RCF is going to be better reliable car in the long run for sure. BMW keeps adding all the electronics but they don't know how to make it reliable.

 

Thats about the only comeback and RC-F is going to have....

And keep in mind also, the average luxury car owner, has the car 5 yrs. So most will be dumping their BMW for the "next big thing" before they have issues.

So most aren't concerned about reliability.

 

Only comeback?

Majority of the people who drive both cars, largely prefer the RC-Fs V8 engine visceral feel, sound and response over the twin turbo i6 in the M4 that is augmented by fake recorded sounds playing from the speaker and a terrible exhaust note. The power characteristics are completely different between the two engines. While RC-F has a linear and consistent power delivery right to redline, the M4 has turbo lag issues combined with the midrange torque nature. Majority of its power lies in 3000 - 5500 rpm region. The torque curve plummets hard after 5500 rpm. M4 relies a lot more on the midrange than the high-strung top end rpm focus of the RC-F.

Case in point, both cars offer different driving experiences. It depends on what the driver prefers.

 

I was watching this comparison video between the RC-F and the M4, and they did a lap on both cars. There was only a .2 second difference in lap times, which doesn't seem like a big difference to me. I do feel the M4 may be a faster car, but the RC-F is more agile.

 

I haven't driven either, but based on looks alone, i prefer the RC-F. The M4 styling is just too overdone for my taste...i thought rhe pre ious M3 coupe was a gorgeous car. Plus I've never been a fan of BMW interiors.

My neighbor has an M4 and i think the exhaust sounds terrible...at least from the outside (never been inside). Doesn't sound powerful/aggressive/mean...just a rattly, raspy sound.

That being said, for the money, i wouldn't choose either one

 

TheShaddix, are planning to lease M4 after all? If so, I am really glad for you man. I kept reading you trying quite a few different types of intakes and yet you have not been totally satisfied with 3IS (please correct me if I am wrong here). If M4 is in fact a right car for you I would say go for it. BMW will maintain your M4 (including brakes, windshield wipers etc) for free during your lease. I also know that BMW has very attractive lease rates. Are you gonna keep 3IS or get rid of it?

 

Agreed. Heard an M4 and it sounded like a joke- rattly is a good word, and I'd also say tinny, high-pitched, popping, and blender/appliance-like. None of those I'd associate with power or class.

 

BMW M4 does sound hideous and that is being generous.

 

here is another one

 

The M4 is so close to the super car territory in terms of 0-60.

If I remember, M4's 0-60 time is 3.7 seconds and RC-F is 4.3 seconds. That's 0.6 seconds faster and that's a lot faster in car enthusiasts perspective.

So Car and Driver's ranked the RC-F on third place among the first place M4, second place C63 AMG, and fourth place RS5.

Hey that's an improvement made by Lexus when the IS-F was ranked the last among its competitors from the last generations.

Unfortunately Lexus is new to the game and to be honest, Beemer is still the crown of the ultimate driving machine.

I honestly don't think Lexus will top BMW any time soon because for them to do so they would have to take a big step forward to introduce turbos into their engine. They are hesitating to do so because they have to keep their reputation of building reliable engine's and cars.

There is no other reason why Lexus is not building turbo engines the next year, it's because they cannot ruin their most valuable reputation of being reliable. The NX 200t is their first step of approaching to test this, but you can't really guarantee the result until it hits 100k miles.

Let's keep it the old fashion way, look at Lexus as a luxury sedan rather than a sporty one. If you want a sporty car the BMW is hands down because they can SACRIFICE their reliability reputation.

Also last but not least, Lexus can't really make elegant looking cars compare to the Germans. I don't blame them for the Europeans are the dominating market of fashion design.

 

The RC F is running a V8 because it provides a better overall driving experience than a turbocharged 6 cylinder. It sounds better, produces a more linear/wider power range, and provides less skilled drivers an unintimidating driving experience while at the same time providing experienced drivers a track capable engine. Feeling fast does not equal fast, and so far the limited track comparisons have the RC F and M4 at virtually a tie.

