sraesmit

TBH I agree with most of these conclusions. This is not a track car, it's a grand touring car.

aginnt

Well the RCF posts nearly identical times as the M4 on a track.
I agree the M4 is more fun the track and is more fun at the limits because of its oversteer but the RCF is competitive. No question.

ISF001

Are you an owner of the new F? If so, I am amazed by your comments and question if you have a functional car.

Let's start by showing a driver who can extract some of the best from the new beast. The new F is quite capable on a track or at very high speed, and it competes head-to-head with the M4.


Discussion: *the RC F times in this "slanted" piece are ridiculous. *My grandmother could run a faster 0-60 time driving my car. I am NOT a pro driver and I ran a 4.2 in my TVD.

Braking distance of what?...OMG. . Was the the driver hitting the pedal or the accelerator?

Conclusion: *This piece obviously lacks credibility, and I attribute the outcome to driver ineptitude.

ISF001

The M4 stays planted?.. just like tumbleweed.



I have not tracked my carbon TVD, but I have tested its ability to hold the apex on hairy corners in the track mode, sport+, using both manual and the automatic/AI option. It's unequivocally a slot car, and I have taken out fellow car enthusiasts who have been highly impressed with the car's holding power. In slalom mode, it will become a drift machine... Especially if you turn off the nannies.

Overheat...no idea what they are talking about.

My assessment: a LOT of these drivers simply are not drivers but editors thrown into the seat.

By this time, experienced RC-F drivers know what their cars can do.

johnnyreb

Lol, hey ISF i also think that 1-legged 1-armed guy drove it better than This Guy! & to run the Quarter in the 13's was the Worst time i've seen so far (he had to been sleeping on the line)!

DrRick

#wellactually... ET has nothing to do with reaction time. 😉

05RollaXRS

Considering a stock RCF has run 12.5 seconds in less than ideal condition (hot, humid night), 13.1 seconds only reflects on how p*ss poor effort they made to make sure the RCF can get off the line quickly (I know, they say brake torquing was causes many flashing lights, but others seem to not have any problems).

DrRick

To be fair...according to airdensityonline.com...the DA of Byron Dragway is usually in the mid 2000s. That's creeping up to Atlanta Dragway's number. I can attest how slow NA cars run at that track. And the numbers weren't corrected, either.::

05RollaXRS

Agreed that is a factor, but in the review they say they could not brake torque the car because they were getting flashing lights. Obviously, they must be doing something wrong since all owners say they are able to easily brake torque from 2000 rpm.

kareemRCF

That proves that even the traction control wasn't turned off if they did get flashing lights.

aginnt

Another review. This one is snarky. He is very picky but ends up recommending the car.

https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car...s-rc-f-review/

ISF001

Far too many of these reviewers have difficulty connecting their seat belts much less than setting up the RC F for a test drive.

Wanna-be reviewers cling to trite nit-picks for the new F. The car is pure genius by function and design--and much more car than 90% of the potential owner drivers can manage. Of course, it's Japanese and not a German clone car.

Why on earth we expect most editors to be able to effectively evaluate high performance cars is hilarious. I spent a day in California with an editor from a well-known German magazine. He was invited by Porsche to "test drive" the car on Leguna Seca. He told me he was far from qualified to test drive the car and seemed a bit embarassed. He was wined and dined before doing the deed the next day. He then headed back to Germany to write a "review" of the car.

What is wrong with this equation? It can be difficult to see the Forest for the trees--or is it really? RC F owners should know by now the capabilities of their car. IMO, those who are behind the wheel chose wisely.

Potential Buyers: If having a super light car is the primary criteria for those of you who are driving 363 days per year to the office and tracking the car 1-2 days per year, neither the M4 or RC F should be your choice. Buy the stripped down, AC-less Cayman.

NO CAR IS PERFECT. But if you want a super coupe that is the best overall car in its class, it's
probably the RC F. The car is unshakeable when it comes to delivering pure V8 power and the best of luxury and performance. The TVD is a joy to drive in track/slot car mode, and its looks aren't bad. And then there is the great voice of the engine.

At this point--2,000 miles--would I buy another in 2017? It's looking more and more like a yes for me. The RCF-S, if it materializes, is a strong possibility for me.

ISF001

ISF001

And yet another...

DrRick

he really gushed over the ATS-V...