Chris Harris:What The F Is A Lexus Performance Car?
#76
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wasn´t the RC-F meant to be a cab models as well ,and thats one reason for using the previous gen IS C chassi to make it stiffer ? Besides that, is the chassi really the main reason for its weight, a turbo charged 3-3,5 V6 and a DSG instead of this V8 and traditional gearbox would probably do a lot !
#77
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wasn´t the RC-F meant to be a cab models as well ,and thats one reason for using the previous gen IS C chassi to make it stiffer ? Besides that, is the chassi really the main reason for its weight, a turbo charged 3-3,5 V6 and a DSG instead of this V8 and traditional gearbox would probably do a lot !
for weird, here's e92 335 vs m3 again as example
e92 335 - 3571lb
e92 m3 - 3704lb
then on the RC vs IS
is350 - 3593lb
rc350 - 3748lb
rcf - 3958lb
so we can see that fundamentally the rc is 150lb heavier than is and i can only put that on the chassis. you have a point that the v8 adds more weight, but imho there are pros and cons (i am not a huge fan of the tti6)
#78
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
How did I dismissed the weight differnce, that's the first thing I try to analyse & mentioned ? ![Uhh...](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/1387914497.gif)
the 0-60 speed is due to the turbo charger low end torque being the difference, but the RC is a better road car, plus the top track speed of the M4 is not consistently achievable even by the testers, whereas the RC F's are just slightly slower and are consistently repeatable. You need a professional driver to get the best out of the M4, and they can't even do that everytime, that's the main factor behind these results, and I think that's the purpose of the Lexus engineers, a different approach, not every sports coupe has to have the exact character as the M4, otherwise why have alternative choices ? So yes, I maintain if RC F is a C car, the M4 is at most a C+ ...
And if you look at top gear's printed verdict, it's undoubtedly a very "forced" verdict : 363 to 2, the RC F is a better car they said, but the M4 still wins. And this sentiment is reflected in many other reviews as well (if you read/watch all of them in the review thread in the RC F forum). But Jeremy Clarkson's antics in dissing the RC F in the TV program and Chris Harris comments here are just getting most of the attention ...
![Uhh...](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/1387914497.gif)
the 0-60 speed is due to the turbo charger low end torque being the difference, but the RC is a better road car, plus the top track speed of the M4 is not consistently achievable even by the testers, whereas the RC F's are just slightly slower and are consistently repeatable. You need a professional driver to get the best out of the M4, and they can't even do that everytime, that's the main factor behind these results, and I think that's the purpose of the Lexus engineers, a different approach, not every sports coupe has to have the exact character as the M4, otherwise why have alternative choices ? So yes, I maintain if RC F is a C car, the M4 is at most a C+ ...
And if you look at top gear's printed verdict, it's undoubtedly a very "forced" verdict : 363 to 2, the RC F is a better car they said, but the M4 still wins. And this sentiment is reflected in many other reviews as well (if you read/watch all of them in the review thread in the RC F forum). But Jeremy Clarkson's antics in dissing the RC F in the TV program and Chris Harris comments here are just getting most of the attention ...
Lexus's different approach is one akin to the old gm, their approach was to use whats available. There is almost no new hardware on this car at all.
Your saying that Clarkson and Harris's words are cry for attention and they only highlight the worst, the fact this topic has been addressed on this forum multiple on occasions disproves that. Look at how many disappointed enthusiasts are crying foul. Is it normal for successful cars to be criticized by people loyal to the brand?
#79
Super Moderator
![](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/ranks/rank-smod2.gif)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
the Franken chassis is a disappointment no doubt because of the added weight, but top gear themselves said it's an empty victory after declaring the M4 as their "winner" at the end, all you need is reread their own words.
Sure there are some disappointments, including for me, but the fact is the RCF is never nearly as bad as some trying to paint it as, and is in fact very competitive compared to the M4, despite some of the disappointing shortcomings, the detailed reviews posted from all sources proved that. Even the "outdated" V8 is still getting praises in some reviews.
most crying foul I saw are either trolls from other brand's fan boy owners, and ISF owners trolling the new RC F , to justify their continuous ownership of the ISF. There are always no lack of previous generation lexus models owners dissing the new generation when they came out as I remember it,. This is not limited to Lexus forums, as there are many C6 corvettes owners dissing the C7 in corvette forums too for example ......
Sure there are some disappointments, including for me, but the fact is the RCF is never nearly as bad as some trying to paint it as, and is in fact very competitive compared to the M4, despite some of the disappointing shortcomings, the detailed reviews posted from all sources proved that. Even the "outdated" V8 is still getting praises in some reviews.
most crying foul I saw are either trolls from other brand's fan boy owners, and ISF owners trolling the new RC F , to justify their continuous ownership of the ISF. There are always no lack of previous generation lexus models owners dissing the new generation when they came out as I remember it,. This is not limited to Lexus forums, as there are many C6 corvettes owners dissing the C7 in corvette forums too for example ......