The RC F was designed for the majority of real-world drivers who commute. The comparisons consistently rate the RC F as a better daily driver, the track times prove it is competitive, and I'd say it is the much better looking of the two.

 

Like I said, both cars are great and there is something for everyone in each. However, the m4 sounds nothing close to how it does on videos, it's actually as loud as the RC F and even better on the inside. I went in to test drive it thinking it would sound as terrible as in those videos, but it was a polar opposite of that. And the turbo lag is so minimal that it just doesn't get in the way as the car has good torque even before the boost. Anyone who's saying RC F is more exciting should really go in and test drive the bmw with an unbiased outlook and judge for themselves which one they connect with more. End of story.

 

i heard both at asphalt up and both cars sound just like i remembered seeing in the youtube videos

 

These ludicrous exaggerations are just downright comical. Where exactly did you read M4 did a 3.7 seconds? Even if it did, it does not mean anything since it is nowhere near super car acceleration levels. Mid-11 seconds and mid-120s is where top ranked super cars would be.

In the link below, you can see all of the super cars like the Viper SRT-10 (11.6 seconds@126 mph) and Porsche 911 GT3 etc. are trapping at 124 - 126 mph while M3 and RC-F were at 113 - 114 mph on the same day and same conditions. Supercars are in a different world. Let's keep it real.

Even if it was, you took the worst number for RC-F and compared against a hypothetical best number. There are tests where M4 ran a 4.1 seconds 0-60 mph. If you want to compare the worst then compare the 4.3 seconds to 4.1 seconds of the M4.

Besides, you completely ignored RC-F 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, which was matched by the BMW M3 in the PCOTY for Road and track and in the 1/4 mile RC-F was only 4/1t0ths off the pace. The trap speed was merely 2 mph apart (113 mph for RC-F and 114.9 mph for the M3).

Even around the track, RC-F was only 3/10ths slower than M4, which was wearing carbon ceramic brakes $10,000 optional equipment. Evem R&T head to head PCOTY, RC-F was only a few tenths slower in its lap time than the BMW M3 (and a lot faster than BMW M4 tested on a different day).

Bottom line is, the average driver will not be able to see these performance differences especially around the track or on the road. It all comes down to personal preferences.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...the-year-award

Where exactly did C&D say that? Again, you are fabricating stuff. I read the article and nowhere did it say they would rank RC-F behind the C63. The C63 has not even been released yet. Common sense would tell, they would not rank it against a car they have not even driven yet. Post your proof up.


Lexus has no intentions of putting turbo engines on high performance cars and there is no reason to do that. The engine is the biggest selling point of the RC-F. The engine is a bespoke masterpiece. RC-F achieves nearly the same gas mileage with the Atkinson cycle as the BMW M4 without turbos and without downsizing displacement.

Lexus did not take the shortcut cost wise by taking a lesser engine and modifying it for a higher performance car. The only issue being debated is the weight of the car. It is still nearly matches the M4 around the track and only a few tenths slower in a straight line.

Remember, Caranddriver, MotorTrend said the RC-F feels and sounds like a race motor. A complement that was given in comparison to the M4. C&D said, sound wise, only the 8500 rpm revving RS5 can come close to how good the RC-F sounds.

The GS-F is reported to not have a turbo engine. The RC-F's engine is the biggest advantage it has over the BMW M4. All of the journalists seem to prefer the RC-F V8 over the M4 i6. The only criticism has been the weight of the car.

 

While I want to love a Lexus sport coupe, I just haven't been able to warm up to the looks yet. And it doesn't help that I'm in love with the M4...

If you were going to keep one for 10 years and always leave it in the garage, I'm sure the Lexus would be the better buy. I doubt any of its electronics or water pump would crap like the bimmer would, but for the first 3 years (plenty long for me, I'd trade it in by then) I'd personally much rather be in the M4.