RC F automotive reviews thread
02-20-15, 12:16 PM
#813
Precisely. Like you, I considered the M4 as well--had to look at it.
I found this comparison video of interest.
Compare and Contrast: The Lexus RC F v. BMW M4 - YouTube
I found this comparison video of interest.
Compare and Contrast: The Lexus RC F v. BMW M4 - YouTube
LOL, that video is so bad. I have an RCF on order but saying one has a wing and the other does not is dumb, frame less mirror!!! Hell ya I am sold
I did hate the park crap on the M4.
02-20-15, 12:31 PM
#815
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I don't understand the logic behind their parking process.
Last edited by ISF001; 02-20-15 at 12:58 PM.
02-20-15, 12:47 PM
#816
Lexus Test Driver
Edmunds Long Term Test
http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rc-f/20...f-density.html
Our long-term 2015 Lexus RC F is positioned as a contender to the BMW M4 and Mercedes-AMG C63. In my estimation, the RC F plays it too safe to be a viable alternative.
Which is not to say it isn't fast or capable. It is surely both of those things. And its styling definitely doesn't play it safe, but this is an area of such subjectivity that I'll leave it at that.
The root of the RC F's conundrum is weight. It's exceedingly heavy. At more than 4,000 pounds, it's packing a solid 500 pounds over the last M4 we tested. And while the performance numbers the RC F puts up are sure to place it in the hunt with the Bavarian, the Lexus gives up too much tactility in the process.
The RC F has heaps of power but feels blunted by its mass. Oh, its body motions are reigned in well, and on a fast drive it is alert and sure-footed. In fact, I'd say Lexus have done an admirable job of making this fat man dance. But it's still fat. All the praise I have for its dynamics is mentally asterisked by the refrain "for its weight." It's never sloppy, it's just dense.
It's easy to make a modern car fast. Speed is no longer a hurdle. We're spoiled by truly towering horsepower numbers across a variety of vehicle segments, and the systems to corral and dole the ponies in a way that maximizes their effect on the pavement are getting better all the time.
The real issue now, and one exemplified by the RC F, is engagement. There's simply no way to synthesize what lightness does to the driving experience, irrespective of how much power you throw at a heavy car.
Lexus raided the corporate parts bin in creating the RC F. It has chassis sections from the GS and the IS Convertible and the IS sedan, an engine based on the IS F's and a corporate gearbox. I'd argue they pilfered from the wrong bin. I mean, imagine if they'd started with the much smaller and lighter Scion FR-S platform instead. Here's a stiff RWD coupe that weighs roughly 2,700 pounds and has a comically wide engine bay to accommodate its flat-four power plant. Ford and GM V8s already fit into this chassis with ease.
Swapping in the 2UR-GSE 5.0-liter V8 and beefing up requisite areas to the FR-S' chassis and driveline would add a total of, what, 400 pounds? If that? With this 3,100-pound car they could match the power to weight ratio of today's RC F with a significantly detuned version of the 5.0-liter V8.
Or leave it at full 463-hp strength and have a competition-annihilating worldbeater on their hands that nobody would ever, ever describe as "playing it safe." Too extreme for a Lexus? Call it a Supra, then. Or, you know, Fred. Whatever. With that kind of spec sheet, it wouldn't matter what it's named.
Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
Our long-term 2015 Lexus RC F is positioned as a contender to the BMW M4 and Mercedes-AMG C63. In my estimation, the RC F plays it too safe to be a viable alternative.
Which is not to say it isn't fast or capable. It is surely both of those things. And its styling definitely doesn't play it safe, but this is an area of such subjectivity that I'll leave it at that.
The root of the RC F's conundrum is weight. It's exceedingly heavy. At more than 4,000 pounds, it's packing a solid 500 pounds over the last M4 we tested. And while the performance numbers the RC F puts up are sure to place it in the hunt with the Bavarian, the Lexus gives up too much tactility in the process.
The RC F has heaps of power but feels blunted by its mass. Oh, its body motions are reigned in well, and on a fast drive it is alert and sure-footed. In fact, I'd say Lexus have done an admirable job of making this fat man dance. But it's still fat. All the praise I have for its dynamics is mentally asterisked by the refrain "for its weight." It's never sloppy, it's just dense.
It's easy to make a modern car fast. Speed is no longer a hurdle. We're spoiled by truly towering horsepower numbers across a variety of vehicle segments, and the systems to corral and dole the ponies in a way that maximizes their effect on the pavement are getting better all the time.
The real issue now, and one exemplified by the RC F, is engagement. There's simply no way to synthesize what lightness does to the driving experience, irrespective of how much power you throw at a heavy car.
