RC-F in Top Gear [22x06] March 1st
03-06-15, 06:14 AM
#211
I agree with this ! I test drove a RC-F thinking I may trade my 2012 IS-F for one NOT!!! I was very disappointed in the driving dynamic of this car where the ISF feels nimble, the RC-F feels bloated and heavy in comparison. I did not feel it was an upgrade to the IS-F especially in the things that matter to me.
The RC-F is planted, solid and powerful--bloated and heavy are grossly non-descriptive of this car and terms wishfully used by those who want to disparage advancement and the new flagship car for the brand. Could the power-to-weigh ratio have been different? Sure. Would it have compromised the cost and luxury options? Yes. Is it the fastest car on the blue planet? No. But it is the best overall car in the class for a track:road, 363:2 compromise.
Equipped with the TVD, the RC F out corners the IS F in a heart beat: faster on corners has already been shown to be faster on the track (R&T Motown & AMCI and led to a virtual tie in the Motor Trend Head to Head). Any IS F owner who has explored the limits of their car knows this is where the IS F needed substantial improvement. Slide corning is lots of fun, but slow--it's the M4's major problem and has been apparent in the tests.
My 2012 was a bit on the light side and somewhat skittish under immediate acceleration. It was controllable, but again, this is not what makes cars fast. Fun? Loads, and I greatly enjoyed it for 3.5 years. On a track, the RC F with TVD wins against the IS F in a heart beat, in mid-to-top range acceleration, in design, in handling, in balance, etc. The RC F achieves full torque at a lower rpm than the IS F. This is achieved at 4,800 versus 5,200--that is 400 rpm earlier than the old IS F engine. Compression also increases to 12.3:1, from 11.8:1. The RC F revs higher, and picks up where the IS F left off. Drive the RC F in the 4,800 and above rev range, and it's a rocket. There are substantial performance gains--off and on the track in driving dynamics.
This is a talk-until-your-blue-in-the-face discussion, and it will eventually be settled in comparative testing soon enough on the tracks.
The fact is that we are comparing two drastically different cars. And yes, to get the full experience, it will cost more that the IS F--$81,000-$82,000. Who buys this car? Certainly, many of us are IS F owners transitioning to a new car. I also believe it is drawing a new demographic/psychographic of buyer, and I believe this was Lexus' intention from launch.
No car is for everybody. As was the case with the IS-F, I am glad that there will be retained exclusivity for RC F owners.
03-06-15, 06:20 AM
#212
Lexus Test Driver
I love my RC F. I've been in the industry for a while now and have had the pleasure of owning several high performance cars. I've built an Alpha9 and a pretty crazy Subaru that has twice what a brand new one costs in it. I drive at Road Atlanta, Sebring and I've recently started driving up at Barber in N. Alabama...mostly with Chin. I'm not saying I'm the most skilled driver in the world..far from it, but trying to convince me that JC didn't put the Lexus in the grass on purpose for his own entertainment...well, I simply don't believe it. If you've been a fan of the show, then you should already know the M3/4 has always gotten his pants tight. When he compared it to the RS5..just skip to the last few seconds of this video where he says the "M is the greatest, and it ALWAYS will be".
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/994843088001
I driven an M4...it hauls some ***, absolutely no doubt about it. It feels faster, it goes faster...but it's not the car for ME. When I was shopping for a new car earlier this year, I was wanting something I can get out on the highway and drive to Atlanta or down to Tampa and Miami for work and have a grin on my face but without the hassle of wondering when the check engine light would come on. That's not the only thing I was considering though. I didn't want another car I would jump so heavily into building again. At the end of the day, I'm slapping some Volks on it and some more goodies (handling)...but just a set of headers/exhaust for the engine and call it a day. The only REAL car I was looking at for ME was the new C63 AMG.....but I know with a simple flash they're getting ~70 HP and I just don't want to go down the path of getting my car on a Dyno again and spending a ton of money modding it. The RS5 is a beautiful car, but to me it seems dated. I never considered buying the new M or RS5...not even a little bit. I love all the techy the car has and I use it. Nobody mentions the RS5 is a on the porky side too (yeah yeah I know it has AWD). If all they can ***** about is the weight, then that kinda makes me laughs little.
