RC F at Cars and Coffee
08-04-14, 01:18 PM
#31
I am not trying to change your opinion at all. You are forgetting how I praised the pictures you posted and then your proceeded to mention how the pictures "fail to depict" etc.
I am just stating how I don't buy any of your "bubbly" argument (and so do none of the other people). Be happy and content with your IS-F and remain satisfied that your car works best for you. You predicted the RC-F would sell less than the IS-F.
Clearly, the proportions of the car are muscular and there is nothing round about the car other than the hood nose bulge. I know 100% when I see it in real life, I will like it even more than I do in pictures.
You seem to forget there are plenty of people on this board who saw it in real life and said quite the opposite that pictured don't do justice to it. Your opinions are just that. Your opinions. Only subjective.
I am just stating how I don't buy any of your "bubbly" argument (and so do none of the other people). Be happy and content with your IS-F and remain satisfied that your car works best for you. You predicted the RC-F would sell less than the IS-F.
Clearly, the proportions of the car are muscular and there is nothing round about the car other than the hood nose bulge. I know 100% when I see it in real life, I will like it even more than I do in pictures.
You seem to forget there are plenty of people on this board who saw it in real life and said quite the opposite that pictured don't do justice to it. Your opinions are just that. Your opinions. Only subjective.
Lastly, this board is just that.. a Lexus forum. As a business owner you can't survive if your business is purely through previous customers. The market in this sports luxury sedan segment is cut throat and the only way Lexus will continue to build F models is if this vehicle can truly compete and take away a large market share from BMW/Benz. Building 11,000 vehicles in the span of 7 years worldwide (manufacture date 2007-2014) will not keep your business afloat. (VS 66,000 M3's sold worldwide)
My 2 cents.
08-04-14, 01:29 PM
#32
Wow! Given that no one has driven the RC-F to give a thorough review, it's mighty bold to pan the car before it even gets to compete against the M4. BTW, what do you consider as "slightly more power?"
08-04-14, 02:09 PM
#33
RCF weight isnt confirmed yet. RCF will be faster than ISF - over 10% more power, faster revving engine, TVD, wider PSS tires, wider track, and 1" lower. Who knows what kind of tweaks they have done electrically and software wise that is improved over the ISF.
08-04-14, 02:52 PM
#34
Lexus Test Driver
If that is what helps you sleep better at night then note power to you. There are lots of people who did not own the IS-F, but are seriously considering the RC-F (including, your's truly). Now I am convinced I will the RC-F a lot when I see it in person. Plain and simple. It reminds me of the 3IS forum where people with 2IS were continuously trying to put down a car they have never driven.
Here are huge flaws in your argument:
1 - You said M4 has a "new platform". What do you think the RC-F has then? The chassis and suspension share nothing with the IS-F. If anything, the RC-F is more bespoke than the M4 since it shares very little with the 3IS and is completely an independent platform that was separately created for the RC-F derived from the GS. Not to mention a torque vectoring differential that will make the change of direction even faster.
2 - A little more power than the IS-F? Are you kidding me? Try 471 HP (or 477 ps). 55 horsepower is a lot more power with a broader torque band that stretches 500 rpm higher than the IS-F. It has been given lighter internals to rev faster to redline than the IS-F and respond quicker.
3 - The M4 barely weighs 100 lbs less than the E92 M3. BMW marketing machine made people believe the M4 would be 3300 lbs when in real life, it tipped the scales at 3590 lbs. Also, it put down a 12.2 seconds 1/4 mile, which is not earth shattering by any stretch.
The IS-F was developed by sknunkworks team as a first time experiment while the RC-F was pushed forward by the owner Akio Toyoda himself as a clean slate design. Big difference. Just wait and see once the comparisons roll out, you might be in for a surprise.
Here are huge flaws in your argument:
1 - You said M4 has a "new platform". What do you think the RC-F has then? The chassis and suspension share nothing with the IS-F. If anything, the RC-F is more bespoke than the M4 since it shares very little with the 3IS and is completely an independent platform that was separately created for the RC-F derived from the GS. Not to mention a torque vectoring differential that will make the change of direction even faster.
2 - A little more power than the IS-F? Are you kidding me? Try 471 HP (or 477 ps). 55 horsepower is a lot more power with a broader torque band that stretches 500 rpm higher than the IS-F. It has been given lighter internals to rev faster to redline than the IS-F and respond quicker.
