you are also comparing a car that had been around 7 years prior so of course it has less tech, that's not a revelation lol. But the ISF competed closer with its competitors of that time than the RCF does with its respective competitors of present. That extra 50hp can be made up with FBO on an ISF so its back to a drivers race anyway. That's where the RCF underwhelmed to me, because even on the M cars there is nothing you can do to a E92 to make it a drivers match with an F82.

The RCF is dope in its own right but its by no means some game changer its being made to be. Versus in the day of the ISF, there was no previous lexus to compare it against. So a lot of the arguing in here is apples to oranges lol

 

You are arguing two different things. On the one hand you say the IS-F is somehow more responsive than the RC F but have no data to justify it other than to say an IS-F was closer in straight line performance to an E92 when compared to an M4 and an RC F. Only there are lots of comparisons showing actual lap times between the M4 and RC F as being nearly identical.

You also say it's not a revelation to note the RC F has more tech than the IS-F but tell me, does your new Q60 red sport have an LSD? Let alone a TVD? Tell me what Lexus or BMW made prior 2015 had a TVD? You've made a blanket assertion you think the IS-F and Red Sport are somehow superior. I say you're wrong and I suspect most people agree. Lol

 

I have a corner weight slip from Roebling Road for my IS F putting it closer to 300 than 200 from what I have seen the RC F weigh in tests. 300 is nearly 10%. Got a weight slip?

 

He is talking about journalist instrument test to instrument test comparison, which is tightly controlled with fluid levels. ISF has weighed 3800+ lbs in every test by MT, C&D, Insideline, R&T. ISF was always known to be heavier than the 3700 lbs E90/E92 M3. I am sure if I put my RCF on the scale, I might also get a different number than the one published by the magazine tests. I would not mind doing that some point since I am curious.

3805 lbs

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2008-lexus-is-f/

3808 lbs

https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-ca...altest2008.pdf

3817 lbs

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/lexus...xus-is-f-test/

3812 lbs

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/...exus-is-f.html

3839 lbs

https://www.caranddriver.com/lexus/is-f

 

I don't buy it, show us proof of a 300lb weight difference. You claim to have a slip then why not post it? I don't have one and don't need it. There are plenty of figures available online. An unmodified IS-F is not 10% lighter than the RC F. Thanks for posting the figures XRS, I'm patiently waiting for this guys next laughable reply.

 

Lol nearly identical where? Not arguing anything just simply stating the obvious that most RCF owners don't like to hear, justify all you want but it is what it is. I like how the RCF looks, there is plenty I like about the car but is it leaps and bounds beyond the ISF, no. Not in the way you making it seem

 

The E92 wasn't 3700lbs, it was closer to 3600 and that was if you had the CF roof option(which i had) and it was a noticeably lighter car than my current ISF

 

Before jumping into a vette and the RCF I had a 08 Infiniti G37. Maxxed it out on mods and had four years of solid driving fun. How's the Red Sport? The G37 was NA and the Fast Intentions CBE gave it a good exhaust note. Wondered how the Red Sport sounded with turbos? Picking up low end torque? Good looking car. They got the lines right.

 

I was going by E90 sedan (to make it apples to apples with ISF), which came in at 3680 lbs with 6 speed manual (C&D, 2008). I was comparing it using M-DCT E90 sedan M3, which was a tad over 3700 lbs since it was about 20 lbs extra for M-DCT. You are right, the coupe was lighter with CF roof in the 36xx lbs.

 

Screen capture from Motor Trend's test vs M4 with Randy Pobst driving both cars at Streets of Willow. The car is light years ahead of the IS-F and only .3 seconds behind the M4. The IS-F was a good first attempt at a performance car, the RC F is a proper attempt. IS-F has no oil or trans cooler, no LSD at first, No TVD, no carbon roof, skinny front and rear tires etc etc. You're just clueless sorry.

 

FWIW, at Fuji Speedway, the fastest documented lap time that test drivers were able to achieve with a stock IS-F was 2:03.4 (using a 2010 IS-F which only had the addition of the Torsen LSD and no update to its suspension setup). The fastest documented lap time that test drivers were able to achieve with a stock RC-F at Fuji Speedway was 2:03.7 (0.3 seconds slower): https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...edway-lap.html

These lap time differences are fairly consistent with the lap time differences shown for the 2011 IS-F (3:05.4) and 2015 RC-F (3:05.8) at VIR as recorded by Car and Driver at its annual Lightning Lap events.

One can argue that lap time results can vary based on the temperatures, weather, driver, tire conditions, etc. which is perfectly valid. However, even though the RC-F has more available modern tech to support the car during track use, it doesn't necessarily make the RC-F a car that is light years ahead of the IS-F, especially when lap time comparisons show both cars being fairly even with one another (with a slight edge towards the IS-F based on these available lap times).

 

Different days, different weather, different drivers yadda yadda yadda. Using your point why was the RC F 1.5 seconds faster around the Hockenheim Short track 1:15.8 to the 1:14.3? Around the Hockenheim GP circuit the difference is even larger 2:04.45 to 2:02.40. Even around a short track like the Motor Trend figure eight the IS-F was slower 24.8 to 24.7. All you IS-F guys have to hang your hat on is the fact the RC F is heavier and that is was slightly slower in one Car and Driver test when the vast majority of other test show the IS-F is significantly slower. Glad you like your IS-F but its outdated and slower than the RC F, the facts don't lie.