In this piece, they seems to say the car fairs a little better than the TV episode did.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/F...C-F-2014-08-08
I do think Lexus did a poor job of properly marketing the car. I think most of us that spend time at the tracks knew it would be damn near impossible to knock off the top tier M, but like I said earlier, I never considered buying one. I still like JC though
, he's entertaining to me.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/994843088001
I driven an M4...it hauls some ***, absolutely no doubt about it. It feels faster, it goes faster...but it's not the car for ME. When I was shopping for a new car earlier this year, I was wanting something I can get out on the highway and drive to Atlanta or down to Tampa and Miami for work and have a grin on my face but without the hassle of wondering when the check engine light would come on. That's not the only thing I was considering though. I didn't want another car I would jump so heavily into building again. At the end of the day, I'm slapping some Volks on it and some more goodies (handling)...but just a set of headers/exhaust for the engine and call it a day. The only REAL car I was looking at for ME was the new C63 AMG.....but I know with a simple flash they're getting ~70 HP and I just don't want to go down the path of getting my car on a Dyno again and spending a ton of money modding it. The RS5 is a beautiful car, but to me it seems dated. I never considered buying the new M or RS5...not even a little bit. I love all the techy the car has and I use it. Nobody mentions the RS5 is a on the porky side too (yeah yeah I know it has AWD). If all they can ***** about is the weight, then that kinda makes me laughs little.
In this piece, they seems to say the car fairs a little better than the TV episode did.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/F...C-F-2014-08-08
I do think Lexus did a poor job of properly marketing the car. I think most of us that spend time at the tracks knew it would be damn near impossible to knock off the top tier M, but like I said earlier, I never considered buying one. I still like JC though
, he's entertaining to me.My guess is that Stig took the RC F around the track and it posted a time that did not correspond with JC's agenda and soap box antics. Had Stig's time been bad, JC would have flouted that as more evidence of Lexus' failure to deliver.
The RCF in capable hands has posted comparable track times to the M4 notwithstanding 400 pounds extra weight, lower skid pad numbers and with less straight line acceleration. That is actually a tribute to the chassis set up in the RCF as the RCF apparently can carry more speed at turn in and and track out to make for losses at apex and straight line acceleration.
RE: Barber
Barber is one of my fav courses in the country. Lost count of my race events there and I used to instruct Porsche's Driving School there and have instructed Driver Education events there for Chin, PBOC, Porsche, BMW and Audi at Barber. Highly technical track that is set up perfect for momentum cars where skills, not hp, define the driver.
03-06-15, 07:03 AM
#213
Lol, there is no doubt that JC put it in the grass and drifted it around like a maniac on purpose for the reasons I stated a few posts back. The RC F handles much better than many of the cars To Gear has Stig take around the track.
My guess is that Stig took the RC F around the track and it posted a time that did not correspond with JC's agenda and soap box antics. Had Stig's time been bad, JC would have flouted that as more evidence of Lexus' failure to deliver.
The RCF in capable hands has posted comparable track times to the M4 notwithstanding 400 pounds extra weight, lower skid pad numbers and with less straight line acceleration. That is actually a tribute to the chassis set up in the RCF as the RCF apparently can carry more speed at turn in and and track out to make for losses at apex and straight line acceleration.
RE: Barber
Barber is one of my fav courses in the country. Lost count of my race events there and I used to instruct Porsche's Driving School there and have instructed Driver Education events there for Chin, PBOC, Porsche, BMW and Audi at Barber. Highly technical track that is set up perfect for momentum cars where skills, not hp, define the driver.
My guess is that Stig took the RC F around the track and it posted a time that did not correspond with JC's agenda and soap box antics. Had Stig's time been bad, JC would have flouted that as more evidence of Lexus' failure to deliver.
The RCF in capable hands has posted comparable track times to the M4 notwithstanding 400 pounds extra weight, lower skid pad numbers and with less straight line acceleration. That is actually a tribute to the chassis set up in the RCF as the RCF apparently can carry more speed at turn in and and track out to make for losses at apex and straight line acceleration.
