05RollaXRS

Ray's RCF (Camera car) with exhaust
RCF with header/exhaust
RCF with exhaust
GSF with Intake/header/exhaust + race gas
GSF with 100 shot nitrous
ISF with intake/header/exhaust + RR Tune

GunnyFitz

Dude, you are like the "Thread King" when it comes to exhaust info !

05RollaXRS

While I am bone stock myself LOL

Bluecarbon

yooniverse

Wow!!! Love the sound

pheen619

iTrader: (4)

05RollaXRS

New race between Ray's RCF and an FBO + tune ISF

ISF with intake/header/exhaust + RR Tune
Ray's RCF (Camera car) with full exhaust

Deanrcf

iTrader: (1)

Interesting video. I wonder what would happen if the RCF had intake, headers and tune and no passenger?

yooniverse

I am a RCF owner. Unfortunately I hate to admit this but the ISF seems to be a half car faster in the 1/4 and 1/8 mile drags. I think its the gearing of the ISF and the few hundred pounds advantage that gives it that edge.
I know its not my driving skills because I can and did beat every RCF and GSF with same level mods as mine.

05RollaXRS

I have heard ISF launches better. Power to weight ratio still favors the RCF by 0.5 lbs/HP. Gearing is identical except RCF has another 600 rpm broader powerband. Keep in mind, this is a rolling start race where RCF has a significant advantage at higher speeds over 100 mph, which is why an RCF only with an exhaust kept up with a FBO + tune ISF.

RCF test is about 1 full seconds quicker both to 200 km/h (124 mph) and 150 mph when comparing best numbers recorded. Also, stock RCF has run a 12.5 seconds at sea level, which I have never seen an ISF stock put on the drag strip.

You can see a stock drag race here in this video. RCF seems to put a few car lengths after 100 mph

Vitveet

I've still yet to see FBO RCFs to break 12.3's or lower in the 1/4 mile. PLENTY of FBO ISFs have broken 12.0s or lower, even with a few breaking 11.8s and 11.9s.
still, we're talking tenths of seconds here...which is just a numbers game. Even if the RCFs was a tenth if a second faster, it's still definitely not good enough to be 10 years newer than the IS F👎. Probably partially why the values of the RCFs both new and used are plummeting. Hate to see that for such a rare, new, nice vehicle like the RCF.

V.

05RollaXRS

Not true. Tucker's RCF (when corrected for density altitude) ran a 12.3 seconds with just an exhaust.

Below is a video of a bone stock RCF on sea level running a 12.5 seconds. While they are indeed close in a 1/4 mile race, RCF's main strength shows beyond the 1/4 mile. Also, RCF's recorded 0-200 km/h of 14.5 seconds or 0 - 150 mph of 24.0 seconds are not even close by the ISF. The closest you will find is a 0-200 km/h of 15.6 seconds. We are talking close to a full second difference. That is many car lengths, which is consistent with the Dutch drag race video above. The difference was many car lengths.

RCF simply has no good tune available yet. Just know for a fact exhaust/headers close to 40 - 45 whp above stock. Exhaust alone yields 20 - 30 whp.


You can thumbs down the RCF all you want, but I had driven both cars and totally found it worth spending the $16k extra on the RCF for a reason compared to a 2012 ISF.

Besides, RCF was not meant for straight line. It does not even have a launch control. The biggest difference shows itself in all of the track lap times we had posted earlier where RCF is quicker on all tracks except one (VIR).



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

VIR:

RCF (non-TVD): 3:05
ISF: 3:05

designo

iTrader: (6)

Awesome... loved the video

Vitveet

Everyone puts down good numbers at that track, lol. And "corrected" numbers don't count man, lmao! MOST rcfs struggle to get out of the 13.0 range in the 1/4 mile in reality. Don't believe me? Take your car to the track and see😉! There's a thread with REAL WORLD track results in the ISF forum where you can see the high 11's and low 12's FBO ISFs.....no "corrected" numbers. Last I saw, supercharged RCFs were running 12.3 sec 1/4 mile times....no excuse for that.
But anyway....as I've stated before, I love all the F cars, including the RCF....have driven them all, and the only "models" I really didn't care for were the 2008-2010 ISFs....the '12-'14 drive soooo much better/smoother, etc with all the upgrades and honestly feel better than the RCF and GSF (as other non bias RCF and GSF owners who've owned or own both will admit they prefer the ISF for many reasons).
And again, we're talking small margins either way....neither separate themselves by a large stretch over the other....just saying with 10+ years on the ISF, there's no reason an 08 ISF (going around $20-$25k) should be remotely comparable in performance to a 2018 RCF (going for $60-$70k). The updated interior isn't worth $40-$45k, we all have to admit.

V.

05RollaXRS

There are tons of videos of ISF running mid-13s. Track times depend on too many variables such as altitude, temperature, track conditions, driver skills. I posted a stock RCF running a 12.5 seconds, which means it is done and proven. What is your point? Bottom line, when you put the cars head to head with each other, RCF is consistently quicker. Video above shows an exhaust only RCF hanging with a FBO + tune ISF. Time slips don't mean anything when the cars are put head to head with each other. Beyond the 1/4 mile, the tested best numbers are more than 1 seconds apart. That is many car lengths.

You continue to display ignorance of the facts. RCF with S/C has run mid-10s so you saying a S/C'ed RCF runs 12.3 seconds shows your bias and negativity towards the RCF. Simply baffling.

Your bias and negativity has clearly shown. Should I recap?

That is your opinion about a car you already own and I am glad you are happy with the car you own. People who traded in ISF for RCF don't say what you are saying. If you don't have a reason to trade in your ISF, no one is questioning that. I was in the market when both cars were available and had the money for either. I could have saved a ton of cash by buying an ISF, but I did not. RCF is a much more exciting car to drive. Interior, exterior, lower C0G, high-revving engine, suspension, rev range, transmission shifts improvements.

In a 0-60 mph, agreed they are close. However, rolling start or high speed acceleration is a different story. RCF puts many car lengths on the ISF on the highway, from a roll every time. 1 second difference to 124 mph or 150 mphs is a big difference that translates to many car lengths. Plus, track laps on most tracks are seconds apart.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. If you think the only improvement is just the interior, your bias against the RCF is even worse than I thought especially considering the factual data I put up there already no one can ignore.