I still think they should have put it around the track and at least compare it to the M4 time, since a lot of people out there are getting good times in the RCF

 

When Lexus LF-A and Toyota made the GT86, it made any sporty car from Lexus/Toyota on a different expectation level. As those two cars were absolute drivers cars, and from almost all reviews, the RC-F is not a drivers car

 

lexus is taking the big fat grille too far, making it bigger and bigger. This one looks like one screaming gaping mouth, and it does look quite hideous next to the LFA the way they showed it.

 

I actually think the RC F grille looks fantastic in person, and I didn't like it when I first saw it in pictures ......

 

the rc-f seems more of an accounting exercise (bits of gs, is, is-f, jam together) than a great sports car. i am very disappointed. as JC says - lexus can do so much better. no, it couldn't be an LFA but it could have been a lot closer.

a mustang gt will give the rc-f a run at a lot lower $ point. plus there's a gt350 and 350r which blow away the rc-f. the 350r even has carbon fiber wheels and magneride dampers which should make its handling amazing.

i don't even get who the target buyer is for an rc-f.

 

Well the advent of relentless bean counting, penny pinching and cost cutting of what I define as Lexus of the "post spindle-grill era" is indeed very obvious and quite saddening.

 

Brands like MB are already toning theirs down. Maybe the BIG in your face grill trend is reversing a bit.. BMW has used more restraint throughout this trend.

 

Good question, but, from what I can tell, probably those looking at the BMW M4 or Audi S5/RS5. There are other possible competitors, but those seem like the two main ones.

I agree on the cost-cutting in general, but also another reason is the desire to get weight down for better gas mileage and more responsive handling. But lighter or thinner materials don't always mean cost-cutting (depends on their source).....some of those lighter materials can be quite expensive. And, even so, as others have already pointed out, the RC is not exactly a featherweight.

 

I absolutely agree. I also feel that the RC platform had been sacrificed and compromised by the bean counters since the beginning of its development and the main reason why the RC350 and RC-F are so heavy is because the platform was destined to replace the outdated Lexus IS-C with its own RC convertible version in the near future (which is why the center portion of the Frankenstein chassis is from the IS-C).

 

So when the RC convertible debuts, its going to be even heavier with all the required bracings and such just like the IS-C needed, with the same mid section.

 

meanwhile the 2IS-C is still shown on lexus.com.

 

Actually , i think I read that they said they won't need further re-enforcement for the vert as it's stiff enough as is, so it's like a kill 2 birds with one stone cost cutting strategy.

 

It's still in dealership showrooms

 

With modern computer engineering and metal-alloys, it is much easier today to design and build a convertible frame strong enough to be resistant to cowl-shake than years ago. For instance, I don't know if you remember them or not, but the unibody Dodge 400 and Chrysler LeBaron convertibles of the early 1980s were so prone to cowl flex that the steering wheel, column, and windshield header all shimmied back and forth like a belly-dancer, even at low speeds, where the shimmying was of a slower tempo. Add to that a poorly-stamped wheel/tire or two out of balance and/or slightly out-of-round (which, trust me, was very common in those days), and you often had a very annoying car to drive.

 

not entirely true. the grill on the S class is huge, larger than its predecessor