CAHWY128

Wow. Another review comparing the RCF to the M4. So original. I will say, I am stoked to know there is a F badge on my rear cup holder! See, I did learn something...lol. Thanks Doug!

DannyRCF

Diesel350

You don't think that Lexus can do things to the RC-F engine like larger valves, upgraded bearings, improved cylinder heads, new intake manifold, etc just like Ford did to increase HP?


Umm Lexus already spent millions with the RC-F GT-3. Better engine that produces 500+ HP and much lighter. It takes a while for that tech to get from a racing car to a car the general public will drive. Let's face it most people buy the M3/4 because of the badge and think it can out perform any sports car out there but many will never take it to the track. They would have been better off buying a 440i. For a daily driver the C63 or RC-F are much more pleasant to drive than the M3.

ragingf80

For argument's sake, even if it isn't significantly less than a 340i, it is certainly not MORE, unlike the RC F vs the RC 350. The M3/4 also has a stiffer chassis, LSD, heavier S55, and different suspension, like the RC F. My point still stands: Lexus did not fully commit to weight loss. Let me stress that, in itself, this isn't entirely bad. The M3/4 lost a good amount of sound deadening material compared to the civilian 3 series for the sake of weight loss. BMW was committed enough to know that M drivers would tolerate road noise. Lexus was not. This was a choice by Lexus to lean more towards Luxury than performance. Hence Doug was right: they weren't fully committed to F as a performance brand.


I agree. Its a great engine, and it sounds better than a S55. BUT, it's heavy and it needs more power and torque. Lexus should have spent the money to get the numbers up to warrant it's weight.

The MPE and aftermarket exhausts sound good on the M3/4 as well. Not aftermarket exhaust V8 good, but better than stock and better than the stock RC F.


The RC F came out a year after the E9X was discontinued. It should be compared to contemporaries.

Let me reiterate: I made a decision to not get an RC F for the reasons stated above, that were important to me. It seems like a lot of people made similar decisions and share the disappointment with what the RC F could have been. That is not to say it's a bad car, and I think even Doug agrees. The interior is beautiful, I happen to love it's exterior stylings, and it's STILL a fast and capable car. I just had to go another direction at the time.

ragingf80

That's one thing I didn't really agree with. Such a strange comment. In my experience, the M3/4 and RC F drivers are about the same age on average.

05RollaXRS

Don't disagree with what you say. Being an owner of an RCF with TVD/Carbon Fiber, it is extremely frustrating that this masterpiece does not get its due. In some reviews, it does, but then you have fools like Doug who drive the car for 20 minutes and suddenly they understand everything about the car. It is a Jekyll and hyde car. The transmission speed when floored and in sport+, is where it is the quickest. When pushed hard, the car shrinks around the driver. Everything gets tight and sharp. Steering, throttle and transmission. None of that is reflected in Doug's review. Though, Doug did give RCF a fair score, which was on par with Giulia and M2.

This reviewer is an M4 owner and everything he says is fair. Not a single thing I can complain about.





Like I said before, the engine itself though different from ISF, has the same engine block. The weight comes from the chassis reinforcements. The engineer said, the ISC middle section was heavy due to large amounts of chassis reinforcements. ISF weighed 3800 lbs with LSD ( official curb weight 3780 lbs) and RCF weighs 4000 lbs (official curb weight 3950 lbs). Difference is in the chassis, suspension and the luxury equipment.

ragingf80

Sure they can. The point is: they didn't.

Too late, maybe for the next gen RC F, but that doesn't really help this gen does it?

Gee, generalize much? Best keep the conversation about the car rather than marginalize drivers.

1) I've already owned a 340i as a daily, thank you very much, it was a good commuter.
2) The M3 isn't my daily btw, so I don't think this applies to me.
3) I have tracked my M3, and I don't think it can out perform any sports car out there.
4) My next car (i8, R8 RWS, or maybe another M4) will not out perform any sports car out there either. BUT, I will make a decision based on my unique needs and desires, just like when I chose the M3 over a C63, RS5 and RC F.

Uda880

iTrader: (7)

It's a tough one guys, I think I agree with the overall tone of the review, I even said comments that echoed the same sentiments (that also touches on the same points ragingf80 does) from my own reviews back when one of the new users came here looking for opinions on the RCF. I thought it was a great daily driver - fast, luxurious, full of neat gadgets and tech that made life easier. But at the same time, I felt everything was good, but not perfect - the interior materials felt nice, but there were parts of hard plastic in commonly touched areas, the door closing seemed hollow, the performance was good but not sporting, the ride was GT-like, but not full comfort. I simply couldn't ignore that while the RCF fulfilled most of the selection criterium I look for in a daily driver sports car, it wasn't all there. There weren't notions that the design was art like, the engine was a boastful, high revving V8 sound but didn't have any distinctive notes, and on and on.

Most of the reviews like the car. None of them loved the car. It's when you start looking at the edges of performance, comfort, accessibility, luxury, etc. that the RCF falls flat. But then again, maybe that's not a bad thing. In an effort to cater to the seemingly "largest" group of enthusiasts, it turned off a good portion of them at the same time. I know you guys love your RCFs, I did when I owned mine as well, but I guess some of us just couldn't ignore that nagging feeling...

ragingf80

Doug used a clickbait-y title for this video. The video itself isn't so one sided, but it did hint on why the RC F doesn't get it's due. Like I said before: great car, but it could have been something much more and people were disappointed.



Oh, ic what you are saying. Nonetheless, if BMW was able to do it, Lexus should have been able to. The M3/4 is plenty stiff. Even with a slightly heavier V8, the RF C could have lost more weight if Lexus wasn't so concerned about the luxury equipment.