3 - The M4 barely weighs 100 lbs less than the E92 M3. BMW marketing machine made people believe the M4 would be 3300 lbs when in real life, it tipped the scales at 3590 lbs. Also, it put down a 12.2 seconds 1/4 mile, which is not earth shattering by any stretch.
The IS-F was developed by sknunkworks team as a first time experiment while the RC-F was pushed forward by the owner Akio Toyoda himself as a clean slate design. Big difference. Just wait and see once the comparisons roll out, you might be in for a surprise.
It won't sell if it can't compete with the M4, plain and simple. The M4 has a new platform and performance is even better than before. RC-F is heavier than the 4 door IS-F by 200lbs with slightly more power. The M4 weighs less than the old E92 M3 with more power, torque, shorter height and longer wheelbase..
Lastly, this board is just that.. a Lexus forum. As a business owner you can't survive if your business is purely through previous customers. The market in this sports luxury sedan segment is cut throat and the only way Lexus will continue to build F models is if this vehicle can truly compete and take away a large market share from BMW/Benz. Building 11,000 vehicles in the span of 7 years worldwide (manufacture date 2007-2014) will not keep your business afloat. (VS 66,000 M3's sold worldwide)
My 2 cents.
Lastly, this board is just that.. a Lexus forum. As a business owner you can't survive if your business is purely through previous customers. The market in this sports luxury sedan segment is cut throat and the only way Lexus will continue to build F models is if this vehicle can truly compete and take away a large market share from BMW/Benz. Building 11,000 vehicles in the span of 7 years worldwide (manufacture date 2007-2014) will not keep your business afloat. (VS 66,000 M3's sold worldwide)
My 2 cents.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-04-14 at 03:04 PM.
08-04-14, 02:55 PM
#35
It is bold for me to pan the car, but thats what Im doing.. the specs does not allow for the car to be faster than an M4.. plain and simple.
RCF weight is not confirmed but from the information received, it does indeed weigh more. This is the same source that states it has more power.. so believe what you must. The M4 was better than the E92 M3 in all aspects which was very much faster than our cars around the tracks until 2013/2014 came around.. I will think the new RC-F will lap faster times than our IS-F due to suspension redesign and more power but in the end it is a pig and weighs too much.. Right now it weighs similarly to a E39 M5.. if you've ever driven that car, it is a total pig and does not help its handling capabilities at all..
Like I said, its my opinion.. trying to prove me wrong won't get you anywhere.
08-04-14, 03:08 PM
#36
As I was expecting, your bias will keep getting stronger. If that is what helps you sleep better at night then note power to you. Plain and simple. It reminds me of the 3IS forum where people with 2IS were continuously trying to put down a car they have never driven.
Here are huge flaws in your argument:
1 - You said M4 has a "new platform". What do you think the RC-F has then? The chassis and suspension share nothing with the IS-F. If anything, the RC-F is more bespoke than the M4 since it shares very little with the 3IS and is completely an independent platform that was separately created for the RC-F derived from the GS. Not to mention a torque vectoring differential that will make the change of direction even faster.
2 - A little more power than the IS-F? Are you kidding me? 55 horsepower is a lot more power with a broader torque band that stretches 500 rpm higher than the IS-F. It has been given lighter internals to rev faster to redline than the IS-F.
3 - The M4 barely weighs 100 lbs less than the E92 M3.
Just wait and see once the comparisons roll out, you might be in for a surprise.
Here are huge flaws in your argument:
1 - You said M4 has a "new platform". What do you think the RC-F has then? The chassis and suspension share nothing with the IS-F. If anything, the RC-F is more bespoke than the M4 since it shares very little with the 3IS and is completely an independent platform that was separately created for the RC-F derived from the GS. Not to mention a torque vectoring differential that will make the change of direction even faster.
2 - A little more power than the IS-F? Are you kidding me? 55 horsepower is a lot more power with a broader torque band that stretches 500 rpm higher than the IS-F. It has been given lighter internals to rev faster to redline than the IS-F.
3 - The M4 barely weighs 100 lbs less than the E92 M3.
Just wait and see once the comparisons roll out, you might be in for a surprise.
1- By platform I meant engine.. the engine is similar although better, it needs to have more power to carry the extra 200 lbs around.
2- its 55 engine HP.. safe to assume it'll have similar engine power to a current IS-F with full bolt ons? Not too impressed.
3- Its 200lbs less. (DCT to DCT)
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=925930
I will wait but you guys keep trying to disapprove my opinion like its your job, I'm just proving information from what I know and what I feel about the car.
I guess you guys feel protective, not exactly sure why..
