Db750

Doug,

Trust me; you and I are in full agreement regarding the ISF. I was never a fan of the looks either. In fact for me it was the clear last place finisher vs the M3, C63, and RS5 (I have driven all these cars as well). Not saying it was a bad car, but it just wasn't my thing, and being "younger" and married without kids I do not need a sedan. The ISF did, however, get my attention as a long time BMW fan, and it sparked interest in the brand for me.

Then comes along the LFA. At the time I was driving a V10 M6, so the LFA was just the pinnacle of cool to me. It took everything I loved about my car and took it to the max and then some. That V10! The sound was amazing! Love the looks, the interior, the instrument cluster; Lexus has my attention.

Then comes along the RCF. I begin reading this forum a little over a year ago. There are very few posts. Specs slowly trickling in. I'll be honest; I know very little about Lexus at this time, but I am very intrigued, and having just sold my M6 I have a picture of a Yas Marina Blue M4 on my refrigerator as a reminder of my next car. Then I read that the RCF will have a high revving NA V8. That the RCF will use the same instrument cluster from the LFA. The picture of the M4 doesn't look as good as it did a month ago. Then I read that the RCF exhaust will be tuned by Yamaha the same as the LFA, and concurrently hear the garbage that comes out of the M4. M4 picture comes down, RCF picture goes up.

Through the fall I continue to read incredible news about the RCF, and start to realize that I may be back in a Lexus after a nearly eight year hiatus following the sell of my 2002 ES300 that I drove entering college. Then as the final specs come out my excitement begins to fade. The RCF will weigh two tons! How is it that much heavier than the ISF? It isn't really a high revving engine like what I was expecting. After all the comparisons to the LFA I'm thinking it will rev to at least 8k. Barely over 7k is pretty much what every normal series BMW does. Then the transmission is listed as a full automatic. I was really hoping that it would come with some sort of DCT or SMG type transmission like the LFA.

Now its Christmas time and I am beginning to feel a little let down by Lexus. I was expecting a huge step forward in performance in the same sense that they continually upgraded the ISF to the point that in its final years it was on par with the E92 and C63 and in the same sense that Lexus built a world class exotic. My decision; find the newest, lowest mile lease takeover on an e92 M3 and drive that for a year while the C63 and RS5 are released, and continue to watch the RCF. In the mean time I am driving a car that weighs much less than two tons, has a REAL high revving engine, and has a fantastic DCT transmission that bangs into gear and barks on downshifts. More and more I feel that the RCF would have been better suited to compete with a car like the e92 and the NA C63.

I still do plan on buying an RCF in the next few years. I agree with you on the looks. I think it is one of the best looking cars on the road. The thing looks entry level exotic honestly. I really love all of Lexus's new designs. I was actually the first person in Lexington to see the RCF arrive at our local dealer. It was a molten pearl model like yours. My CA called me as the car was being unloaded, and I was there within ten minutes. The car was gorgeous, breathtaking actually, and the quality of the paint was simply amazing. So now I'm thinking that the RCF might be my wife's next car to replace her M235i as opposed to being a replacement to one of my ///M cars.

In summary I really do love the RCF, but I just wish it was more of a beast on the highway. With the massive weight, size, auto transmisison, etc it is more of a GT car than the M4 or ATS-V, so I was really hoping that it would shine more on the open road. This isn't the first video I have seen that show these results, it's just the first one I have commented on.

Your'e preaching to the choir, brother. Like I said above I went for the old model M3 because to me the high revving NA engine mated to a DCT transmission is what its all about. The GTR does absolutely nothing for me.

Looooolllll!! Not sure if you can read my signature line, but I own an E92 M3, and have friends that own the new M4. It is a absolute whole hell of a lot faster in any measure. The M4 blows away the E92 in both a straight line and around a track. It is probably the biggest performance gap of any two M3 models.

