Uda880

iTrader: (7)

I was surprised he actually found one on Turo and reviewed it.


EDIT: Associated Reddit thread for more reading. It's definitely splitting a lot of opinions. https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/commen..._a_total_flop/

BLexodus

iTrader: (1)

He spends a little too much time going over the 'quirks' of the car. And he deleted his in car footage of the review.

He says the person who buys this car is likely "too old for an M4" and basically calls it a fun luxury cruiser.

"You don't buy the RCF because its the best car, you buy it because its the best deal."

I've seen plenty of his reviews, this wasn't one of his best.

cvt

I like Doug Demuro. Can't listen in on the review as my work computer has no speakers. Hope he was kind to the RCF.

Benoit

In my eyes, the RCF is killed by the bad buzz generated by car enthousiasts and the "always more" mentality of the younger generation.

It's judged to be slow, even if the performance scores are those from a Ferrari a few decades ago. It's judged to be too comfortable, even if, in the practical way, this sentence makes no sense, you can easily swap the suspension on it and make a good drift car or whatever sporty car you like. It's righfully judged to be heavy for a sportscoupe, but in the same time, he's lighter than many "performance suv's" on the market and nimble on its feets. But in the generation 3.0 ; a sportscoupe that is 0.5 seconds slower than an M4 isn't good at all. Let's spit, let's bash and let's hate.

But I like that the car is misdgudged.
1) Because it makes the car cheaper in the used market.
2) Because it makes the car less attractive for the @ssholes that usually drives M4's. It's preserving the good name of Lexus, making sure that the "dude" called Shawn, that is doing drugs, has a rockband that never performs, sleeps with underage girls, does streetrace at the weekend with his "crew", and lives in his grandmother's basement ; will never tarnish the image of our favourite brand. Those guys are all at Merc, Audi & BMW, and it's a good thing.

ragingf80

The RC F has a special place in my heart, because I was very excited the first time I heard of it and very very excited the first time I saw one. I think they look stunning, and I was generally a fan of the IS F, and the RC F looked like an even more sporty version of that. Doug's video represents the disappointment I and a lot of potential customers felt when the reviews started coming out and his observations about the "F" brand are spot on. I really felt like Lexus didn't fully commit to this car being a real performer. Powerful engine, sporty design characteristics, sporty interior... but there was something lacking. BMW's M line, on the other hand, seemed to be more committed to the ultimate experience. The RC 350 weighs LESS than an RC F, yet the RC F is the performance version? To me, it's more than power, and it's more than just straight line speed. BMW went the opposite direction: the 340i weights 2-300lbs MORE than the M3/4. Okay, the RC F's weight is due to the V8... so why did they use a V8? Again, Doug said it perfectly: commitment. The V8 sounds good, it doesn't sound great, and the power increase is only slightly more than that of the BMW I6 Twin Turbo, and has LESS torque and weighs 400lbs more. Its a bit baffling to me why they chose it other than the fact that they already had one from the IS F and that it looks good on paper to have a V8. A decade ago, this was a competitive engine... a decade ago. The RC F is more heart braking to me because of the missed opportunity of what it could have been.

Like many enthusiasts, I don't shop for a bargain, I shop for a car. Ultimately, this lead me away from the RC F.

brendanf

ragingf80

1. Hence the lack of commitment from Lexus to really go all in on the F brand, which is what Doug mentioned.
2. The customers in the $75k+ high performance car market that the manufacturers care about will be looking for new cars in 3 years.

cvt

Is it because Lexus customers are more "keepers" than "lease'ers"? I find more Lexus customers tend to buy and BMW owners tend to lease. Maybe it's a different customer demographic?

Diesel350

05RollaXRS

BTW, the Mustang GT weighs around 3900 lbs (with 10 speed auto). Also, the C63, RS5, GT350, Camaro SS 1LE, Giulia all weigh between 3850 - 4100 lbs, but following the same old rhetoric, it is only brought up for the RCF in terms of "blunting" in handling.

The added weight is due to the extra chassis bracing in the middle section that adds chassis rigidity and it is clearly felt while pushing it hard through turns, where the lack of chassis flex is apparent.

While his words were harsh, Doug basically gave almost the similar score to the RCF in many dynamic department as the Giulia or M2.

rmason

comfort is so underrated in this segment.
I was looking forward to this review. Its a bit different from his standard reviews in that he doesn't show the clip of him driving it but couldn't care less. I like it and that's what matters.

ragingf80

Just? It needs millions and millions of R&D in suspension and tuning, millions more for a new power plant, expensive lightweight components, and the willingness for the general public to buy a $80k sports coupe with a Lexus badge over the next generation M3/4, AMG, and Audi RS variant. Lets face it, the Mustang, as good as it is, has a different demographic than Lexus or BMW. If all we were after is track performance, we'd all be driving Mustangs and Camaro ZL1s, because they "spank" them all in this category.

Diesel350

05RollaXRS

Yes, because RCF has a lot more chassis bracing (which accounts for added weight) and 80% of the suspension is different than the RC350. The RWD RC350 weighs only 100 less.
RWD 340i and M3 weigh about the same. 3600ish lbs.

The high revving V8 is what is considered the most highlight of the car. As a matter of fact, RCF won a few reviews over the M4 mostly because of how visceral and enjoyable the engine was. There are pros and cons to each. You get easy tunability and small displacement with much better torque in a turbo engine while you get the sound, quick response and linear powerband in an N/A V8, high revving.

Could we have gotten this good a noise, if we had gotten an M4? With an E92 M3, yes of course (which was my other choice). The additional 20 - 30 whp is also a bonus with just an exhaust.


I have driven both M4 and RCF and the sound is incomparable. Once you put an aftermarket exhaust like Armytrix on RCF, the sound is the highlight and you will see that in the comments of the videos (check out JP Performance videos)

Because V8 is the biggest strength of this car that makes it the most enjoyable. Just because M4 chose to go in-line 6, does not make it a standard for other to follow. Other than the engine block, it is a heavily redesigned engine. Maybe, check out the list of new things in the RCF V8. It produces 95 HP/Liter, but has relatively long gearing. Something like a Mustang GT or Camaro SS 10 speed have very shortly spaced gearing so there is a big difference there compared to long geared RCF. Keep in mind, one of the test has shown (Autogefeul, German), RCF did 0 - 200 (124 mph) km/h in only 13 seconds.

Keep in mind, back in the day E90/E92 M3 was considered benchmark in terms of track handling. RCF runs quicker laps than E90/E92 M3 on majority of the tracks, but then is said to be too heavy for the track.

coolsaber

So essentially the RCF can never win. Take it as you may, its alot of car for not a lot of money comparable to what its against, and in true Toyota/Lexus fashion Jack of all master of none.