RC F vs M4
#181
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
Guys if the personal comments don't end, this thread is going to get closed and some members are going to have some time off the forum for personal reflection.
Knock it off.
Knock it off.
#182
Lexus Test Driver
This video shows an Rc-F doing exactly the restrictions stated above. Made by Lexus themselves before this event took place, I suppose ? Did they gave any plausible reason why they restricted press cars ? Would be very interesting to hear.
Lexus - RC F Executes a Perfect Donut - YouTube
Lexus - RC F Executes a Perfect Donut - YouTube
Plus, these prototypes (as always is the case) are very expensive.
#183
Lexus Champion
The 911 is perhaps the only respectable Porsche save for the supercars, but the guy's 911 GT3 costs $130k, which unless you track it regularly is a colossal waste of money. There are countless cars for less than half the price that provide similar levels of on-road driving enjoyment while offering more desirable traits in more practical areas. The RC-F is a good example.
Last edited by Mr. Burns; 09-20-14 at 03:00 PM.
#184
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please save me the bull****. Porsche on average makes $20k profit on every car sold, among the highest in the industry, thus they are among the most overpriced. Their VW rebadged SUVs and that hideous Panamera are especially bad.
The 911 is perhaps the only respectable Porsche save for the supercars, but the guy's 911 GT3 costs $130k, which unless you track it regularly is a colossal waste of money. There are countless cars for less than half the price that provide similar levels of on-road driving enjoyment while offering more desirable traits in more practical areas. The RC-F is a good example.
The 911 is perhaps the only respectable Porsche save for the supercars, but the guy's 911 GT3 costs $130k, which unless you track it regularly is a colossal waste of money. There are countless cars for less than half the price that provide similar levels of on-road driving enjoyment while offering more desirable traits in more practical areas. The RC-F is a good example.
1. I do track my car but not often due time restrictions. I would've just bought a regular 911 if I didn't have the intention of tracking my car.
2. You're SO wrong about the Panamera and especially the SUVs ( The Macan). The Panemera is probably the best in its class. Hell a Panemera Turbo is cheaper, faster and more capable than the Rapide! The Macan is also one of the best all round vehicles one could buy. Fantastic vehicle.
3. If you seriously think the RC-F or even the M4 would provide similar levels of driving enjoyment as a GT3 would I really don't know what to say to you. :thumb up:
And finally, yes, Porsche makes a big profit on each car they sell. This is completely irrelevant though because if you want a Porsche no other other will satisfy you. The value of my GT3 to me is infinite regardless of it's cost.
#187
Some points of comparison for quarter mile based on Motortrend:
M4 takes 12.2 seconds at 117.8 mph
AMG 507 Coupe finishes in 12.2 seconds at 117.4 mph
RS 5 takes 12.3 at 112.2 mph
RC F took 12.7 seconds @ 112.2 mph (Best time achieved by Motortend's driver--expecting to see 12.3-12.5 runs with experienced drivers/owners--Lexus specs it at a minimum of 12.5) Of course, inconsistent Motortrend tested the RCF in a hot desert!)
Motortrend did not retest these metrics that were based on the prototype RCF last week.
Handling...
The RC F’s peak lateral grip was 0.95 g and it completed our figure-eight test in 24.7 seconds -- the exact same time it takes the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat and one of the three Alfa Romeo 4Cs we've tested. WIth the tune and new engine management software, I expect the number to be 24.5--moving it from third to second place.
The M4 can pull 0.98 g and run the figure eight in 24.2 seconds.
The RS 5 pulls a max of 0.99 and takes 24.6 seconds.
The AMG 507 pulled only 0.91 g and needed 25.2 seconds.
The new numbers are plenty fast enough for me and indicate how Lexus is conservative with its F car specs, and we are talking tenths across a group of outstanding machines--truth be told.
Based on several reviews, I would rank this group of cars for overall performance--sophistication, speed and the "fun" factor--as follows:
RCF--best overall driving experience for road and track--top daily driver
BMW M4--the better track car in the group and less the daily driver
AMG 507--2nd best overall driving experience for road and track and daily driver
Audi RS5--better track car than the 507 and a solid daily driver.
Clearly, Motortrend has eyes on what we are discussing at Club Lexus.