The mods you listed are no where near enough to get the e92 on M4 level. Intake adds literally zero hp. De-cat exhaust and tune maybe add 25 whp at best. At the point stock M4 is destroying it. I have seen this in real life many many many times. Not in 1 video! This isn't really even worth arguing as you clearly do not know what you are talking about and have an astonishing anti-BMW bias. I don't like the M4 any more than you do, brother, but I am not going to downplay its performance.

Now for the Motortrend review; yes the M4 lost, but it lost to a C63s model which is equivalent to the upcoming M4 competition package. The M4 has also beaten the more expensive C63s model in every other review I have seen which is quite a feat IMO. I would guess that when the Comp Package comes out shortly that the M4 will have no problem beating the C63s.

For me the ATS-V is not even in the equation as I do not like the looks both inside and out and the inteiror ergonomics are attrocious, BUT the ATS_V is doing exactly what I was hoping the RCF would be doing, and that is giving the Germans a run for their money, or even spanking the Germans a few times. If you haven't noticed the RCF is no where to be found in these tests. It's all M4 vs C63s or M4 vs ATS-V. It seems to me that most have already written off the RCF, and judging by the posts on any car enthusiast forum other than this one that is quite an understatement.

LOL I know man. Not sure why I even took the time to reply.

Thank you for your post, and I am glad you feel that way. I agree with you 100%; the RCF is jaw dropping good looking both inside and out. I go back and fourth on which one I like best from exterior, M4 or RCF, but there is no question that the RCF is the more exotic and special looking car.

I think the one problem with Doug's argument, that he never considered the ISF due to looks, is that current ISF owners clearly like the looks of their car, so that thought never crosses their mind when considering the upgrade.

I really hope that this forum becomes more active, and that we can gather more real life owner thoughts, videos, vbox times, etc. The ///M forums are extremely lively with a whole section dedicated to M4 vs. that gets ten times the action that this entire forum gets, and here we have one single thread dedicated to all RCF vs reviews that I have had to stop viewing because it loads terribly on my computer, and as soon as a debate or discussion gains traction it is derailed by a new review being posted.

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

even with a tune, it will not be faster. the e92 m3 was my choice before the ISF, if i knew i could be close the 11s with exhaust and tune, i wouldn't be driving the F right now.

ISF001

M4--WHEN you can get the power to the asphalt--which is apparently a difficult thing to do--it's a bit faster in the 0-60. In the long pulls, the RC F has already had its day more than once in videos and reviews. Neither car is a hell of a lot faster--these two cars are well-matched to compete.

RC F versus IS-F

Precisely as stated above...any meaningful comparison needs to be stock for stock. The IS-F would not have hung in as it did at times without Joe's gear--there is just no way. Otherwise, put a jet engine in the IS-F--it will fly by anything.

Neither F car is slow. The RC F is definitely faster than my STOCK 2012 IS-F. But you are only comparing acceleration here. The two cars are miles apart.

05RollaXRS

No point arguing with me. There is more than enough evidence that it is plausible to have an E92 M3 with bolt ons and tunes beat a bone stock M4. Period.

For one, I said to ISFPOWER that it was I/E + Tune. You should read what is written more closely. If you still disagree or want to make excuses about these videos, feel free to go argue with the posters of these videos.

I still stand by what I said. In the 1/4 mile, M4 pulls low-12s in all tests while the M3 used to pull high-12s.

Here is what comes straight from the mouth of the E92 M3 owner:



And this one (E90 M3 sedan with bolt-ons and tune vs stock M4)

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

lol at street racing video.

lets look at real performance numbers. are you telling me e92 m3 with I/E and tune run better times in the 0-60, 1/8th , 1/4th and traps a higher speed than a stock m4? This is a yes or no question.

05RollaXRS

Well, this video of RC-F vs IS-F was street racing. Wasn't it? Why is suddenly the conservation shifting to 1/4 miles when the RC-F vs IS-F was a higher speed roll race?

