I thought you said its your wifes car? I can count on one hand the amount of times I've gone on Audizine (My wifes car) or better yet how many times I've posted there (0). Congrats on your ATS-V that thing is fast and handles great but the interior is god awful. American car companies are notorious for cost cutting on materials to offset paying American salaries and benefits....fit and finish continues to be subpar.
I can say it's my money, but it's also hers
I pay for our cars. She can also say the ATS-V is hers as well.
Interior - not sure if you've been inside the ATS-V. Mine is optioned with the recaros. Interior pieces are wrapped in synthetic leather and suede. Seats are leather and alcantara. It's no longer plastic all around. Gotta admit the instrument cluster can be better Overall, the fit and finish is up to par with the GS350. It's better than my M3 w/o full leather option. No rattles or creaks so far after 1k miles.
But anyway, let's get away from the topic of the ATS-V.
That's very, very well said ! just curious, so porsche 911 turbo is really more trouble free in terms of mechanics and electronics than bmws in your experience? always a fan of porsche 911 turbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougHII
Rattles, lol. Dude is on crack. I have over 20,000 miles since March and I drove it like I stole it since day one. No rattles. No issues other than tail getting stuck up right after I got it, but I now leave tail up 24/7 anyway.
In the last 15 years and before the RC-F my daily drivers were a 993tt, 2 996tts, a 997tt and an M3. I have also had a fair amount of Italians, various GT3s and an Elise since that time.
The BMW was by far the biggest hunk of pathetic junk ever, well the Lotus did have 3 trannies and an engine replaced under warranty, but I used the Lotus to instruct in since it had 2 seats and my cup cars don't. I will give the Lotus a pass because that thing had in excess of 100 track days on it.
The BMW had no excuses so I will gladly bestow it that title. I have never had any issues with Porsche turbos or the GTs. They are rock solid and bullet proof mechanically and electronically. Only had to replace an instrument cluster in my 2001 txt when the tail stopped going up. Even the Italians are bullet proof and better quality than a BMW.
Lol, people apparently purchase BMWs because they think a BMW will make them cool or sonething, but does anyone really like them or is that all they have driven? They just ain't all that and the looks are just plain tired. They need a drastic face lift . . . and they really do suck maintenance wise, especially if you plan to keep it beyond the warranty. Once they warranty goes out, watch out . . . so will everything else on it.
Oh, and nearly everyone I know that finally smartened up and got over some silly perceived status symbol thingy and got rid of their Bimmers (albeit with a few miles on them) generally agree they are annoying junk.
I pay for our cars. She can also say the ATS-V is hers as well.
Interior - not sure if you've been inside the ATS-V. Mine is optioned with the recaros. Interior pieces are wrapped in synthetic leather and suede. Seats are leather and alcantara. It's no longer plastic all around. Gotta admit the instrument cluster can be better Overall, the fit and finish is up to par with the GS350. It's better than my M3 w/o full leather option. No rattles or creaks so far after 1k miles.
But anyway, let's get away from the topic of the ATS-V.
Instead of google photos, mind indulging us w/ actual photos of your beloved ats including the instrument cluster? Thanks.
The main reason I bought the RC-F is its NA V8, even though it's way down in performance compared to its main rivals (ATS-V, M4, etc). I'd be delusional if I wouldn't admit it way down in performance than all of those mostly lighter vehicles with much higher torque due to twin turbochargers. That's not the reason to buy this Lexus, but I'd never try to defend it as a competitor. Just saw a comparo of those 3 on MotorWeek, which was the most objective I've seen, and I agree with everything said about the RC-F. And yes, it was destroyed... as expected. Again, I wouldn't trade it for either of those 2 cars for many reasons, but it just can't compete with them on a track, period. Defend what's great about the RC-F. Not what it's not, because we look like fools.
The main reason I bought the RC-F is its NA V8, even though it's way down in performance compared to its main rivals (ATS-V, M4, etc). I'd be delusional if I wouldn't admit it way down in performance than all of those mostly lighter vehicles with much higher torque due to twin turbochargers. That's not the reason to buy this Lexus, but I'd never try to defend it as a competitor. Just saw a comparo of those 3 on MotorWeek, which was the most objective I've seen, and I agree with everything said about the RC-F. And yes, it was destroyed... as expected. Again, I wouldn't trade it for either of those 2 cars for many reasons, but it just can't compete with them on a track, period. Defend what's great about the RC-F. Not what it's not, because we look like fools.
honestly, they're all great cars (ATS-V, M3/M4, RCF, C63). At the end of the day, one can be happy with either one of those cars. Everyone has different objectives when looking at a car. If we all think alike, a lot of cars would not exist and we'd be stuck with driving priuses.
honestly, they're all great cars (ATS-V, M3/M4, RCF, C63). At the end of the day, one can be happy with either one of those cars. Everyone has different objectives when looking at a car. If we all think alike, a lot of cars would not exist and we'd be stuck with driving priuses.
Indeed. My point was each car is going to be better at some things than others, but it's silly pretending our car of choice beats the others on OBJECTIVE performance tests, where numbers don't lie. Yes, the RC-F might beat an M4 on cold tires or some other scenario, but under the same circumstances, a much lighter car, with a superior transmission, and much more torque simply walks all over our RC-F. And I perfectly knew that before going in. I'm not 'defending' the other cars, or 'slamming' the RC-F, but simply stating the obvious to most intelligent owners/buyers out there. If you want the quickest/fastest coupe in the segment, the RC-F is simply not your car, period. Signing off this thread, as the fanboys will show up soon.
