Roll Race: Stock RC-F vs Stock BMW M4
06-19-17, 06:04 PM
#46
Lexus Test Driver
06-19-17, 06:27 PM
#47
New alleged Supra will have a BMW powerplant more than likely same engine as M4 or variant of. Will new Supra be faster than M4 who knows lot of factors will come into play.
06-19-17, 07:09 PM
#51
Pole Position
X2. Reliability is the key for me. I just don't want to fly into work and my stupid BMW will not GO. I guess I could rent a car, but I just want to have my own car. Rented cars left and right after I land at work years ago......all good, but just not my thing. However, I do rent SUV's when on vacation with family.
Warranty or not, it is still a headache and time away from my mission critical work to get to where I need to be on demand. My objective is to have the most reliable fun car possible. RCF fits the bill nicely.
Warranty or not, it is still a headache and time away from my mission critical work to get to where I need to be on demand. My objective is to have the most reliable fun car possible. RCF fits the bill nicely.
Reliability does matter- , some people buy cars to keep them for the long haul. Not everyone can afford to buy a car like this and throw it away every 2-3 years.
I have friends with old bimmers, audis, etc.... those cars are nice, but are often dumpster fires of randomly broken ****. I think if someone rode an RCF past 100K vs an M4 or something, the total costs comparison would be pretty hilarious by the time the cars were spent. (not to mention the aggravation of random broken ****, lol).
-Mike
I have friends with old bimmers, audis, etc.... those cars are nice, but are often dumpster fires of randomly broken ****. I think if someone rode an RCF past 100K vs an M4 or something, the total costs comparison would be pretty hilarious by the time the cars were spent. (not to mention the aggravation of random broken ****, lol).
-Mike
06-19-17, 07:25 PM
#52
There's always somebody faster there are highly modded M4/M3's making same power as the rr-racing sc. With M's being lighter that's a factor, once people buy and install that SC time will tell how they do against M cars. I'm a fan of anything with power but there are lots of factors, weight, power band, tires/suspension and most of all driver mod.
06-19-17, 07:25 PM
#53
Lexus Test Driver
For me, the look and the engine seals the deal for the RCF. I am not going to drag race anyone so I don't care if the M4 is quicker.
06-19-17, 08:07 PM
#55
Lexus Test Driver
M4s power is underrated. Us SoCal guys with FBO and tune dynoed at a European shop. We were putting down 410-425whp with all NA mods. I was asking the owner what stock m4s were putting down and he showed me. They were all around ~425-430whp. That's already still more than us at FBO tuned
What dyno? I had always heard, not sure if still holds true today or has been corrected in recent years, that inertia dynos read higher than brake. Seems like we used either 3% or 7% below max ceiling if using brake for NASA bound engines and they would read NASA max when verified on inertia. Some factory or PMNA sealed were certainly stronger than others back then. Definitely far from expert or in the know on dynos though . . .
Last edited by DougHII; 06-19-17 at 08:11 PM.
06-19-17, 08:18 PM
#56
No inclination to read through everyone of these posts so perhaps this has already been said. The F8X has an incredibly linear torque curve. The NA motor just cannot hang and NA motors in this price range in general cannot hang with forced inductions which have tons more area under the torque curve. Even Porsche finally relented. My F80 ZCP which a bit more on tap than non-ZCP and is a frantic, angry little beast. I am not a huge 0-60 guy and more focused on handling in the twisties, but the F80 ZCP produces some serious power.
What dyno? I had always heard, not sure if still holds true today or has been corrected in recent years, that inertia dynos read higher than brake. Seems like we used either 3% or 7% below max ceiling if using brake for NASA bound engines and they would read NASA max when verified on inertia. Some factory or PMNA sealed were certainly stronger than others back then. Definitely far from expert or in the know on dynos though . . .
What dyno? I had always heard, not sure if still holds true today or has been corrected in recent years, that inertia dynos read higher than brake. Seems like we used either 3% or 7% below max ceiling if using brake for NASA bound engines and they would read NASA max when verified on inertia. Some factory or PMNA sealed were certainly stronger than others back then. Definitely far from expert or in the know on dynos though . . .