Considering bolt-on and tune E90/E92 M3 do run low-12s (I have checked timeslips), it is very plausible an E92 M3 to match the bone stock (again, bone stock) M4 in a 1/4 mile and then pull harder on the higher speeds like the videos show (again, versus a bone stock M4).

weswork

iTrader: (4)

Is it possible the e92 M3 in this video has a supercharger? Not sure what the relevance would be of a "pulley" in the mod list and it may better explain the performance comparison. I don't think most people list an underdrive crank pulley in their mod list. Just a thought...

05RollaXRS

No they are both N/A. Videos confirm they are N/A. Pulley is a popular N/A mod for M cars.

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

you made a statement that the e92 m3 with i/e tuned is faster than the m4 which is why i called you out for it.

for example, if i have a video of me racing a bugatti veyron, does that mean my isf is faster than the bugatti?

your statement would be funny if i posted it on the m forums. even though they are the most biased forums known to the car world, they would agree with me.

05RollaXRS

Yes, my conversation was based on rolling start races, again since this thread is about a roll race video. An I/E + tune does seem to be quicker than a bone stock M4 from what I have seen proof of so far. It is also based on the honesty of the mods. If someone does weight reduction or uses super slick tires, but does not specify it then that variable could go for everything.

Correction: You called me out because you did not read my statement correctly and thought I said I + E when all of the evidence I have seen includes tune (which is what I had stated).

p.s. Your Bugatti analogy does not make any sense. Sorry!

Biased in what sense? One M versus another M?

You can post my statement anywhere you like. If anyone uses a bit common sense, he would be able to understand what I am trying to say and how the available proof corroborates what I am saying. If you laugh when the evidence does not support your ridicule by disregarding it then there is nothing I can do about it.

Db750

ISFPOWER,

Take a look at the portion of 05rolla's post that I have bolded, underlined, and increased in font size. That is the only part of his response that has any merit what so ever, and he is 100% correct when he says there really is no point in arguing with him, reading his incessant one track posts, or watching his videos of illegal street racing.

My point, which still stands undisputed, is that the M4 is a huge step forward in performance from its predecessor as is the C63. The RCF is a huge step forward for Lexus as well, not in performance, but in looks and styling. These are not my words (although I do agree). These are the words of actual RCF and ISF owners.

The ATS-V is doing the dirty work for the RCF. It's out there busting its ***, whipping up on the big bad Germans, while the RCF sits in its dressing room taking selfies and updating its Twitter account. Lexus set the stage with the ISF and the LFA, and now that everyone's watching the RCF is no where to be found.

I do agree with you that if that statement was posted on the ///M forums, or any car enthusiast forum for that matter, it would be the laughing stock for some time, and most likely be immortalized in several members signatures lines as a nod to the hilarious blind bias some extreme fanboys possess. I'll even agree with you that the ///M forums are quite biased, but I will add that there is a small cult like following here on the F boards that takes bias to a whole new level similar in scope to how BMW has raised the bar with the M4.

05RollaXRS

To be honest with you, you are coming on here on an RC-F board and belitting the RC-F and what it can accomplish compared to the IS-F is far more of a "laughing stock" worthy than anything I have said.

What have I said? I never belittled the M4. Just said, the incremental improvements over the E92 get greatly exaggerated. Heck, I did not even remotely address you until you started mocking me. Just the M4 is not miles and leagues quicker than the M3 like you BMW guys like to make it out to be and all of the proof I have seen corroborates that. It is quicker as in a few tenths quicker than the M3. That is all of the factual evidence points to.

If you think someone on M board would laugh at me for stating "M4 is quicker than M3 no doubt, but It is not 'hell of a lot faster'" then there are serious issues they need to sort out. Hell of a lot faster to me, is completely on a different level faster like what an M4 is to a 370Z.

All I have seen from you are condescending remarks and belittling of the RC-F. You should go look in the mirror first before you start coming here and insulting a member for only stating what is in front of me.