Lexus raided the corporate parts bin in creating the RC F. It has chassis sections from the GS and the IS Convertible and the IS sedan, an engine based on the IS F's and a corporate gearbox. I'd argue they pilfered from the wrong bin. I mean, imagine if they'd started with the much smaller and lighter Scion FR-S platform instead. Here's a stiff RWD coupe that weighs roughly 2,700 pounds and has a comically wide engine bay to accommodate its flat-four power plant. Ford and GM V8s already fit into this chassis with ease.
Swapping in the 2UR-GSE 5.0-liter V8 and beefing up requisite areas to the FR-S' chassis and driveline would add a total of, what, 400 pounds? If that? With this 3,100-pound car they could match the power to weight ratio of today's RC F with a significantly detuned version of the 5.0-liter V8.
Or leave it at full 463-hp strength and have a competition-annihilating worldbeater on their hands that nobody would ever, ever describe as "playing it safe." Too extreme for a Lexus? Call it a Supra, then. Or, you know, Fred. Whatever. With that kind of spec sheet, it wouldn't matter what it's named.
Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 02-20-15 at 12:53 PM.
02-20-15, 01:14 PM
#817
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I suspect Jason has this lodged in this throat.
02-20-15, 02:38 PM
#818
Driver School Candidate
Speaking of lap times...
From Autocar.
On their dry track the M4 beats the RCF 1:12:50 to 1:15:10.
On their wet track the RCF beats the M4 1:20:60 to 1:25:70.
1/4 mile time is in favor of the M4 12.3 @120.9 to 13.2 @ 113.6mph.
I can't tell which car has the shorter stoping distance from the graph, I would only guess the M4 because it weighs less.
IMO, 2.5 seconds is a clear win for the M4 on the dry track and 5 seconds is a very clear win for the RCF on the wet track. So if you plan on pushing your car hard on wet roads, the lower torque delivery and heavier weight of the RCF is the car that will offer superior performance.
All other environments the M4 is the better performing vehicle.
From Autocar.
On their dry track the M4 beats the RCF 1:12:50 to 1:15:10.
On their wet track the RCF beats the M4 1:20:60 to 1:25:70.
1/4 mile time is in favor of the M4 12.3 @120.9 to 13.2 @ 113.6mph.
I can't tell which car has the shorter stoping distance from the graph, I would only guess the M4 because it weighs less.
IMO, 2.5 seconds is a clear win for the M4 on the dry track and 5 seconds is a very clear win for the RCF on the wet track. So if you plan on pushing your car hard on wet roads, the lower torque delivery and heavier weight of the RCF is the car that will offer superior performance.
All other environments the M4 is the better performing vehicle.
02-20-15, 04:49 PM
#819
standing 1/4 mile of 13.2 for RCF? Magazines get mid 12.5-12.7
the top bar for braking is the RCF, barely different. RCF actually beat the M in 50-0
M4 / RCF
30-0: 8.0 / 7.9 meters
50-0: 22.1 / 21.8 meters
70-0: 42.6 / 43.7 meters
the top bar for braking is the RCF, barely different. RCF actually beat the M in 50-0
M4 / RCF
30-0: 8.0 / 7.9 meters
50-0: 22.1 / 21.8 meters
70-0: 42.6 / 43.7 meters
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 02-20-15 at 04:53 PM.
02-20-15, 04:55 PM
#820
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=Razorthin1;8921380]Speaking of lap times...
From Autocar.
On their dry track the M4 beats the RCF 1:12:50 to 1:15:10.
On their wet track the RCF beats the M4 1:20:60 to 1:25:70.
1/4 mile time is in favor of the M4 12.3 @120.9 to 13.2 @ 113.6mph.
I can't tell which car has the shorter stoping distance from the graph, I would only guess the M4 because it weighs less.
IMO, 2.5 seconds is a clear win for the M4 on the dry track and 5 seconds is a very clear win for the RCF on the wet track. So if you plan on pushing your car hard on wet roads, the lower torque delivery and heavier weight of the RCF is the car that will offer superior performance. [Quote]
Interesting...Lexus has documented a minimum of 12.5 for the RC F, so I don't buy their 13.2 time. Even MotorTrend in auto mode ran a 12.7.
There is so much variance based on driver skill, it is hard to peg down any of these numbers.
This is a "dry" run:
The grudge match lives on.
From Autocar.
On their dry track the M4 beats the RCF 1:12:50 to 1:15:10.
On their wet track the RCF beats the M4 1:20:60 to 1:25:70.
1/4 mile time is in favor of the M4 12.3 @120.9 to 13.2 @ 113.6mph.
I can't tell which car has the shorter stoping distance from the graph, I would only guess the M4 because it weighs less.