Last edited by Gojirra99; 04-17-15 at 06:27 AM.
#80
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: WA
Posts: 1,746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
the Franken chassis is a disappointment no doubt because of the added weight, but top gear themselves said it's an empty victory after declaring the M4 as their "winner" at the end, all you need is reread their own words.
Sure there are some disappointments, including for me, but the fact is the RCF is never nearly as bad as some trying to paint it as, and is in fact very competitive compared to the M4, despite some of the disappointing shortcomings, the detailed reviews posted from all sources proved that.
most crying foul I saw are either trolls from other brand's fan boy owners, and ISF owners trolling the new RC F , to justify their continuous ownership of the ISF. There are always no lack of previous generation lexus models owners dissing the new generation when they came out as I remember it,. This is not limited to Lexus forums, as there are many C6 corvettes owners dissing the C7 in corvette forums too for example ......
Sure there are some disappointments, including for me, but the fact is the RCF is never nearly as bad as some trying to paint it as, and is in fact very competitive compared to the M4, despite some of the disappointing shortcomings, the detailed reviews posted from all sources proved that.
most crying foul I saw are either trolls from other brand's fan boy owners, and ISF owners trolling the new RC F , to justify their continuous ownership of the ISF. There are always no lack of previous generation lexus models owners dissing the new generation when they came out as I remember it,. This is not limited to Lexus forums, as there are many C6 corvettes owners dissing the C7 in corvette forums too for example ......
#81
Super Moderator
![](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/ranks/rank-smod2.gif)
#82
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
if lexus had better vision and developed the IS chassis correctly, they could have used it for RC and thus making new ISF and RCF with a much better cost basis.
the fact that they had to go through all the trouble to make a whole new LEGO RC chassis tells you something. if anyone thinks it's rigidity then i think it's bs coz' we all know that the IS has a very good chassis already. i will just let people think, but just think why the IS doesn't have a ISF variant anymore, and why they had to make a LEGO RC chassis so they can put the v8 in.
if today bmw accidentally makes a 3 series chassis and crap they can't fit the engine or make a 4 series work, it will be very costly for them to "create" another chassis for 4 series too.
so that shows how important it is to have the chassis right from the start
the fact that they had to go through all the trouble to make a whole new LEGO RC chassis tells you something. if anyone thinks it's rigidity then i think it's bs coz' we all know that the IS has a very good chassis already. i will just let people think, but just think why the IS doesn't have a ISF variant anymore, and why they had to make a LEGO RC chassis so they can put the v8 in.
if today bmw accidentally makes a 3 series chassis and crap they can't fit the engine or make a 4 series work, it will be very costly for them to "create" another chassis for 4 series too.
so that shows how important it is to have the chassis right from the start
Rigidity isnt BS, the RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than the 4GS chassis which the 3IS is based off of. The same chassis that beat the 5 series and 3 series in some tests, and the RCF is another 50% stiffer on top of this. I drove both RCs and the chassis is definately even stiffer than the 3IS which was already a huge leap up over the 2IS chassis.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 04-17-15 at 08:16 AM.
#83
Lead Lap
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sure there are some disappointments, including for me, but the fact is the RCF is never nearly as bad as some trying to paint it as, and is in fact very competitive compared to the M4, despite some of the disappointing shortcomings, the detailed reviews posted from all sources proved that. Even the "outdated" V8 is still getting praises in some reviews.
Being a competitor is not good enough anymore. If they want to sell cars worldwide like MB and BMW do they need to kill the competition, not just match it.
That all being said, I would still choose the RC-F over an M4. Its better looking, has a better interior and is rarer than 3/4 series BMWs. It also doesnt look like an IS350 which is a plus.
#84
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Im glad they used the frankenchassis so it can look like a real coupe, not a sedan with 2 doors chopped off that would give it awkward proportions. Big GS hood, short 2IS wheelbase, 3IS short rear deck = coupe proportions. It looks like its own car as a result, not an IS with 2 doors chopped off. E92 and F82 coupes never look as good as their sedan versions because its a coupe based off a sedan. Yaguchi said he wanted the GS front to fit the V8 better and to have wider tires. You cannot fit 255s in the standard IS front. Yea a V8 fit in the 2IS after the front end had to be extended by 3 inches to move the radiator up. IS chassis is not designed for a V8. Frankenchassis accomplishes 2 major things - giving it true coupe proportions and making the base chassis have the technical requirements to create the F variant from the beginning. Unlike the 2IS chassis which to create the ISF was put together from what they had. If you want to complain about Lexus using frankenchassis what about other companies using sedan bodies to make a coupe. Lexus actually succeeded in making this car have its own unique look and identity despite using existing parts. Much better job than other companies.
