911 GT3 does not weigh 2756, more like 3150

 

Pretty sure he is talking about the RCF GT3

 

Awesome! I was going to link you to the other thread specifically to this topic but you already replied to it...

How much and how heavy are aftermarket seats? Like the CF and non-CF ones?

 

You would think that after 4 years Lexus would address the weight issue but I don’t think they will be doing anything about the weight anytime soon.

 

It's so heavy because they took the IS convertible section. There were plans for a convertible rc but it was scraped because dealers wanted more crossovers. If they hadn't designed it to accommodate a topless model it could have been lighter. There was no need to take that section.

 

Advantage of that is the extra rigidity in the chassis. You can feel the rigidity when tossing it through turns.

 

Corrected for truth. The carbon RC F weighs almost the same as the GS F. Sad but true. Weight is always the enemy. Ask Colin Chapman.

 

I am talking about my experience in how RCF hides its weight by keeping mass near the middle under high lateral forces. The extra rigidity would not be there since the ISC had been used for that purpose. All I am saying, RCF could have weighed 3800 lbs without the ISC middle section, but chassis would not be as rigid as it is. The short wheelbase combined with the rigidity in the chassis makes it a very tossable car with TVD in track or slalom mode. It is confirmed by the slalom speed of 73 mph recorded by Roadandtrack on the RCF in slalom mode.

The RCF weighed 4016 lbs with LSD and around 4050 lbs (TVD with moonroof and no carbon fiber. Weight savings from carbon fiber offsets the additional weight from TVD in the rear) in C&D comparison of TVD vs LSD. GSF has been weighed 4150 lbs. A 100 lbs is not a significant difference, but a difference nonetheless.

From Caranddriver:

"We used the track setting for the road course as well, where the TVD car beat the Torsen car by 0.4 second with a 1:18.7 lap around the 1.7-mile track. The RC F with the conventional limited-slip diff entered corners with pressing understeer, but in several turns made an abrupt, midcorner transition to oversteer. That kind of high-maintenance behavior makes the car unwieldy and more unpredictable than fun. With the TVD, the car’s attitude remains consistent throughout the corner. From turn-in to track-out, the TVD minimizes the effort required to hold the line.

There’s no question that torque vectoring improves objective performance, yet the strongest selling point for this differential is how the car feels from behind the wheel. Whether it’s at the limit on the track or winding down country roads, torque vectoring makes the car livelier and more controllable. Without it, limit cornering is a trying exercise in traction management, load transfer, and other subtle variables. The torque-vectoring differential feels like a subtle push from behind. Turn the wheel and the car dives in so eagerly and effortlessly that you’ll want to attribute its behavior to magnetic forces or supernatural powers. Or, you might just tell passengers that it’s all due to your peerless driving technique. And isn’t that worth the money?"

 

And yet for all that stiffness and TVD magick, Car and Driver also said this:



And this around a course considerably faster than the one in 2011 with the IS F on narrower PS2s, not much wider PSS and only a Torsen. IMHO, the RC F got the fuzzy end of the lollipop from Lexus. It either needed 550 hp or it needed to weigh in the same as an IS F.

 

Different drivers, different years and slightly different track layout. Caranddriver uses different journalists to do the laps unlike MotorTrend that uses the same race car driver Randy Pobst ever year. Randy had RCF quicker than LC500. When the GSF and LC500 ran, the track layout had slightly changed. Using the same analogy, Motorsport magazine has RCF lapping circuit de nevers 3 seconds quicker than the ISF or Hokenheimring short in 1.5 seconds quicker. However, they were done most likely by different drivers so in all fairness, it should not be ignored.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/circuit-de-nevers-magny-cours-club

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim-short

As a counter example likewise, with the same driver on the same track, we have seen this before. RCF was 3 seconds quicker than the GSF.

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-...nd-drifts.html

 

Absolutely agreement with you.

I tried to find SOME, ANY, crash test results of any late model Corvette since 2015 model. Evidently there are NO independent crash tests of any kind done yet to date with the Corvette.

True that ALL vehicles sold in the USA must meet MINIMUM Federal Safety Standards. But obviously some cars are safer versus others. The RCF passed these independent crash tests with flying colors. Especially the all important SMALL OVERLAP CRASH TESTS. THE LAST time I tried to find information on this on the M4, none were available. The small overlap crash tests were on the M3 equivalent which performed poor as I recall.

So, YES, I WILL TAKE ALL THAT BRACINGS AND THE IS-C MID SECTION EFFECTIVELY CREATING A SAFETY CAGE TO SURROUND ME IN CASE OF A CRASH ALL DAY, ANY DAY. Even at the expense of extra 600+ pounds or whatever extra weight. So what if I can't go 0 to 60 the fastest or take a mpg penalty of a few mpg. These are irrelevant to me. I rather have SAFETY and RELIABILITY than other perceived advantages.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with weight. Who cares? Even if the RC F is a couple hundred pounds heavier than the competition, even if it is a couple of tenths slower to 60 or around a racetrack does any of that really matter? How many of you actually track your car more than twice a year? How many of you are out on the drag strip regularly?

My point is Lexus made a fast Lexus. They weren't concerned about making the fastest car in the segment. They were concerned about making a high quality fast Lexus that would be luxurious, reliable and stand the test of time. In addition, the NA engine driving experience is superior to the turbocharged competition. The noise and response is leaps and bounds better than the M3/4. Having owned a 911 and Corvette before I can tell you while those cars offered great driving experiences they sucked day-to-day. The Corvette was fast but the crappy build quality was evident everywhere. Especially in the interior and the body panels which were made of fiberglass. People extol the greatness of Porches, but in an urban area they aren't great daily drivers and I found my 911 to be a bit fragile and had numerous reliability issues.

Of all the cars I've ever owned, the RC F is by far the best combination of speed, design, luxury and reliability. To each their own but I'm very happy with my RC F and I plan to keep it around for many years.

 

Well said. See so many comments, mostly from people who don't even drive an M4 or something in this class about the weight and how slow it is. I chose this over the M4 for the NA V8 sound and the overall interior and exterior looks. I pass 6 M4's in my garage each day and to me the look and sound boring. I don't care if they are fraction faster or lighter than my RCF. I love the exclusivity of this car. Believe me, no M4's are turning heads with people wondering what kind of car it is. It's comfortable and reliable and when it needs to be aggressive it can be.

 

This. I rarely see RCFs in my area. A couple new ones have popped up recently and it may be b/c I have been driving mine around for a while now. I see so many duplicates of Porsches, MB, BMWs, Audis, Corvettes, etc...I love being unique and always turning heads or getting compliments for it...especially, when people hear the exhaust sound.

 

Totally agree, the M3/4 is so generic. They are a dime a dozen out here in the DC area. Unless they have carbon bits or a wild color you can hardly tell an M car apart from a ho hum 3er anymore. Some people may criticize the styling of the RC F but I happen to like it. Perhaps its polarizing but at least its different. It definitely gets a lot of attention and compliments, even in a rather muted color like my silver.

Plus, the M3/4 doesnt even have a TVD which makes driving fast for a novice driver much easier. The M3/4 is supposedly a "drivers car," but from what I've seen they mostly get driven into trees because the people driving them have no skill and the cars lack traction. Again, I'll take the more controllable RC F any day of the week.