Lets put it this way: The track rats would have happily embraced this car more universally if it was 3500lbs with the same engine. That's really what it came down to. I would have happily picked a grunting RC F over the M3 if that were the case.

Kerune

At this point I'm tired of hearing the same comments about the RC and at this point I still don't have anyone in person asking me about these criticisms. The car remains to be unique and unheard of in the day to day.

There is too much consideration of tracking this car and too much consideration of the M4. It's been out since the 2015 model year and I've only seen ONE on the road, what more on the track? New MSRP warrants the criticism and correct at $70k I can get an M4 and at under $50k I can get similar performance with a SRT 392 but you ask for more luxury than both the cars and keep the V8 grunt and suddenly there's tunnel vision on turbos.

Again if we had an M4 killer here that sold in the 70k+ range all day a lot of us here would now be comparing to a different bracket of cars and failing again if we followed this logic. Majority of us here recognize where the value is and shame on the idea of buying this car brand new but at $45-50k I'd NEVER choose a brand new Dodge or Ford over it and it'd take some convincing to buy an out of warranty F8X over it because of the reasons we reiterate over and over and over again.

Yes those reasons may not be valid if you're comparing brand new vs brand new but stop the redundancy, the car is readily available to buy as a CPO. Like Doug said it's a great deal. It's a compromise in performance but sorry what else did we compromise on when we paid less, have great seats, sound better, confident about reliability, and rare on the road?

BossMoss

Not so much a different demographic, but a different mindset. Because owning a BMW is a nightmare once the warranty ends. Too many days in the shop and too much $$$. So yes, if I wanted a BMW, I would for sure lease. I wouldn't want it anymore as it neared it's scheduled implosion. My Lexus, OTOH, I intend to keep indefinitely, so I purchased. Of course, I may decide I want something different in the future, but for now the RC-F is here to stay.

One other note - BMWs are a dime a dozen in AZ. M3, M5, M4 I see nearly every day. RCF? I see another one maybe once every month. I'm still dumbfounded by the number of people that roll down their windows to ask me what it is, or the name of the color. This alone makes me more likely to keep the RCF around. I like that it seems to be more exclusive.

konichiwa3

We should all be happy that the M4 exists, it sets a high bar. The fact on average the M4 can only beat the RCF at fraction of a second considering it's more heavily tuned for the track is testament to how good the RCF is. Pssst;"By the way, depending on the track the RCF will beat the M4 again and again." On tracks that have long straightaways and fast turns the RCF would dominate as it's consistently tapping into its top end power.

Willow springs where motor trend raced the RCF and M4, the track was better suited for the M4's torquey engine. With all the twist's and turns at willow springs the RCF could never get enough room to stretch its legs at the top end range of it's horsepower and M4 could consistently out brake the RCF with lesser brake fade thanks to those carbon ceramics and less carried weight. At the end of the day M4 could only beat RCF by 3/10ths of a second!! In contrast if you look at the AMCI testing with Justin Bell the track was well suited for the RCF as the track layout was long with fast swooping turns. Beating the M4 by 2 whole seconds! People could hum and haw that this was fixed. Yes it was fixed! They set up the race on a track they knew the RCF could win. The same can be said for the M4 on Willow springs!

If you watch a lot of GT racing you will see this evident too. In some tracks the Naturally aspirated GT cars will outperform the forced induction ones. In other tracks the forced induction ones will tend to dominate.

The RCF was designed so the novice road racer can take it to the track and not feel like they are going to die. It was designed to be forgiving. All this RCF bashing is unfair and probably shows a lack of sensibilities. Talk to the RCF designers and try and understand their philosophy and where they were coming from before you pass judgement.

Each car has its own strengths and they should be allowed to shine on their own virtues.
At the end of the day which is better and why is splitting hairs, lets all get along! Life is Good!

LXSDO

Agreed! We know it's not the fastest and even if you did own the fastest, there would be a faster car.
You really have to look at it as a road car and how you will use it everyday. Then it makes sense. The designers understand that. It's sort of paternalistic. Giving you want you need vs want.

Boils down to bragging rights and some people like that and they want to know they have the fastest car in the segment and goes around the 'Ring this fast and such. The reality is that most people can't even exploit that "edge" of the car. And even if you're skilled enough to even extract 7/10ths out of this car you'll probably end up in jail. From what I've read/heard, M4 is truly better at the edge but I know personally that I will never see that edge on either car. And you know the fastest car in Southern CA is the hybrid in the carpool lane.

I bought the car for the design, the power, and the intangibles. The discount was a nice bonus, but honestly, not too many cars in this category checks the boxes for a Daily Driver for me. Call it blissful ignorance.
But at the end of the day, the car is nice to be in, makes me excited to drive it, and makes me feel special and coddled. It's more than enough power for the street.

You really can't ignore the looks and how rare it is. The styling is aging wonderfully -that Lexus design baby!
I love walking pass all the sheep who drive M3s/M4s (because Ultimate Driving Machine) in the parking lot. YAWN. They're excellent cars.
We're car enthusiasts and can appreciate all cars.

rogers2

Great write up…The problem is that Lexus is chasing the M4 not the opposite way around. Why build a car that’s not going to outperform the M4 in every way. People should stop making excuses for Lexus. Lexus makes some of the most reliable cars in the world but always come up short on performances.
I don’t care about the engineer philosophy. I want your car to outperform your rival. I’m superficial so at least look better than your rival.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the reason the RCF weighs more than the M3 isnt due to the use of the V8 engine, its other things

Doug is off sometimes, especially his NSX review where he was literally trying hard to find good things to say about it when the car isnt that great.