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.
Thought I'd share this with everyone - in looking at the latest 2022 Fuji Speedway Edition. If I'm not wrong, for 2022 they reduced the number of units from 60 (in the prior year) to 50 in 2022. Love the color! What do you guys think of it?
I finally got to see the new 22 TE @ Barret Jackson and I hate to say it but the matte paint in blue reminded me of a Macco paint job. Just didn’t look right and looked like a low quality wrap or paint job.
Good review overall, but completely disagree with the owner that normal RCF has any "boatiness" to it. I would never own a car like that because it is not fun at all. For me, it is all about tactile feedback. Mine in SPORT+/MANUAL (and TVD in slalom) always feels very responsive and amazing to throw in turns. My G-meter has been pegged at 1.00+ G several times in spirited driving, which means serious tight turning speeds. Maybe, I ended up with a freak RCF or they way I drive the car or it is just the TVD. I don't know, but it is very important element to me for the car to respond to my finger tips.
TE is around 160 - 170 lbs lighter and it does make things better, but much of that weight difference is low to the ground close to CoG. My only issue was that RCF being under-tired, but with great tires it always feels telepathic to me in its responses. Very little steering angle and I can point the car to go exactly where I want it to with very little steering angle. The steering might be calibrated to be heavy in the non-TE RCF because of the lighter wheels/CCB on the TE, but still in my case I always get amazed at how my non-TE RCF feels so agile and tightly sprung in all cases.
I only was able to stomach most of the gushing about the exterior then I quit watching. I do understand that nobody is going to honestly review a car on video (or at least, I've never seen a review that doesn't gush about this or that). He went on and on and on about the carbon fiber yet didn't seem to know that other than the hood and wing, it is the same carbon fiber that you can order on the production car (that's how mine came). Perhaps that color is prettier in person than it shows in video...but on video, it isn't that wonderful to my eye. For me, that color and that wing makes it garish for gaijin.
I finally got to see the new 22 TE @ Barret Jackson and I hate to say it but the matte paint in blue reminded me of a Macco paint job. Just didn’t look right and looked like a low quality wrap or paint job.
Not sure if I agree with that. Lexus is known to have amongst the best OEM quality paint jobs. But at the end of the day, this is a subjective opinion - to each their own.
Originally Posted by 05RollaXRS
Good review overall, but completely disagree with the owner that normal RCF has any "boatiness" to it. I would never own a car like that because it is not fun at all. For me, it is all about tactile feedback. Mine in SPORT+/MANUAL (and TVD in slalom) always feels very responsive and amazing to throw in turns. My G-meter has been pegged at 1.00+ G several times in spirited driving, which means serious tight turning speeds. Maybe, I ended up with a freak RCF or they way I drive the car or it is just the TVD. I don't know, but it is very important element to me for the car to respond to my finger tips.
TE is around 160 - 170 lbs lighter and it does make things better, but much of that weight difference is low to the ground close to CoG. My only issue was that RCF being under-tired, but with great tires it always feels telepathic to me in its responses. Very little steering angle and I can point the car to go exactly where I want it to with very little steering angle. The steering might be calibrated to be heavy in the non-TE RCF because of the lighter wheels/CCB on the TE, but still in my case I always get amazed at how my non-TE RCF feels so agile and tightly sprung in all cases.
Thanks. I don't think he meant it to such a degree where the "regular" RC-F is "boaty". Keep in mind that he had the vehicle for about 2 weeks when the review went up. But definitely agree that the majority of the weight reduction is down low. Ultimately to really have a noticeable difference, I'd think that it would have to be driven at 8 or 9/10 to notice the differences between "regular" and Fuji.
Originally Posted by SailorTPD
I only was able to stomach most of the gushing about the exterior then I quit watching. I do understand that nobody is going to honestly review a car on video (or at least, I've never seen a review that doesn't gush about this or that). He went on and on and on about the carbon fiber yet didn't seem to know that other than the hood and wing, it is the same carbon fiber that you can order on the production car (that's how mine came). Perhaps that color is prettier in person than it shows in video...but on video, it isn't that wonderful to my eye. For me, that color and that wing makes it garish for gaijin.
