Lap articles, I think I have them all still. It's a great way to help benchmark the car's performance between current day competition as well as the past. Take a look at that Z06 time! Holy cow that thing can fly. Has to be the best performance bargain available.

As for the ISF stock sizes, I can't recall off hand, but someone will pipe in I am sure. I was running 245/275 on mine though.

primecut

iTrader: (1)

Stock ISF in 08 was 225/255. A lot of owners have gone beefier on stock wheels like yourself with good results.

GT-R proves that you can hide the weight, but that was disappointingly not Lexus' priority even though it was marketed as such. The Frankenstein chassis is very limiting. Lap times are not the end-all of a car's capabilities, but at the very least this needs to blow the IS-F out of the water to be considered a successor, and also competitor to the current gen cars of its class.

BTW the C63 is no lightweight either (Albeit a slightly higher P-to-W ratio than the RC-F) ... so you can't blame it all just on the weight.

F1nALMSfan

Very true. Weight can't be the sole blame here. Also the RS5 squeaked out a slightly better lap time as well.

As I stated above, I am confident, and at the very least hope, that Lexus will revise this car in the same manner that the ISF was revised over the years. I am just not sure how they will go about doing that..... Still, to me, it was a disappoint to see the time that it got.

Lexura1414

iTrader: (6)

Exactly, at the very least outperform the IS-F. That is not a really lofty goal but it is still a fail. I would the put the blame squarely on the chief engineer. He under delivered given the weight and dynamics of the car.

BAlbright

Hi guys...I have to chuckle about the comments being made about "lightning laps". In looking at the chart, the RCF is flanked by a 911 Carrera on one side and the ISF on the other...not bad company in my book. And there's a lot of classy cars within a few tents of a second. I'll never take my car to the track. I'm sure it would be fun, but I don't abuse my cars. The RCF will do 0-170 mph in around 40 seconds and be comfortable in doing it. I couldn't be happier!....well maybe a little happier if I could have it with a nice 6 or 7 speed manual shifter.

Db750

This is disappointing, albeit expected at this point. As I said in another thread; Lexus has over-promised and under-delivered. Lexus had built the "F" brand, spearheaded with the ISF, and following through with the great LFA, into something that the long time front runners needed to take very seriously. Unfortunately they missed the mark on several fronts with the RCF, and I think its standing in its respective class is best evidenced by the fact that it has nearly dropped off the face of the earth in mainstream automotive journalism, reviews, comparisons, etc.

Eight years ago if you had asked me if I would have owned a Lexus or Cadillac I would have laughed. Their styling was bland and boring, their performance was almost nonexistant, and they had the steriotype of being an "old man's car". "Younger" guys like myself (now 30) who were just getting started out in the work world and were able to afford a nicer car were looking at BMW's, Mercedes, and Audi, and if we had the cash it was an ///M or an AMG. During this time cars like the first gen CTS-V and the ISF were being released. I for one took notice, and I wasn't alone.

Cadillac and Lexus soldered on and continued to improve their "V" and "F" brands, respectively. Cadillac blew the world away with the second gen CTS-V that was a true M5 fighter, and Lexus year after year improved upon their already good ISF making it by EOP a top notch sport sedan. More importantly Lexus introduced it's second "F" model; a bonified super car with exotic looks, a V10 engine that revved to the sky, and arguably one of the best exhaust notes ever. With that car came a whole new design strategy and company ethos. Lexus now made sports cars and sports sedans with some of the most awesomely aggressive body work on the market.

Over a year ago I began to read daily, almost obsessively, about the new Lexus sports car. The RCF. Although they would never admit it this car was an M3 fighter, and seeing how much Lexus had improved in such a short time this is a fight it might win. The hype building up to this car was exciting! The only NA V8 on the market, that gorgeous reconfigurable gauge cluster, and those teaser pics that showed off just enough of the sexy curves to let you know this car was going to be Eva Mendez made of hot metal and screaming V8.

After reading this article and many others like it I have to say I am disappointed in Lexus. Cadillac is continuing to improve, and is getting the automotive press as well as respect on every car forum that it rightfully deserves. They have continued to improve their cars in EVERY aspect; looks, technology, and most importantly in this segment, performance. Lexus, on the other hand, has built a gorgeous car both inside and out, but they completely cheated those of us who expected an improvement in performance similar to what other makes are offering over their previous generation models. I can't help to think that every time someone mentions how great the ATS-V is it should be the RCF they are talking about.