Db750

05RollaXRS,

Please understand that hurting your feelings was never my intentions, and if I have done so please accept my apologies. I am, however, a bit confused by your statement above that I have again bolded, underlined, and increased in font size. If you will look back to page one of this thread you will see that you clearly did address me in the most direct manner possible in an online car forum which is that of quoting ones post. If I am mistaken please let me know, but I am pretty sure that is what I see being displayed in your post number 9 in this very thread.

I actually thought I did a very good job of eloquently and thoughtfully addressing my frustrations with the RCF in a manner that would not be offensive to current owners, and in a manner that would spark meaningful discussion. What I got in return was at the least hyperbole, and quite possibly at least two incidents of vile hatred.

I am not a huge fan of the M4 any more than anyone else here, and I was sure to at least voice some distaste for the car before mentioning the RCF's weight and minimal performance increase over its predecessor. I thought that if I packaged the criticism of the RCF in an "M4 insult sandwich" it may come across better here on the home page of the RCF. Boy was I wrong.

Once again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. That was never my intentions. I think it would be best moving forward if you do not address me on this forum, and I will do the same for you (as I have since I joined back in October of 2014).

Best,
Db750

Lexura1414

iTrader: (6)

Best post about the RC-F! I can definitely relate. Keep posting and more power to you!

Db750

Lexura1414,

Thank you for your post. I greatly appreciate that. These are thoughts that I have been wanting to get off my chest for some time, and I tried to stay as objective as possible as to not offend any current owners.

I have been a BMW fan for years, and I am not trying to hide that at all. At this time there sadly is not really anything being offered by BMW that gets my blood pumping the way the old M cars did. How cool was it back in 2005 when we were hearing leaks on the M5 and talking about a high revving V10 in a 4 door sedan?!?! As a somewhat ignorant (of lexus) BMW fan imagine what I'm thinking when I hear Lexus is the only one staying NA and they are keeping the V8! This time around I truly thought Lexus was going to make the better M3 than BMW.

Hopefully people see my post for what it is as I think the RCF is a fantastic car. There are some things that Lexus got 100% right. The looks to start both inside and out are a home run in my opinion. I have seen a few on the road, and they are one of the best designs under $150k I have seen in a long time. The only thing I am very unhappy with regarding the "looks" is the size of the infotainment screen which is just damn sad honestly. That screen would have looked dated on the Santa Maria to be frank.

Another thing Lexus got right was staying NA, and staying with the V8. Keep the NA V8, and you will always have the attention of guys like me.

So they have the class, the luxury, the style and exclusivity nailed, and they kept the V8. There are, however, as I have mentioned above several areas where I feel the car can be improved. If people will be honest I think we can all agree on some of this to an extent. Take these four things below, and IMO you have a car that I as a car enthusiast will be skipping meals to be first in line for:

1. DCT transmission: much better feel than the auto, and the down shifts with an engine like the RCF has will sound godly. This suggestion is based solely on the increase in the sensory aspects of the car (feel and sound), any performance increase is secondary.
2. Truly high revving engine: the engine is great, and maybe I was wrong to hope for more, but when I was reading about this car back in Fall of 2014 I was expecting at least an 8000 RPM V8. This adds so much to the car from sound to a feel that few cars can replicate.
3. Adaptive Dampers: I honestly could not believe that this was not an option. A Lexus needs to maintain its trademark comfort even in its most sporty car, and I believe that this is sacrificed with the current set up.
4. Weight: This is the most talked about so I will not get into it, but I almost feel cheated. We know Lexus could have done better on this, even just 100 pounds, but they did not.

In my honest opinion Lexus was on the brink of greatness and being a major player in this game. Starting with the ISF and moving towards the LFA they were doing everything right. I personally expected more of a final push with the RCF. A push that would remove any and all doubt that Lexus was here to play. That Lexus means business. That Lexus is staying with a big, bad NA V8 that sounds like a wild beast, and when that beast blows by you its the best looking and sounding thing out there.