4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

wonder if they got it mixed up with the RC 350 F Sport which has bridgestone potenzas. RCF is suppose to have PSS stock. In the gallery they clearly shows both cars have PSS

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/.../photo_28.html

05RollaXRS

That is definitely disappointing that Lexus did not send it with the Michelin Pilot SS tires. They are bar none the best summer performance tires on the market right now this side of racing slick tires.

redspencer

iTrader: (1)

At first, I thought this was the case based on the picture you provided from the MT gallery but then I checked further back on the old Head to Head video where the 0.3 lap time difference was extracted from and the vehicles used were different than the ones show on this gallery (Blue RC-F and Red M4 were used for the Randy Pobst timed lap instead of the Red RC-F and Gold M4 from the gallery):


Streets of Willow segment starts at the 10:10 mark. I'm not sure if the reference to the Potenzas for the RC-F on the spec sheet is a typo or not...

05RollaXRS

Your assertion that a 4000 lbs car with brakes as powerful as the RC-F will "tear up the brakes" is comical and the funniest thing I have ever heard. I don't if you are being overly dramatic or you truly believe that..

You are telling others to take physics lessons, but it is really you who needs physics lessons

For one, for your information, Randy Pobst does multiple laps in each cars. It is extremely naive of you to think he just gets in the car and goes for a timed lap right off the bat. He does an outlap, flyer and then a timed lap in order to first get adjusted to the car properly before he does a timed lap. R&T also said they did multiple laps in the RC-F.

He is talking about GTR and has a perfectly valid point. Braking comes down to only tires and brakes. There are tons of other examples of 3900 - 4000 lbs cars that do just fine lap after lap without any brake fade. The IS-F was 3815 lbs and it did just fine with inferior brakes lap after lap.

It is just that you continue to look for excuses to criticize the RC-F.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

you said 4000# vehicles tear up the brakes in 2-3 laps. Guess how much the GTR weighs. Apparently there are brakes exist that can stop a 4000# vehicle on the track. GTR brakes arent that much bigger than the RCFs 15.4 vs 15.0 front and 15.0 vs 13.6 rear, both are Brembos. Yes heavier cars work the brakes more but 2-3 laps is sheer exaggeration. Randy probably drove a lot more than 2-3 laps in the RCF and what were the results? .3 sec off from a lighter car with CCB. Didnt seem to have trouble there.

People constantly complain about the weight, but can never explain away the .3 sec difference which is within driver error. M4 shouldve beat this car by 3 seconds considering specs, not .3

Mr Bond

There will be a lot of tests on "real" tracks in the future, I personally dont care a bit for results on the two tracks RC-F were tested at. Both of them are very slow and R&T:s really uneven. Uneven sufaces at lower speeds gives a more soft and heavy car advantages in the same way a Toyota Landcrusier will handle a lot better and be faster than a Lexus NX F sport on a bad country road. Its not always a bad thing to have softer chassis.

Lets se Nurburgring , Silverstone, Monza , Laguna Seca and other tracks where you really torture brakes and suspension.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

barely faster and .3 sec on a near 1.5 minute lap is within driver error. Not a decisive victory when looking at specs. If a veteran driver has this much trouble being consistent in the new M imagine a novice driver at an HPDE. M limits can only be exploited by experienced drivers. Evo and R&T both reported this instability at the limit on the M. Smoothness and predictability is how the RCF was able to get within half a second of an M with superior specs. That is the hallmark of NA engines and the learning curve on turbocharged engines.

05RollaXRS

BMW M4 did a 1:40 around Laguna Seca. About 3 seconds quicker than the E92 M3 M-DCT. Randy will lap with the RC-F around Laguna Seca at the end of 2015.

DFGeneer

I think it's a typo.

Check the still image of the blue RC-F that Randy Pobst used on the track in the video at 17:37.
It clearly shows Michelin tires.

TF109B

These lap times are useless unless youre the guy setting them. Who goes racing in their m4 or RC F? Tracking is not racing. You might be able to run 90% of Pobst, and a guy in the M4 might be able to run 85%. Its up to the driver and car. He might have a better feel with pushing the m4 than the RC F. No one single driver is going to get 100% from both cars at the same time. Thats why Nurburgring lap times are done with factory drivers.

Ryanmcd

That's it, I did a lot of road racing and it's the driver when it's this close, also who cares I want something that I can drive and now worry about and not have to tinker with that will last 5-10 years and still start.

If you wanted a track car I say again get a GTR, you can get a 2013/14 for mid 80's. But I got the RCF for my daily because it works for that well.

ISF001

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._f_comparison/

A few comments:

1. Carlos conveniently did not mention the 3/10s difference in the 0-60 runs.
2. He does not discuss the near dead heat hot lap. It seems like Randy over braked the RCF on the corners and lost lots of tenths. Watch the hot lap video link.
3. Aesthetic comments about cars are always based on personal preference. To me, the bimmer designs all look alike and blend together. To others, they are stand out cars.

Overall, it's a reasonable article.

toyotatom

The 0-60s were mentioned in the video along the 1/4 mile time, figure 8, G force and braking all won by the M4. The 0-60s and other tests were on the summary page at the end of the article also.
Motor trend has never liked the looks of the RCF, I don't agree with them either, I think the RCF has a modern and very sporty look to it. The M4 looks good also but you can only do so much with a kidney bean grill.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

main issue is, people buy these type of vehicles to stand out but the M4 doesnt, looks like a other pedestrian 3/4 series with an M Sport kit. Dunno about other people but buying a car in this segment I want to stand out. The M235 and M6 is what M3/4 shouldve looked like, more aggressive. M3/4 isnt ugly, just boring.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

Having now seen a few RCs in person, including the F, I am sort of shocked that Motor Trend so highly dislikes the exterior.

Maybe there are some awkward elements, such as the wide "hips" on the rear bumper, but in person, the RC has street presence and aggression unlike anything else right now. Not only is it aggressive, but I haven't met a single person who doesn't think the front end with tri-LED headlights isn't one of the best faces short of $100k. Lexus did a great job with this car, but alas, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.