 

How did you draw that conclusion based on only one lap time? I find it amusing that my judgement would be so bad that I paid $16,000 more for a newer generation car than a low mileage mint condition used 2013 ISF only to end up with an inferior car.

Keep in mind, the ISF was lapped on the pre-2014 C&D VIR layout while the Lexus RCF, GSF, LC500 were lapped on the post-2014 track layout. They are maintained separately.

RCF set considerably quicker lap times on just about every other race track compared to both the non-LSD and LSD versions of the ISF. Furthermore, RCF has comfortably been quicker around nearly every track than the E92 M3 including the competition package (both laps done with Randy Pobst) and other cars like N/A, C63 PP, C63 507, RS5 etc.

This is a dead horse that keeps getting resurrected. So, I will let the data talk by itself neutrally, objectively. These lap times summarize where RCF stands next to current generation of comparable high performance sportscars and the previous generation sportscars.


Edmunds Proving Grounds:

Lexus ISF (2011):
Slalom speed: 70 mph
Skidpad: 0.90g

Lexus RCF (carbon/TVD):
Slalom: 73.0 mph
Skidpad: 0.95g

BMW M4:
Slalom: 73 mph
Skidpad: 0.98g


AutoBild Sachsenring Laps:

C63 S AMG (510 HP): 1:37.4
Alpha Romeo Giulia: 1:37.4
BMW M4: 1:37.8
Lexus RCF (TVD): 1:39.5
Boss 302 Laguna Seca: 1:39.9
C63 AMG PP (487 HP): 1:40.7
BMW 1M Coupe: 1:40.2
E92 M3 Competition: 1:40.5
Lexus ISF (2012): 1:40.8
Lexus GSF: 1:40.8
Audi RS5: 1:40.8
BMW M3 E92: 1:40.9
Lexus LC500: 1:41
Civic Type R: 1:41.1
C43 AMG: 1:41.7
Lexus ISF (2010): 1:42.1
Focus RS: 1:43.3
BMW M5 (V10): 1:43.7
C63 AMG (457 HP): 1:44.1

Motorsport Magazine Circuit De Nevers Magny-Cours:

Alpha Romeo Guilia: 1:23.4
BMW M4: 1:23.8
Lexus RCF (Non-TVD): 1:25.0
C63 AMG (510 HP): 1:25.4
E92 M3 (2009): 1:27.4
Lexus ISF (2009): 1:28.1

Motortrend figure-8:

BMW M4: 24.1
Lexus RCF: 24.7
Lexus LC500: 24.7
Lexus ISF (2012): 24.8
Lexus ISF (2009): 25.2

Hockenheim Short:

BMW M3 (F80): 1:13.1
Lexus RCF (non-TVD): 1:14.3
Lexus ISF (2009): 1:15.8

Hockenheim GP:

Lexus RCF: 2:02.4
BMW M3 (E90): 2:02.7
Lexus ISF (2009): 2:04.4

Streets of Willow (Randy Pobst):

BMW M4: 1:23.7
Lexus RCF: 1:24.0
Boss 302 LS: 1:26.1
E92 BMW M3 Competiton Package: 1:27.7

Roadandtrack PCOTY Laps (Motown):

BMW M3 (F80): 55.5 seconds
Lexus RCF: 56.0 seconds
RS5: 56.8 seconds
BMW M4: 57.4 seconds

 

Please re-read the information I provided. I posted RC-F/IS-F lap times for two separate tracks (Fuji Speedway and VIR).

No need to be overly defense about your purchase; you picked a car based on your wants and needs. My original comment was to address another poster's comment that the RC-F is light years ahead of the IS-F. I stated that both cars are fairly even with one another. On some tracks like Fuji and VIR, the IS-F posted faster lap times. On other tracks that you provided below, the RC-F posted faster lap times. Even the MotorTrend Figure 8 course has both vehicles being neck and neck (with a 0.1 sec advantage to the RC-F). Again, this falls in line with my opinion that the RC-F and IS-F compete fairly evenly with each other rather than the RC-F being light years ahead of the IS-F.

This also doesn't help the RC-F's case with the post-2014 track layout being a faster track configuration with slightly more runoff available at certain parts of the course.

As I noted above, on some tracks, the IS-F had the edge, on others, the RC-F had the edge. As you know very well, tires play a huge role on a vehicle's lap time. With the RC-F's 255F/275R tire width, one would expect it to do better than the IS-F's 225F/255R tire width configuration. It's unfortunate that Lexus never provided an option to fit 255F/275R tires on the stock 2012 IS-F wheels which it could easily fit. Keeping all other chassis/suspension/differential variables constant, we'd see a different picture in these comparisons.

I absolutely agree and I didn't plan on posting anything but the comment above stating that the RC-F is light years ahead of the IS-F is an erroneous comment (IMO) and I provided the data for Fuji Speedway and VIR with the IS-F posting faster lap times to refute this claim of track superiority.

It's more appropriate to call the F80 M3 as being light years ahead of the E90 M3 as it consistently posts significantly faster lap times on essentially all track layouts. The RC-F doesn't have the same distinct dominance over the IS-F that the F80 M3 has with the E90 M3. It is certainly why many IS-F owners never felt the need to trade in their cars for the RC-F.

 

I'm not getting into this debate at all, but I was there helping line up the car and pushing the buttons on the scales at the track. That he's got them is personally validated.

I do not recall the #s.
============================================================================
VIR is our home track and have some personal input for comparison that I've posted in 2014
Not withstanding obvious differences in temperature, etc between events, same car was ~ 2 seconds faster post 2014 changes