The Coupé Sport Leichtbau version of M3 E46 was a completely stripped down version of the M3, made for pure racing and with no luxury what so ever. Not even air conditioning was included and the sound isolation from doors, engine parts and chassi was removed. M3 CSL also came with special made tyres in europe , barely legal for road use and undriveable in rain ( every csl buyer had to go a special training course in germany to learn how to drive this car safe on public roads ) .

Its simply not comparable with m4, or ever more RC-F.

 

That is absolute nonsense. There are lots of cars that don't have an "official Nurburgring" time and they are some of the quickest cars around the race track. There is no official lap time for Lamborghini LP610-4 so using your analogy, it must be slower than the competition.

Lexus has never got into the game of "official Nurburgring time" other than for the Lexus LFA, which was done in an impromptu and unplanned way where Akira Iida had to convince Lexus to allow him to do a timed lap.

Spoken like a true Bimmer fan. An LS460 is a cruiser. RC-F is not. Great way to marginalize RC-F's capabilities as a track car.

 

I don't see why they would. The CSL was a limited edition, stripped down and track prepped version of the production vehicle from two generations prior. If BMW did make an M4 CSL version and gave it the same treatment, I would bet everything I own it would be faster than the CSL, especially considering it was only 2 seconds slower in full production form (7:52 vs 7:50).

Since you brought up BMW, it was widely known how the M4 compared to its immediate predecessor on the Ring when it launched (7:52 vs 8:05, 13 seconds faster).

If you can think of a better reason why Lexus did not publish the RC-F Ring time, besides it being slower than the competition, I'd love to hear it.

 

They may not have before, but it's simple really: If you want to prove you are superior to your competitors, you run the same test (or tracks) they do and show it. Lexus is the company that decided to step into this segment. In this segment Ring times hold a lot of weight to some people. I'm sure a magazine will run it on the Ring soon enough and we will see what it can do.

If the RC-F is the track car you think it is then the times will speak for themselves and the car will gain popularity with track groups. Again we will know shortly.

 

I will agree that the RC-F and M4 attract distinctly different buyers. There are also two distinctly different driver experiences by design.

I personally enjoy the IS-F because it has two personalities that I can summon at will. The RC-F I expect will also have this dual Clark Kent-Superman personality.

 

It think a major reason is that the definition of what a good lap time at Nurburgring is has changed radically the last 4-5 years. The one to blame is Nissan GTR, it changed everything. Suddenly a "cheap" and common Gt destroyed 2-3 times more expensive supercars. I guess thats why almost nobody (BMW,MB,Audi, Lexus and so on ) speaks loud about those times anymore.

 

The GTR is a complete BEAST that is on another planet compared to pretty much everything else. But it's also a higher price point and is good at only one thing (actually EXCELLENT at it, lol).

Times are still relevant, in relation to your immediate competition. So if the M4 runs a 7:52 and the RC-F runs +/- 5 seconds, who cares? Now if it's =/- the previous M3 (8:05), that may be a major issue. Conversely, if it's running 7:40 then congratulations would be in order, because Lexus just snatched the crown.

 

Maybe because track times aren't the be all and end all. If they were, then the only published comparo track times would be the Motor Trend one where they're within a whisker of each other.

At EVO PCOTY, they said the M3/4 was the most disappointing car they tested, not because it wasn't fast, it was, but because it was difficult to drive at the limit, and the drivers spent more time fighting the car than enjoying the actual drive. In Motor's PCOTY is Australia, the M4 posted one of the fastest lap times, but it was in the hands of a professional racing driver and even he said that it's a difficult car to drive fast, and non of the other non-professional car journo at the test were able to come close to his time, and they all marked the car down accordingly.

So basically, yes, it's a fast car, but for most normal enthusiasts, they'd probably have trouble getting close to it's capabilities, although reading from this and other forums, it seems like everyone thinks they're basically closet Michael Schumachers in terms of driving skill.

 

So if you can´t drive -> blame the car ! Honestly, the fact that you cant drive very well is very hard for many car enthusiast to accept, it was for me too when I was younger.. But I would actually perfer that the car is way "better" than me, thats the only way to learn things.

 

In this context you are learning how to fight a car. I am not unique in that I have driven lots of fast cars including Astons, Vets, Cobras, AMXs and Ms that all have lots of juice. Some were much more "manageable" than others.

I would argue that great cars are designed to provide the driver with a great "driver" experience. Wrestling with a high powered car engineered for pandemonium is tantamount to a 180-pound man taking on a Sumo.

Chances are the RC-F is going to challenge the majority of folks who buy it with very few exceptions. The RC-F is far "better" than the majority of the drivers, but what is unique is that it is approachable and challenging for drivers at various levels of expertise. Clearly, its level of refinement is not for everyone.

 

ferrari f40 and porsche gt are widely considered as some of the greatest cars ever produced. they are also known to be some of the hardest cars to handle.

now i am definitely not saying it's great to have a car that's hard to drive. on the other than i don't like a car that's so easy to drive either (ie gtr).

to me, driver has to be bigger than the car otherwise it won't end well, and a good balance is needed in order to make it a great driving experience. my nsx is not easy to drive, when the rear snap it snaps. but when driven well it's one hell of an exciting car.

in a way, only an easy car to drive (with great capabilities) can allow drivers of different level to be able to enjoy it all. the more of a driver you are, the more you can push that limit

 

911 RUF yellowbird ! Just look at how fun this must be But dangerous of course...

 

That lift-throttle oversteer is crazy!!! As SOON as he tried to turn, he was having to counter steer. That's much more intimidating than having it oversteer on exit.

 

yup, porsche is always a great example given their relatively extreme engine placement. but for those skilled once, one great execution and the joy fulfillment is enormous

 

Only at the track though Which to be honest, I doubt the majority of either M4 or RCF drivers will ever regularly go to. Of course, I do see some drivers trying this at night on public roads, usually endangering themselves and other drivers in the process

Even Porsche said that only 80% of the 911 GT3s they sell ever get tracked based on their information, which is crazy considering it's basically a car built for the track.