There is still enough about the RCF that I like that I still plan to own one. The thing is just so damn good looking that I could buy just to park in the garage and drool over. I love the cockpit like feel and look of the cabin. I love the reconfigurable gauges and steering wheel. Most importantly to me I love the sound of a NA V8. What has changed for me is I think this car will now be a replacement for my wife's M235i rather than my M3. I think for my next car I will go more aggressive and sporty, and I think the RCF will fit in perfectly for my wife as a DD as well as be a very fun car for me to switch into occasionally. When judged as a strictly GT car or comfortable luxury cruiser with a big V8 this car is great, but when grouped with cars like the M4 or C63 which are much faster in both a straight line or around a track the RCF unfortunately falls way short of the mark. It does seem that there are some that are either in denial of this, or are unhappy with the car all together. I for one have come to terms with this, and am actually quite happy with the car and look forward to owning one in the next year or two.

7No

iTrader: (1)

The RS5 has a NA V8 and now there is the Shelby gt350(r)....

Db750

My apologies. I probably could have worded that better as the way it reads was not what I meant to say. The B8 RS5 is the outgoing model and is best compared to the W204 C63, E9x M3, and the ISF. From what I have read it's replacement will not be NA thus the RCF will be the only luxury sport coupe left in this class that was once comprised solely by naturally aspirated motors.

The Mustang GT350 is a very interesting car for myself and I would guess most enthusiasts, however the typical RCF or C63 buyer is generally not cross shopping those cars with one. The Mustang will lean much further towards the performance end of the equation and will lack many of the luxury and comfort items a buyer in this segment will want. Furthermore it will only be offered as a manual which will eliminate the vast majority of RCF buyers. Having said that, it appears that the $35k Mustang GT handed the RCF quite a spanking on this particular test, so if one is cross shopping the Mustang and the RCF and is looking for performance, I would be inclined to say the best choice between the two would be the Ford.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

I bought a GT after I didnt want to spend near 80k on an RCF. Love both cars still.

JCtx

Drove the Mustang GT with my brother, and man, let's just say I wouldn't own one even if it had 10 times the power of the RC-F. To summarize my feelings of that segment (Camaros and Challengers included), it's just cheap performance. But if you don't have the coin for an RC-F and just want performance, then those 'pony cars' are the ticket. But other than performance, there's absolutely no comparison vs an RC-F. Same between a Rolex and a Timex: both will tell you the time (with the digital Timex probably more accurate), but the comparison stops there. And if we compare the RC-F with a new S-class AMG coupe, same thing again: I wouldn't care the S-AMG is heavier and probably beaten at a track by an RC-F; I'd get one over the RC-F all day long if money wasn't an object. And wouldn't dare to say I have the better car just because it's faster.

7No

iTrader: (1)

It will also lack Lexus reliability. That never seems to be mentioned in all these reviews that pan the RC F as an overweight pig. An RC F on the track is quicker than any competitor while it's in the shop.

ISF001

Before I comment, was this the TVD? It does not have the carbon package based on the photo. At $75,000, this was most likely the Torsen that DOES NOT allow you to dial out the understeer by enabling track mode. If this is true, they did not run the RC F optimally equipped to compete. This smacks of the Monticello debacle.

it is amazing as to how much attention this car gets. I suspect its overall performance and luxury are intimidating to monochromatic German manufacturers and their buyers who like things one way...forever.

The RC F is already a very close contender: there have been results where the RC F TVD outperformed the cars in its class on tracks.

The RC F was probably driven in manual mode--a mistake--as the car is faster in sport+ and TVD mode with AI and traction control disabled. In automatic, the car seems to have a completely different throttle response. It is almost as if it has a different tune.

Try taking a 0-60 with this set up. Immediately after you take off pull back on the left paddle to keep it in 1st gear, and then take it to near redline before shifting. It's a different beast that likes to eat tires.

All: have FUN with this car. That's what it's all about and not who has the...well...You know what I mean.

toyotatom

The car came in at 4069 lbs which I believe is the weight with the TVD, they ran the car according to the article in expert mode, stability shut off and in manual mode. Still loving the car IS?