I will be interested in seeing what the Road & Track drivers achieve and how the RCF is ranked as one of the top ten 2014 performance cars of the year. Unfortunately, the BMW M4 did not make the top ten list, so that point of comparison will be missing.
MW M3
ALFA ROMEO 4C
DODGE VIPER TA 2.0
BMW M235i
SUBARU WRX STI
CHEVY CAMARO Z/28
JAGUAR F-TYPE R COUPE
FERRARI 458 SPECIALE
DODGE CHALLENGER SRT HELLCAT
FORD MUSTANG
MINI COOPER S
NISSAN GT-R NISMO
LEXUS RC F
VOLKSWAGEN GTI
PORSCHE 911 GT3
Last edited by ISF001; 09-21-14 at 10:28 AM.
#189
2012 ISF--24.8 seconds at 0.79 g
2015 RCF-- 24.9 seconds. Average lateral g came in at 0.92g
We do realize that we are comparing two DIFFERENT classes of car. This is meant to be a new line and driving experience. Some of us may not be pleased with this direction. I for one am.
The RCF was not designed to compete with my 2012 ISF.
#190
The way the RC-F article is written, it reads (at least to me) that the 0.92 is the skidpad lateral g. If this is the case, the 2012 Lexus IS-F averaged a 0.96g around the same skidpad:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._f_first_test/
#191
Pole Position
iTrader: (10)
i understand the critism here in regards to weight and horsepower, but ANY OF YOU GUYS ARE PROFESSIONAL RACE CAR DRIVER? does it really matter? none of us here have driven the RC F and all this car article are seems pretty bias. who cares if its faster and lighter than competitior, who cares if its faster than HELLCAT. Buy it and enjoy it!
#192
Lexus Test Driver
HAHA...the big boy can run. And with more experienced drivers/owners tapping into the power of the RCF with TVD, I expect to see folks running a 4.1-4.2.
Some points of comparison for quarter mile based on Motortrend:
M4 takes 12.2 seconds at 117.8 mph
AMG 507 Coupe finishes in 12.2 seconds at 117.4 mph
RS 5 takes 12.3 at 112.2 mph
RC F took 12.7 seconds @ 112.2 mph (Best time achieved by Motortend's driver--expecting to see 12.5-12.6 runs with experienced drivers/owners)
Some points of comparison for quarter mile based on Motortrend:
M4 takes 12.2 seconds at 117.8 mph
AMG 507 Coupe finishes in 12.2 seconds at 117.4 mph
RS 5 takes 12.3 at 112.2 mph
RC F took 12.7 seconds @ 112.2 mph (Best time achieved by Motortend's driver--expecting to see 12.5-12.6 runs with experienced drivers/owners)
The RCF offers less Performance than competition. PERIOD
Ppl should buy it if they want RELIABILITY, V8 engine, and like the styling.
#193
This car is an AUTOMATIC - a blind person can drive it in a straight line with NO experience required. Owners would be happy to match these figures......
The RCF offers less Performance than competition. PERIOD
Ppl should buy it if they want RELIABILITY, V8 engine, and like the styling.
The RCF offers less Performance than competition. PERIOD
Ppl should buy it if they want RELIABILITY, V8 engine, and like the styling.
Speaking of stability control, Lexus calls theirs “Vehicle Dynamic Integrated Management (VDIM) system.” It’s a system that monitors and coordinates a slew of different variables, from the powertrain, ABS, electric power steering, and traction control (TRAC), to the Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) systems. This allows it to subtly keep you on the road once you’ve pushed the car just beyond its limits. But unlike the stability control of other manufacturers (looking at you, BMW), Lexus does its job so subtly that you barely notice it happened. While a BMW experiencing a loss of traction will simply cut power to the engine, causing a mass deceleration, the RCF simply dials it down a notch, but still keep on pushing. The result is that you’ll barely lose any speed, but just enough to keep you on the track. It’s seamless and it’s the one thing that makes this car so accessible.
Read more: http://www.ohgizmo.com/2014/09/10/be...#ixzz3DyJg5XAd
Follow us: @ohgizmo on Twitter | ohgizmo on Facebook
Your comments are best appreciated among your BMW enthusiasts.
The RCF will prove to be the best car in its class and Lexus' first stab at designing an all-purpose car with an exotic design. A mere 2-3 tenths on the low end means nothing to the majority of the RCF buyers. If speed is so important to you, we can ask the RCF owners to wave at the M4 drivers as they pass them at 155 on way to 170. How's that for speed?