08-04-14, 03:25 PM
#37
ISFPat,
Dude, calm down. Just trying to pick your brain. Got mad props for your car. You built it proper--One of sickest around.
Just wondering why you panned it even though the specs aren't even published nor a proper comparo done yet. Like I stated, it's like the old M3 owners bashing the new M4 even though they haven't even driven it.
Dude, calm down. Just trying to pick your brain. Got mad props for your car. You built it proper--One of sickest around.
Just wondering why you panned it even though the specs aren't even published nor a proper comparo done yet. Like I stated, it's like the old M3 owners bashing the new M4 even though they haven't even driven it.
08-04-14, 03:25 PM
#38
Lexus Test Driver
Like, I stated, The M4 in real life has not been anything less than barely 100 lbs light. I don't care what BMW marketing machine says using dry weights. What truly matters is how much the production cars weighed in real life. It has weighed nothing less than 3590 lbs since those are the cars that are actually being driven.
- I am talking about what the real world scales showed. Look at the comparison reviews done by C&D. It weighs almost 3600 lbs (the M3 had never weighed over 3704 lbs in any real world). There is not a single test where the E92 ever weighed 3800 lbs, if what BMW said was true. Look at the real world tests and stop using marketing to support your one-sided argument. The M4 has been doing 12.1 - 12.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile compared to 12.6 - 12.7 seconds for the E92 M3. Nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it is a smaller performance gain when you look at the predecessors. (when E92 M3 vs E46 M3 comparison is made, it is a smaller progression since the E92 M3 trapped 9 - 10 mph higher and about 1 seconds quicker in the 1/4 mile than the E46).
- 55 HP is one point in your mind. What truly matters is the story across the entire 7300 rpm rev range (area under the curve) that makes the car go. Again, the entire torque curve across the entire rev range is what matters. The gear ratios have been changed for making use of the broader torque band. Although, in a 0 - 60 mph, it might be around 4.0 seconds market. However, the higher the speeds, the faster the RC-F will be than the IS-F.
- I am talking about what the real world scales showed. Look at the comparison reviews done by C&D. It weighs almost 3600 lbs (the M3 had never weighed over 3704 lbs in any real world). There is not a single test where the E92 ever weighed 3800 lbs, if what BMW said was true. Look at the real world tests and stop using marketing to support your one-sided argument. The M4 has been doing 12.1 - 12.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile compared to 12.6 - 12.7 seconds for the E92 M3. Nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it is a smaller performance gain when you look at the predecessors. (when E92 M3 vs E46 M3 comparison is made, it is a smaller progression since the E92 M3 trapped 9 - 10 mph higher and about 1 seconds quicker in the 1/4 mile than the E46).
- 55 HP is one point in your mind. What truly matters is the story across the entire 7300 rpm rev range (area under the curve) that makes the car go. Again, the entire torque curve across the entire rev range is what matters. The gear ratios have been changed for making use of the broader torque band. Although, in a 0 - 60 mph, it might be around 4.0 seconds market. However, the higher the speeds, the faster the RC-F will be than the IS-F.
Lol you guys treat me like I'm completely wrong.. I'm not biased, I came from an IS-F.. i know first hand what this class of vehicles are completely capable.
1- By platform I meant engine.. the engine is similar although better, it needs to have more power to carry the extra 200 lbs around.
2- its 55 engine HP.. safe to assume it'll have similar engine power to a current IS-F with full bolt ons? Not too impressed.
3- Its 200lbs less. (DCT to DCT)
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=925930
I will wait but you guys keep trying to disapprove my opinion like its your job, I'm just proving information from what I know and what I feel about the car.
I guess you guys feel protective, not exactly sure why..
1- By platform I meant engine.. the engine is similar although better, it needs to have more power to carry the extra 200 lbs around.
2- its 55 engine HP.. safe to assume it'll have similar engine power to a current IS-F with full bolt ons? Not too impressed.
3- Its 200lbs less. (DCT to DCT)
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=925930
I will wait but you guys keep trying to disapprove my opinion like its your job, I'm just proving information from what I know and what I feel about the car.
I guess you guys feel protective, not exactly sure why..
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-04-14 at 04:07 PM.
08-04-14, 06:22 PM
#41
It won't sell if it can't compete with the M4, plain and simple. The M4 has a new platform and performance is even better than before. RC-F is heavier than the 4 door IS-F by 200lbs with slightly more power. The M4 weighs less than the old E92 M3 with more power, torque, shorter height and longer wheelbase..