Rigidity isnt BS, the RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than the 4GS chassis which the 3IS is based off of. The same chassis that beat the 5 series and 3 series in some tests, and the RCF is another 50% stiffer on top of this. I drove both RCs and the chassis is definately even stiffer than the 3IS which was already a huge leap up over the 2IS chassis.
Rigidity isnt BS, the RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than the 4GS chassis which the 3IS is based off of. The same chassis that beat the 5 series and 3 series in some tests, and the RCF is another 50% stiffer on top of this. I drove both RCs and the chassis is definately even stiffer than the 3IS which was already a huge leap up over the 2IS chassis.
what's the definition of coupe proportion? i think personal subjective feeling is more like it. i respect you for not liking bmw but i think a lot of people do like the bmw coupe look (i think they sell so many coupe for more reasons than just the brand). i like the e92 proportion just fine. and just in case, i like the 1sc style too. rc? it looks bulky to me BUT i don't dislike the look.
the excuse of not able to fit 255 in the 3is front is quite confusing to me. what is keeping them from having a wider fender, which manufacturers do all the time? i believe even the isf had it. having the gs front to fit the v8 yes that's the reason. but wider tires, they don't necessarily have to go with a freaking different front chassis to achieve that.
i don't discredit lexus on making the rc look different, imho great for them. i like it. but at what cost? weight? i am unsure about that. i never said the other companies using sedan for coupe is a good thing either. i always think the c class coupe looks weird, so that shows i am not biased against any brand.
i criticize things as they are and i don't start looking for excuses when it's lexus.
Last edited by rominl; 04-18-15 at 12:30 AM.
#85
Super Moderator
![](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/ranks/rank-smod2.gif)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
They managed to fit a V8 in the last ISF with a bulging hood, and should have learnt from that experience, but the 3IS can't fit the V8 in even with a bulging hood this time to make a new ISF ??? That's the puzzling part ![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![Uhh...](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/1387914497.gif)
#86
Formerly Bad Co
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It could also be a width issue. It's really all just speculation and it really doesn't do us any good to guess.
#87
Pole Position
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There just has to be a better design strategy to get that V8 into a smaller Lexus.
Last edited by KevinGS; 04-18-15 at 07:51 PM.
#88
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
blame euro pedestrian crash test standards that require a 3" gap between hood and the engine. Thats why cars nowdays have this blunt and bloated look. The RCF front is a lot less bloated looking than the ISF front because the GS front is longer. Another reason manufacturers are pressured to go with turbocharging other than mpg and emissions, the V8s interfere with the styling of todays cars because of pedestrian crash standards.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 04-19-15 at 05:01 AM.
#89
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i think the 3is was intentionally designed for no v8, but maybe they intend to add a turbo 6 or something at some point to make a new is-f.
#90
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Rigidity isnt BS, the RCF chassis is 50% stiffer than the 4GS chassis which the 3IS is based off of. The same chassis that beat the 5 series and 3 series in some tests, and the RCF is another 50% stiffer on top of this. I drove both RCs and the chassis is definately even stiffer than the 3IS which was already a huge leap up over the 2IS chassis.
If the 3IS chassis is such a huge leap over the 2IS chassis, why does the lesser 2011 2IS IS250 F-Sport easily outhandle the 2014 3IS IS250 F-Sport (as an example)?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rt_first_test/
Originally Posted by Motortrend
But we were scratching our heads again around the figure eight. The 2014 IS 250 with revised, F Sport-specific suspension could only find 0.85 g to 2011's 0.91 g, despite both cars utilizing Bridgestone Turanza ER33 grand touring summer tires (225/40-18 fronts and 255/40-18 rears). The new one trailed the older car by a hefty 0.9 second on a flying figure-eight lap, implying it's losing precious time in the corners. The root cause is up for debate. Maybe the 2014's 2.7-inch-longer wheelbase or 0.6-inch-wider rear track played a part. Maybe the alignment was off.
But we were scratching our heads again around the figure eight. The 2014 IS 250 with revised, F Sport-specific suspension could only find 0.85 g to 2011's 0.91 g, despite both cars utilizing Bridgestone Turanza ER33 grand touring summer tires (225/40-18 fronts and 255/40-18 rears). The new one trailed the older car by a hefty 0.9 second on a flying figure-eight lap, implying it's losing precious time in the corners. The root cause is up for debate. Maybe the 2014's 2.7-inch-longer wheelbase or 0.6-inch-wider rear track played a part. Maybe the alignment was off.
Last edited by TsunamiF; 04-20-15 at 01:02 PM.