Last edited by ISF001; 09-21-14 at 10:24 AM.
#194
Lexus Test Driver
Road And Track will be publishing a "Best Performance Car" competition soon and both RC-F and M4 will be tested in a straight line and around the race track on the same day. Hopefully, that would give more comparable results.
MT sucks pretty badly for having inconsistent testing standards. You mentioned RS5 in your previous post, MT has a discrepancy in numbers in three different tests. Their own numbers are so extremely different and a substantial 4 mph trap speed variation. Unlike the RC-F, the RS5 has launch control so the launching method is the same every time, which makes it more baffling. Which one to believe more?
Normally, testing should be normalized for weather, altitude, heat, surface variations etc. in order to make the numbers comparable, but MT's testing results still are hugely inconsistent.
12.5@110 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ec_first_test/
12.8@108 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
12.3@112 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
MT sucks pretty badly for having inconsistent testing standards. You mentioned RS5 in your previous post, MT has a discrepancy in numbers in three different tests. Their own numbers are so extremely different and a substantial 4 mph trap speed variation. Unlike the RC-F, the RS5 has launch control so the launching method is the same every time, which makes it more baffling. Which one to believe more?
Normally, testing should be normalized for weather, altitude, heat, surface variations etc. in order to make the numbers comparable, but MT's testing results still are hugely inconsistent.
12.5@110 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ec_first_test/
12.8@108 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
12.3@112 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
I am going to dismiss your comments as you have no idea what you are talking about. This is not a 535. There is a manual mode that locks the torque converter in gears 2-8. The new g-force AI is superior to anything BMW can offer. When the M4 gets in trouble with the driver, it simply shuts down or worse. The RCF intervenes and takes the car through maneuver.
Your comments are best appreciated among your BMW enthusiasts.
The RCF will prove to be the best car in its class and Lexus' first stab at designing an all-purpose car with an exotic design. A mere 2-3 tenths on the low end means nothing to the majority of the RCF buyers. If speed is so important to you, we can ask the RCF owners to wave at the M4 drivers as they pass them at 155 on way to 170. How's that for speed?
Your comments are best appreciated among your BMW enthusiasts.
The RCF will prove to be the best car in its class and Lexus' first stab at designing an all-purpose car with an exotic design. A mere 2-3 tenths on the low end means nothing to the majority of the RCF buyers. If speed is so important to you, we can ask the RCF owners to wave at the M4 drivers as they pass them at 155 on way to 170. How's that for speed?
#195
Road And Track will be publishing a "Best Performance Car" competition soon and both RC-F and M4 will be tested in a straight line and around the race track on the same day. Hopefully, that would give more comparable results.
MT sucks pretty badly for having inconsistent testing standards. You mentioned RS5 in your previous post, MT has a discrepancy in numbers in three different tests. Their own numbers are so extremely different and a substantial 4 mph trap speed variation. Unlike the RC-F, the RS5 has launch control so the launching method is the same every time, which makes it more baffling. Which one to believe more?
Normally, testing should be normalized for weather, altitude, heat, surface variations etc. in order to make the numbers comparable, but MT's testing results still are hugely inconsistent.
12.5@110 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ec_first_test/
12.8@108 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
12.3@112 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
MT sucks pretty badly for having inconsistent testing standards. You mentioned RS5 in your previous post, MT has a discrepancy in numbers in three different tests. Their own numbers are so extremely different and a substantial 4 mph trap speed variation. Unlike the RC-F, the RS5 has launch control so the launching method is the same every time, which makes it more baffling. Which one to believe more?
Normally, testing should be normalized for weather, altitude, heat, surface variations etc. in order to make the numbers comparable, but MT's testing results still are hugely inconsistent.
12.5@110 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ec_first_test/
12.8@108 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
12.3@112 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
Motortrend unintentionally IMO ran a 4.3 in the bloody desert--two tenths down from the prototype car. The car is also spec'd at a minimum of 12.5 for the quarter. It will run at least a 12.3 -12.4 with the right driver in cooler climates.
Given the potential to run the RCF in environments other than Death Valley, I expect to see even more impressive times for the big beast.
Even more fair would be testing the M4 and the RCF with the same driver, same day, and same external conditions (temp, fuel, etc.). I am looking forward to the Road and Track results and story.