IMO, 2.5 seconds is a clear win for the M4 on the dry track and 5 seconds is a very clear win for the RCF on the wet track. So if you plan on pushing your car hard on wet roads, the lower torque delivery and heavier weight of the RCF is the car that will offer superior performance. [Quote]
Interesting...Lexus has documented a minimum of 12.5 for the RC F, so I don't buy their 13.2 time. Even MotorTrend in auto mode ran a 12.7.
There is so much variance based on driver skill, it is hard to peg down any of these numbers.
This is a "dry" run:
The grudge match lives on.
Last edited by ISF001; 02-20-15 at 05:06 PM.
02-20-15, 06:26 PM
#821
Lexus Test Driver
Nonetheless, it is a FACT that a nearly 114 mph trap speed is way too high for a car to be running low-13 seconds. They royally screwed up the start, which is why the time is too slow for the trap speed.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 02-20-15 at 06:31 PM.
02-20-15, 07:44 PM
#822
Driver School Candidate
I feel like I'm in some weird bubble of distorted reality in here...
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
02-20-15, 09:06 PM
#823
I feel like I'm in some weird bubble of distorted reality in here...
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
Basically anything that portrays the RCF in a positive way is legit, but anything that is negative is discredited.
Are you seriously still trying to use that AMCI video with the "certified paid by lexus driver" as creditable proof of anything?
A week ago the autocar track video was valid, but somehow today the written results are not?
Chris Harris, a competent and respected driver in the industry isn't creditable because he didn't like the RCF?
Has there EVER been documentation of an RCF running close to the M4 in a 1/4 mile? The magazines say 12.5. Ok. Multiple publication have verified low 12's for the M3/4 and a stock M3 ran an 11.6 IN REAL LIFE ON VIDEO (but its Atco, so it doesn't count, of course). One member claims they will take their TVD RCF to Atco...sure you will buddy. I'll be holding my breath for you to post your runs here, along with a dozen or so excuses of why the times are so poor.
Why are we linking "Lexus College" comparison videos to prove a point? Did we expect them to say anything different?
Why is it so difficult to have an honest discussion about the strengths/weaknesses of the RCF in here?
There is always an excuse when the RCF loses (the drivers fault, not TVD, software not updated, etc.). It's getting old. How many times have we heard "wait until more testing gets done"? What's the point if every time it isn't positive it gets dismissed?
It's obvious one person in here is a paid shill (or they are just really REALLY delusional). But for the rest of us, it's okay to have an honest conversation . The RCF, m4, RS5,etc. all have flaws, no car will "win" every category, every time. It's okay to win some (wet track) and lose some (dry track). Every loss is not a string of conspiracy and incompetent journalism. Sheesh.
02-21-15, 04:39 AM
#824
The reviews that have been coming through so far have confirmed my test drive of it back in November, it's a competent car with a nice interior. Someone who wants to experience Lexus performance will not be disappointed, yes it's not as quick as the BMW but we're not talking huge differences here. When you take the care in its entirety, the reliability, the service, the interior, it's a compelling purchase.
For those of us with late model ISFs, I still think it's a hard sell. We lose 2 doors and 2 useable seats, it's barely quicker (I'm not sure a RCF will outrun a IHE ISF, to be honest), and after getting used to the ISF, one would naturally want to "graduate" to something a bit more, and the RCF won't be able to give us that extra performance edge. Yes, the interior is nicer, yes, it's a smidgen quicker, yes, it's got the TVD, but the weight is really an issue. You try and throw it around and it feels heavy, even compared to the ISF! (yes I know the chassis is stiffer, RCF defense brigade)
I feel the RCFs will be great used cars - their values should drop pretty fast, being a 2 door and barely useable rear seats, and once the GSF is released, they should come down in price pretty quick. I won't mind picking one up once my ISF gets a little long in the tooth. But I really wouldn't want to pay full sticker price for it when there are better alternatives around.
For those of us with late model ISFs, I still think it's a hard sell. We lose 2 doors and 2 useable seats, it's barely quicker (I'm not sure a RCF will outrun a IHE ISF, to be honest), and after getting used to the ISF, one would naturally want to "graduate" to something a bit more, and the RCF won't be able to give us that extra performance edge. Yes, the interior is nicer, yes, it's a smidgen quicker, yes, it's got the TVD, but the weight is really an issue. You try and throw it around and it feels heavy, even compared to the ISF! (yes I know the chassis is stiffer, RCF defense brigade)
I feel the RCFs will be great used cars - their values should drop pretty fast, being a 2 door and barely useable rear seats, and once the GSF is released, they should come down in price pretty quick. I won't mind picking one up once my ISF gets a little long in the tooth. But I really wouldn't want to pay full sticker price for it when there are better alternatives around.
02-21-15, 07:09 AM
#825
Driver School Candidate