RE: Barber
Barber is one of my fav courses in the country. Lost count of my race events there and I used to instruct Porsche's Driving School there and have instructed Driver Education events there for Chin, PBOC, Porsche, BMW and Audi at Barber. Highly technical track that is set up perfect for momentum cars where skills, not hp, define the driver.
03-06-15, 07:09 AM
#214
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aventura, Florida
Posts: 2,148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equipped with the TVD, the RC F out corners the IS F in a heart beat: faster on corners has already been shown to be faster on the track (R&T Motown & AMCI and led to a virtual tie in the Motor Trend Head to Head). Any IS F owner who has explored the limits of their car knows this is where the IS F needed substantial improvement. Slide corning is lots of fun, but slow--it's the M4's major problem and has been apparent in the tests.
03-06-15, 07:42 AM
#215
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aventura, Florida
Posts: 2,148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with this ! I test drove a RC-F thinking I may trade my 2012 IS-F for one NOT!!! I was very disappointed in the driving dynamic of this car where the ISF feels nimble, the RC-F feels bloated and heavy in comparison. I did not feel it was an upgrade to the IS-F especially in the things that matter to me.
ISF001 hits it right on the head when he brings up the 362:2 compromise. RCF might be faster on a track, but is 2 days a year worth losing 2 doors and a more spacious interior. The interior in the RCF is gorgeous so if your looking for a 2 door GT cruiser I dont see anything better in the market right now.
03-06-15, 07:57 AM
#216
The RC-F is planted, solid and powerful--bloated and heavy are grossly non-descriptive of this car and terms wishfully used by those who want to disparage advancement and the new flagship car for the brand. Could the power-to-weigh ratio have been different? Sure. Would it have compromised the cost and luxury options? Yes. Is it the fastest car on the blue planet? No. But it is the best overall car in the class for a track:road, 363:2 compromise.
Equipped with the TVD, the RC F out corners the IS F in a heart beat: faster on corners has already been shown to be faster on the track (R&T Motown & AMCI and led to a virtual tie in the Motor Trend Head to Head). Any IS F owner who has explored the limits of their car knows this is where the IS F needed substantial improvement. Slide corning is lots of fun, but slow--it's the M4's major problem and has been apparent in the tests.
My 2012 was a bit on the light side and somewhat skittish under immediate acceleration. It was controllable, but again, this is not what makes cars fast. Fun? Loads, and I greatly enjoyed it for 3.5 years. On a track, the RC F with TVD wins against the IS F in a heart beat, in mid-to-top range acceleration, in design, in handling, in balance, etc. The RC F achieves full torque at a lower rpm than the IS F. This is achieved at 4,800 versus 5,200--that is 400 rpm earlier than the old IS F engine. Compression also increases to 12.3:1, from 11.8:1. The RC F revs higher, and picks up where the IS F left off. Drive the RC F in the 4,800 and above rev range, and it's a rocket. There are substantial performance gains--off and on the track in driving dynamics.
This is a talk-until-your-blue-in-the-face discussion, and it will eventually be settled in comparative testing soon enough on the tracks.
The fact is that we are comparing two drastically different cars. And yes, to get the full experience, it will cost more that the IS F--$81,000-$82,000. Who buys this car? Certainly, many of us are IS F owners transitioning to a new car. I also believe it is drawing a new demographic/psychographic of buyer, and I believe this was Lexus' intention from launch.
No car is for everybody. As was the case with the IS-F, I am glad that there will be retained exclusivity for RC F owners.
Equipped with the TVD, the RC F out corners the IS F in a heart beat: faster on corners has already been shown to be faster on the track (R&T Motown & AMCI and led to a virtual tie in the Motor Trend Head to Head). Any IS F owner who has explored the limits of their car knows this is where the IS F needed substantial improvement. Slide corning is lots of fun, but slow--it's the M4's major problem and has been apparent in the tests.
My 2012 was a bit on the light side and somewhat skittish under immediate acceleration. It was controllable, but again, this is not what makes cars fast. Fun? Loads, and I greatly enjoyed it for 3.5 years. On a track, the RC F with TVD wins against the IS F in a heart beat, in mid-to-top range acceleration, in design, in handling, in balance, etc. The RC F achieves full torque at a lower rpm than the IS F. This is achieved at 4,800 versus 5,200--that is 400 rpm earlier than the old IS F engine. Compression also increases to 12.3:1, from 11.8:1. The RC F revs higher, and picks up where the IS F left off. Drive the RC F in the 4,800 and above rev range, and it's a rocket. There are substantial performance gains--off and on the track in driving dynamics.