The main reason I bought the RC-F is its NA V8, even though it's way down in performance compared to its main rivals (ATS-V, M4, etc). I'd be delusional if I wouldn't admit it way down in performance than all of those mostly lighter vehicles with much higher torque due to twin turbochargers. That's not the reason to buy this Lexus, but I'd never try to defend it as a competitor. Just saw a comparo of those 3 on MotorWeek, which was the most objective I've seen, and I agree with everything said about the RC-F. And yes, it was destroyed... as expected. Again, I wouldn't trade it for either of those 2 cars for many reasons, but it just can't compete with them on a track, period. Defend what's great about the RC-F. Not what it's not, because we look like fools.
The Motorweek comparo you referenced never tested track times at all. The 0-60 times on the M4 seemed about right (3.97), but the ATS-V(4.32) and RC-F(4.88) times were slow compared to any other source. RC-F is still the slowest, but their times were off. Motor Trend on the other hand actually put the M4 and RC F around a track...Streets of Willow. M4 time was 1:23.73. RC-F time was 1:24.05. Is this how you define destroyed? If you are going to be spec sheet fool, you might want to look at all the numbers. Not just one source. Yes, M4 and ATS-V are faster. Destroyed? Can't compete? That would be like saying the Mustang GT does not compete with the new Camaro SS. It's slightly slower yes, but it still competes.
The Motorweek comparo you referenced never tested track times at all. The 0-60 times on the M4 seemed about right (3.97), but the ATS-V(4.32) and RC-F(4.88) times were slow compared to any other source. RC-F is still the slowest, but their times were off. Motor Trend on the other hand actually put the M4 and RC F around a track...Streets of Willow. M4 time was 1:23.73. RC-F time was 1:24.05. Is this how you define destroyed? If you are going to be spec sheet fool, you might want to look at all the numbers. Not just one source. Yes, M4 and ATS-V are faster. Destroyed? Can't compete?
not sure why they insist on testing cars with different transmission. ATS-V they tested was the 6spd manual whereas the M4 and RCF were autos.
Motor Trend on the other hand actually put the M4 and RC F around a track...Streets of Willow. M4 time was 1:23.73. RC-F time was 1:24.05. Is this how you define destroyed? If you are going to be spec sheet fool, you might want to look at all the numbers. Not just one source. Yes, M4 and ATS-V are faster. Destroyed? Can't compete? That would be like saying the Mustang GT does not compete with the new Camaro SS. It's slightly slower yes, but it still competes.
Word. Everyone makes it like there's a huge gap. For all the complaints about the portliness of the rcf, that lap time is pretty damn good compared to a car that's 400# lighter. Plus Lexus first foray into this segment.
Not sure how many people take the RCF to a track, I know mine will never see one so it does not matter. I know when I am sitting in traffic or going 75mph on the interstate the RCF is the best in class for a car I can drive 200k miles and not spend weeks in the shop and the car will still be in good shape and get me to wherever I want to go without any worry's.
Look at some mid 90's caddies / BMW's and tell me how they held up if they are still any on the road?
That's very, very well said ! just curious, so porsche 911 turbo is really more trouble free in terms of mechanics and electronics than bmws in your experience? always a fan of porsche 911 turbo
Dang near bullet proof. I put around 78,000 miles on a 04 996tt cab and only had a master or slave cylinder go out. I cannot recall which. No issues with my 993tt that I drove for about 4 years. My 01 996tt coupe had to have instrument cluster replaced when tail stopped going up, but no other issues and that car had around 750hp and was driven very hard. My 997tt had no issues in over 3 years. I had a 996 GT2 for several years that never had s hiccup, but was mor of a weekend car. The other were daily drivers. The early NA had RMS issues, but that was a different case than the turbos.
My M3 . . . catalytic converter went out (sounded like rocks rattling around at idle), head gasket, window issues, alternator, the transmission leaked and required some service or pan replacement, TPMS and the box for the communication system shorted out when water leaked in and pooled around them, I had chronic right rear tail light plug issue which really amazed me how they could not seem to fix something as simple as a light plug. There was probably more, but that's all I remember now. This was quiet literally the biggest POS I have ever owned.
Db, you going back with the same color or you going with something else this time
I picked up a used (6,000 miles) Platinum Silver.
Carbon roof/Spoiler
ML Stereo
and TVD.
AND a Lexus certified warranty of 6 years and Unlimited miles.
Somehow, after all my trouble I came out on the better end of this deal.
Already cut the resonators off and swapped over the Apexi controller.
Hood vent painted gloss black (that really pops on the silver hood).
I picked up a used (6,000 miles) Platinum Silver.
Carbon roof/Spoiler
ML Stereo
and TVD.
AND a Lexus certified warranty of 6 years and Unlimited miles.
Somehow, after all my trouble I came out on the better end of this deal.
Already cut the resonators off and swapped over the Apexi controller.
Hood vent painted gloss black (that really pops on the silver hood).
.
That would be like saying the Mustang GT does not compete with the new Camaro SS. It's slightly slower yes, but it still competes.
