When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I really hope Lexus keeps the NA V8 going in the F in the future. I like NA V8 versus FI whatever.
Originally Posted by DougHII
I think the RCF is a wonderful car and a steal at the going prices for what you get. My only point is that I think Lexus harmed sales by trying to overstate its performance early on and making it bit of a joke to both reviewers and enthusiast when it turned out not to be so.
The reason why the RC F is so heavy is because they initially wanted to make a convertible version of the RC. That's why they used the ISC's middle section for structural rigidity. All that extra bracing would have been necessary. However, it looks like they decided kill off the convertible version of the RC back right as they debuted the LF-C2. It's really a tragedy because they made so many compromises to allow for a convertible version but they never did release a convertible version of the car. I'm sure the rigidity helps with the handling dynamics of the car but between rigidity or weight savings without the consideration of a convertible version, they probably would have opted for weight savings.
I can confirm this is true. My buddy works for Lexus and has said this is the exact reason it's so heavy.
Originally Posted by Syan48306
The reason why the RC F is so heavy is because they initially wanted to make a convertible version of the RC. That's why they used the ISC's middle section for structural rigidity. All that extra bracing would have been necessary. However, it looks like they decided kill off the convertible version of the RC back right as they debuted the LF-C2. It's really a tragedy because they made so many compromises to allow for a convertible version but they never did release a convertible version of the car. I'm sure the rigidity helps with the handling dynamics of the car but between rigidity or weight savings without the consideration of a convertible version, they probably would have opted for weight savings.
The reason why the RC F is so heavy is because they initially wanted to make a convertible version of the RC. That's why they used the ISC's middle section for structural rigidity. All that extra bracing would have been necessary. However, it looks like they decided kill off the convertible version of the RC back right as they debuted the LF-C2. It's really a tragedy because they made so many compromises to allow for a convertible version but they never did release a convertible version of the car. I'm sure the rigidity helps with the handling dynamics of the car but between rigidity or weight savings without the consideration of a convertible version, they probably would have opted for weight savings.
Sorry if I yanked your chain... I wasn't sure as well but it's at 7300 rpm. I wonder how much it would be for the Tune...
Originally Posted by Syan48306
The reason why the RC F is so heavy is because they initially wanted to make a convertible version of the RC. That's why they used the ISC's middle section for structural rigidity. All that extra bracing would have been necessary. However, it looks like they decided kill off the convertible version of the RC back right as they debuted the LF-C2. It's really a tragedy because they made so many compromises to allow for a convertible version but they never did release a convertible version of the car. I'm sure the rigidity helps with the handling dynamics of the car but between rigidity or weight savings without the consideration of a convertible version, they probably would have opted for weight savings.
Originally Posted by ghoffner
I can confirm this is true. My buddy works for Lexus and has said this is the exact reason it's so heavy.
Since the mid section has all the extra bracing for convertible, is there a way to modify the unnecessary bracing safely for non-convertible?
01-07-17 | 11:38 PM