This is a talk-until-your-blue-in-the-face discussion, and it will eventually be settled in comparative testing soon enough on the tracks.
The fact is that we are comparing two drastically different cars. And yes, to get the full experience, it will cost more that the IS F--$81,000-$82,000. Who buys this car? Certainly, many of us are IS F owners transitioning to a new car. I also believe it is drawing a new demographic/psychographic of buyer, and I believe this was Lexus' intention from launch.
No car is for everybody. As was the case with the IS-F, I am glad that there will be retained exclusivity for RC F owners.
03-06-15, 08:17 AM
#217
Reliability is expensive - a real cost
I once asked a German auto engineer as to why their cars are not as reliable, and the answer was that they can make reliable auto too, but it would cost too much.
03-06-15, 08:35 AM
#219
1- Warranty costs are deferred down the line.
2- Make for quicker time-to-market for new products/technologies = more profit (help to offset warr)
Rep may suffer a bit, but strong brand recognition, and marketing help to offset that.
03-06-15, 08:53 AM
#220
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this for a while, and I'm not sure I get the "it wasn't Lexus' best" argument. The RC-F is a great luxury performance GT that competes strongly with it's rivals, just with maybe a little more emphasis on reliability and GT happiness than it does on all-out track numbers, and then it's still cheaper than many rival cars. So is it the absolute best "world class effort" to ever roll off Lexus' production floor? No. Should we really expect it to be? If Lexus actually took the route of building a new, lighter chassis for the RC-F and bumped the power a little more and whatever else to appease the numbers critics, I feel like there would be an uproar about how it's not worth 20k more than the competition. Everything is a tradeoff, and I don't think certain tradeoffs makes a company "lazy". At the end of the day, I don't think we actually want this car segment to be a "which is the best M4". I prefer to have choices, and then pick which of a handful of amazing cars suits YOUR needs. Then drive the heck out of it! 
03-06-15, 09:41 AM
#221
I really enjoy the trend of this thread... where ideas and constructive comments are showing up. It becomes clearer and clearer that RCF has a pretty good chassis and suspension to offset its weight disadvantage. It has been shown by capable drivers. Some entertainers in Top Gears know this and I also buy into the idea that they intentionally drove it off the grass to completely dismiss the handling performance on the RCF. That suggests to me that Top Gear is very misleading!
I also really like that we don't trash talk other brand in a way some other forums do.
I also really like that we don't trash talk other brand in a way some other forums do.
03-06-15, 10:49 AM
#222
Lexus Test Driver
I put 84k problem free miles on my 997tt cab . I put 50K on a 2004 996tt cab and only replaced a master slave cylinder. I put 45k on a 2001 996tt coupe with GT2 intercoolers and hybrid K24s producing 750 hp and only had to replace instrument cluster when the tail stopped going up. I had a 993tt that for 4 years that never saw the inside of a shop except for services.
I got to where I just ignored the lights on my M3 unless it was about to blow up. Lol, I could go on for hours about that car and BMW's apathetic customer service in resolving recurring problems. Sorry, I know you guys said keep it civil . . .
Not sure about the charging more theory. How much are 7 series and A7s, both of which are pitiful in reliability.
Last edited by DougHII; 03-06-15 at 12:08 PM.
03-06-15, 02:30 PM
#223
Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol, there is no doubt that JC put it in the grass and drifted it around like a maniac on purpose for the reasons I stated a few posts back. The RC F handles much better than many of the cars To Gear has Stig take around the track.
My guess is that Stig took the RC F around the track and it posted a time that did not correspond with JC's agenda and soap box antics. Had Stig's time been bad, JC would have flouted that as more evidence of Lexus' failure to deliver.
The RCF in capable hands has posted comparable track times to the M4 notwithstanding 400 pounds extra weight, lower skid pad numbers and with less straight line acceleration. That is actually a tribute to the chassis set up in the RCF as the RCF apparently can carry more speed at turn in and and track out to make for losses at apex and straight line acceleration.