Lastly, this board is just that.. a Lexus forum. As a business owner you can't survive if your business is purely through previous customers. The market in this sports luxury sedan segment is cut throat and the only way Lexus will continue to build F models is if this vehicle can truly compete and take away a large market share from BMW/Benz. Building 11,000 vehicles in the span of 7 years worldwide (manufacture date 2007-2014) will not keep your business afloat. (VS 66,000 M3's sold worldwide)
My 2 cents.
Lastly, this board is just that.. a Lexus forum. As a business owner you can't survive if your business is purely through previous customers. The market in this sports luxury sedan segment is cut throat and the only way Lexus will continue to build F models is if this vehicle can truly compete and take away a large market share from BMW/Benz. Building 11,000 vehicles in the span of 7 years worldwide (manufacture date 2007-2014) will not keep your business afloat. (VS 66,000 M3's sold worldwide)
My 2 cents.
The LFA is not the fastest in its class, but many consider it to be the best Supercar in the world.
The argument is moot at this point. The spec will be out soon, and the track tests will show us what the new coupe can do. I am expecting to be surprised.
And Lexus could care less about the volume being sold. Volume will be achieved by brand association through RC sales. It is not meant to be a high production vehicle.
08-04-14, 06:36 PM
#42
Lexus Test Driver
Considering there is no Lexus engine that even has close to 500hp, I very much doubt we will ever see 600hp in the next decade.
RC-F is a unique car because it is NA and has a V8 - this makes it ancient in the current field of competitors in terms of power #s.
M4(I6 TT) is fast and in reality makes more than 425hp,
MB C63AMG(V8TT) will smoke all the cars in this segment including the M4 when it comes next year.
Caddy ATS-V(V6TT) will probably also be faster.
I personally LOVE the RC-F!.
There will always be a faster car 0-60 or 0-100, and these cars are 4,000lbs so they will not be winning any track events.
If u want a Sporty, Luxurious, Reliable, Great Looking Coupe for less than $100k that can be used as a daily driver - RCF will be a good choice.
If u want a TRUE SPORTS car - save ur $$$ for a 911 or get a Cayman.
08-04-14, 07:09 PM
#44
LOL - what century will this be in??????
Considering there is no Lexus engine that even has close to 500hp, I very much doubt we will ever see 600hp in the next decade.
RC-F is a unique car because it is NA and has a V8 - this makes it ancient in the current field of competitors in terms of power #s.
M4(I6 TT) is fast and in reality makes more than 425hp,
MB C63AMG(V8TT) will smoke all the cars in this segment including the M4 when it comes next year.
Caddy ATS-V(V6TT) will probably also be faster.
I personally LOVE the RC-F!.
There will always be a faster car 0-60 or 0-100, and these cars are 4,000lbs so they will not be winning any track events.
If u want a Sporty, Luxurious, Reliable, Great Looking Coupe for less than $100k that can be used as a daily driver - RCF will be a good choice.
If u want a TRUE SPORTS car - save ur $$$ for a 911 or get a Cayman.
Considering there is no Lexus engine that even has close to 500hp, I very much doubt we will ever see 600hp in the next decade.
RC-F is a unique car because it is NA and has a V8 - this makes it ancient in the current field of competitors in terms of power #s.
M4(I6 TT) is fast and in reality makes more than 425hp,
MB C63AMG(V8TT) will smoke all the cars in this segment including the M4 when it comes next year.
Caddy ATS-V(V6TT) will probably also be faster.
I personally LOVE the RC-F!.
There will always be a faster car 0-60 or 0-100, and these cars are 4,000lbs so they will not be winning any track events.
If u want a Sporty, Luxurious, Reliable, Great Looking Coupe for less than $100k that can be used as a daily driver - RCF will be a good choice.
If u want a TRUE SPORTS car - save ur $$$ for a 911 or get a Cayman.
08-04-14, 07:55 PM
#45
Lexus Test Driver
552 HP or 563 HP flavors.
With a best of 3.6 seconds 0 - 60 mph and 11.4 seconds@126 mph 1/4 mile.
Most importantly a nearly 76 mph slalom speed and 1.10 g skidpad (without any sticky racing slick tires) put LFA near the top even today in terms of handling dynamics when it is a 6 year old super car.
With a best of 3.6 seconds 0 - 60 mph and 11.4 seconds@126 mph 1/4 mile.
Most importantly a nearly 76 mph slalom speed and 1.10 g skidpad (without any sticky racing slick tires) put LFA near the top even today in terms of handling dynamics when it is a 6 year old super car.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 08-04-14 at 10:53 PM.