06-19-17, 08:49 PM
#57
It is a dynojet at EAS (european auto source) in anaheim socal. yeah the owner was explaining a bit to us that the f8Xs were like putting consistent numbers around 425-430whp on their dyno almost regardless of temps because he said the ECU fluctuated plus/minus 3 psi of boost to compensate thus putting down the same power. for example, if it was like 95F outside those cars would still put down around the same power yet an NA isf/rcf like ours might be putting down much less do to heat soaking. it was interesting but yeah one m4 was putting down 525whp with fbo and tune the same time we were dynoing, pretty beastly
06-19-17, 10:10 PM
#58
Pole Position
Amen!!! 😀😀😀😁😁👍👍👍
no, this is definitely not correct. The m4 will always suffer more from heat soak and increased temperatures. It's why road racing applications are generally not using turbo's or superchargers. That being said, i seriously doubt in a long track day the m4 wouldn't be having issues. You're talking about a turbo charged engine with 7 quarts of oil in the sump vs a n/a with 10. Most gt-r's i test including the big alpha's have overheating issues in road races and require aftermarket coolers. The turbos won't keep making that power over and over while they're being stressed, the rc f is barely going to get worked. If the rc f had suspension work done, to take it from the gt lexus wanted into a more track ready vehicle, you'd probably see the lexus hold ground on the m4 and take it in an endurance race. The rc f is so good at staying cool, it doesn't even require a 40 weight.
06-20-17, 05:25 AM
#59
Lexus Test Driver
No, this is definitely not correct. The M4 will always suffer more from heat soak and increased temperatures. It's why road racing applications are generally not using turbo's or superchargers. That being said, I seriously doubt in a long track day the M4 wouldn't be having issues. You're talking about a turbo charged engine with 7 quarts of oil in the sump vs a N/A with 10. Most GT-R's I test including the big Alpha's have overheating issues in road races and require aftermarket coolers. The turbos won't keep making that power over and over while they're being stressed, the RC F is barely going to get worked. If the RC F had suspension work done, to take it from the GT Lexus wanted into a more track ready vehicle, you'd probably see the Lexus hold ground on the M4 and take it in an endurance race. The RC F is so good at staying cool, it doesn't even require a 40 weight.
Turbo engines all but disappeared from racing in the late 80s or early 90s not because NA was better . . . Forced induction was too powerful, too dominant and the sports was becoming too dangerous. The FIA also found it easier to heavily regulate power produced NA engines to keep it both safe, more competitive and to keep the costs down in certain classes to foster more competition. I for one appreciated the regulations as it permitted me to be very competitive throughout the 90s and early 2000s primarily as privateer on a limited budget, but with some backing by companies such as TRG and etc.
The following users liked this post:
danielTRLK (06-20-17)
06-20-17, 06:05 AM
#60
What about the 935 or 962? Both turbos and so dominant that it led to rules changes. F1 permitted turbos until around 89. As with the 935 and 962, turbo engines in F1 were so dominant, so powerful and became so dangerous that FIA kept trying to rein them in throughout the 80s by down regulating them until finally banning them I believe around 1990. Both Indy and F1 has gone back to turbo, but engines are severally restricted to keep power reined in. I remember WRC fighting with restricting turbo engines to keep the power down in the 90s and something about Toyota being banned due to restrictor issues on its turbo engines.
Turbo engines all but disappeared from racing in the late 80s or early 90s not because NA was better . . . Forced induction was too powerful, too dominant and the sports was becoming too dangerous. The FIA also found it easier to heavily regulate power produced NA engines to keep it both safe, more competitive and to keep the costs down in certain classes to foster more competition. I for one appreciated the regulations as it permitted me to be very competitive throughout the 90s and early 2000s primarily as privateer on a limited budget, but with some backing by companies such as TRG and etc.
Turbo engines all but disappeared from racing in the late 80s or early 90s not because NA was better . . . Forced induction was too powerful, too dominant and the sports was becoming too dangerous. The FIA also found it easier to heavily regulate power produced NA engines to keep it both safe, more competitive and to keep the costs down in certain classes to foster more competition. I for one appreciated the regulations as it permitted me to be very competitive throughout the 90s and early 2000s primarily as privateer on a limited budget, but with some backing by companies such as TRG and etc.