RE: Barber
Barber is one of my fav courses in the country. Lost count of my race events there and I used to instruct Porsche's Driving School there and have instructed Driver Education events there for Chin, PBOC, Porsche, BMW and Audi at Barber. Highly technical track that is set up perfect for momentum cars where skills, not hp, define the driver.
My guess is that Stig took the RC F around the track and it posted a time that did not correspond with JC's agenda and soap box antics. Had Stig's time been bad, JC would have flouted that as more evidence of Lexus' failure to deliver.
The RCF in capable hands has posted comparable track times to the M4 notwithstanding 400 pounds extra weight, lower skid pad numbers and with less straight line acceleration. That is actually a tribute to the chassis set up in the RCF as the RCF apparently can carry more speed at turn in and and track out to make for losses at apex and straight line acceleration.
RE: Barber
Barber is one of my fav courses in the country. Lost count of my race events there and I used to instruct Porsche's Driving School there and have instructed Driver Education events there for Chin, PBOC, Porsche, BMW and Audi at Barber. Highly technical track that is set up perfect for momentum cars where skills, not hp, define the driver.
This is more or less what I had posted earlier and I agree. The time the Stig posted probably wasn't so far off the M4 that it justified Clarkson's smear campaign against the car because it wasnt a 300k supercar like the LFA.
03-06-15, 02:38 PM
#224
Performance wise, of course that thing moves fast. What is wrong with the M3 in term of reliability? Are there any other issues with it that makes you say never again??
I ask because I am considering M3 in my future car purchase so your insights will be super helpful to me. I'm considering used BMW M3,Lexus ISF, Audi S4 and possibly used RCF for the future.
I ask because I am considering M3 in my future car purchase so your insights will be super helpful to me. I'm considering used BMW M3,Lexus ISF, Audi S4 and possibly used RCF for the future.
03-06-15, 04:12 PM
#225
Driver School Candidate
"This isn't just a C with a big motor dropped into it. There's sophistication running through the whole thing. The ride is firm - even in Comfort mode - but the staging is well-judged to the point where you really can drive it in Sport+ without needing to be on a track. And when you really start to drive hard, the car immediately comes with you. Turn-in is sharp rather than darty, and the C doesn't seem to lean - just like the AMG GT, it features active engine mounts that slacken to reduce vibration and NVH from the engine/gearbox combo during cruising, and tighten during more committed driving to improve response.
The engine feels barely turbocharged, with a delivery that is elastic, responsive and hammer effective. There's a vague feeling that there's too much torque in the mid-range for a normally-aspirated car, and there's a faint turbo whistle, but it really does just feel like a car with a much bigger, non-turbo motor. What that means is that it reacts faithfully to the throttle, every time. No muss, no fuss. Of course, you can play with the way it delivers its power via the various modes, but it's never anything short of impressive.
The obvious competition comes in the shape of BMW's M3, and I have to say that, for me, the C63 is a better car. More duality, more confidence, all of the performance. But when you have a car that's subtle-but-good-looking, an absolute joy to drive quickly without scaring you witless, capable of carrying the family and putting the wind up a serious sports car, you know you've got a winner."
The competition in this segment is the most intense it has ever been. With the M3/M4, C63, RC-F, and forthcoming CTS-V, there are a plethora of options to choose from (great time to be an enthusiast).
I don't really subscribe to the notion that there is one "best" car. It all comes down to what one wants from a driving experience. Some may want an aggressive road car whereas others may prefer a more track-tuned weapon.
Furthermore, as far as exterior/interior styling is concerned, personal taste varies drastically. The M3 (with its massive fender flares and gaping air dams) and the ATS-V (with its sharp angles and vented hood) are, in my eyes, the most aggressive looking options. The C63/C63 S and RC-F have more of a sleeper look. The styling is a bit more subtle and "grown-up."
Each of the current options are outstanding. Three of the four have adopted turbocharging as it is clearly the way of the future. The M3 and C63 have both lost weight (which seems to be the second trend, after turbocharging).
For those that want to hang on to the feel of a NA motor for a bit longer, the RC-F is a great choice. I look forward to seeing one in person/driving one soon.