I appreciate your feedback and understand that everyone has their own opinions. I honestly love this version of the RC-F Fuji Speedway. Also, if you went a little further into the video, I did include a notice on the screen that the CF ground effects are also available on the regular RC-F (see 2:32). Thanks for the feedback though!
i had a 17 (non perf package) and now a 21 fuji in arctic blast satin. my use for the car is for fun and an occasional meetup so i don't daily or use it to run errands. fuji has 10.5k miles so far so good seat time in the hills behind my place and some track time. i put 13k miles on the 17. also for more context, i only buy lexus and toyota so don't have personal experience with other perf cars from other brands.
with that context set, what do i think of it? short answer for me is the 21 fuji checks all of the boxes on my list. again, my view is kind of narrow given what i buy. starting with the color, love the satin white and the red interior - the blue not so much, i want to like it, my wife even asked if i was going to move to the 22 - nope.
there is a very noticeable performance diff between t.e./fuji models to non track spec in my opinion. not only the weight savings from the factory cf, which is unsurpassed quality wise to any aftermarket imo, but also the brake system. it saves 45+ lbs of unsprung weight and the bite / stopping power is next level for sure under hard braking when i compare to the 17. it also has shorter gears which helps get up to speed quicker than non-track spec. last for me is what it stands for....a namesake for the track of where lexus has traditionally done their r&d for their perf line. that itself is really cool to me as a toyota motor corp fan. and the watch is cool, that's the real reason i bought it ....not.
the only thing i would have had the engineers do differently is to add valves to the oem titanium axleback like the LC. it's just too quiet so i swapped out my midpipe to ppe and axleback to ti gthaus with valves, and gained some hp. i also moved to titan7 wheels which saved me another 28lbs when compared to the oem forged bbs.
good luck in your decision. it's a great car and worth it to me - key word being 'me'.
Thanks. I don't think he meant it to such a degree where the "regular" RC-F is "boaty". Keep in mind that he had the vehicle for about 2 weeks when the review went up. But definitely agree that the majority of the weight reduction is down low. Ultimately to really have a noticeable difference, I'd think that it would have to be driven at 8 or 9/10 to notice the differences between "regular" and Fuji.
Agreed, I get triggered by the word "boat". In performance terms, to me that is reserved for something sloppy, incoherent that rolls all over the place, which is probably the opposite of what an RCF is. Very firm, sure footed and actually masks how much speed you are carrying in the straights or in the turns. 90 mph in turns feels like 60 mph.
Anyway, there is no argument the RCF TE is better than all non-TE variants of RCFs. It is not even an argument. I felt the difference was a bit exaggerated by the enthusiastic owner of the RCF TE (I admire his enthusiasm for the RCF TE and the fact that he went from one RCF to another RCF TE rather than going to something else).
I think this shows a very accurate difference between an RCF TE and a non-TE RCF (with TVD stand alone, no carbon) on the older 2015 - 2019 PSS tires. RC TE runs somewhat similar time of 1:37.x as a C63S, standard BMW M4 and a GT350 while the standard RCF is about 1.5 seconds slower than the RCF TE.
Agreed, I get triggered by the word "boat". In performance terms, to me that is reserved for something sloppy, incoherent that rolls all over the place, which is probably the opposite of what an RCF is. Very firm, sure footed and actually masks how much speed you are carrying in the straights or in the turns. 90 mph in turns feels like 60 mph.
Anyway, there is no argument the RCF TE is better than all non-TE variants of RCFs. It is not even an argument. I felt the difference was a bit exaggerated by the enthusiastic owner of the RCF TE (I admire his enthusiasm for the RCF TE and the fact that he went from one RCF to another RCF TE rather than going to something else).
I think this shows a very accurate difference between an RCF TE and a non-TE RCF (with TVD stand alone, no carbon) on the older 2015 - 2019 PSS tires. RC TE runs somewhat similar time of 1:37.x as a C63S, standard BMW M4 and a GT350 while the standard RCF is about 1.5 seconds slower than the RCF TE.
The tires make a big difference too, the better tires probably amounted to some of that time gap. I understand why the reviewer would use the word "boaty" since the RC F is not exactly a light or small car, and is "boaty" in comparison to say an S2000, or a cayman, or something like that, but for its size and comfort it is quite controlled on the road and even at high speed it is composed. "Boaty" is definitely not the right word, but all of this is relative.
The tires make a big difference too, the better tires probably amounted to some of that time gap.
I think the RCF TE should have had optional Cup 2 tires and all press cars should have been supplied with Cup 2 tires. It would have been great for marketing.
But yeah. I have had the original PSS tires the car came with and then switched to the PS4S tires (although, it is extra load variant of 96Y front and 100Y rear with much higher load rating index than that of the OEM 2020+ RCF PS4S) and what a difference these tires made. The moment I drove it out of the tire shop, I felt immediately a big difference in how quick the steering became. Since they are designed to handle much heavier weight cars, they had 1/2 inch wider sidewalls and they were reinforced to handle a lot of corner-loading heavy weight at high speed, which actually helps mask the weight of the RCF because the tires don't "collapse" due to the weight in tight turning like the OEM PSS did. The grip is so much better as well once warmed up (than the 2015 - 2019 PSS).
Only downside is, a bit firmer ride on city roads, but it is a small price to pay for the gains in spirited driving.
I think the RCF TE should have had optional Cup 2 tires and all press cars should have been supplied with Cup 2 tires. It would have been great for marketing.
.
I agree. Cup 2s…rear seat delete. If it’s a track edition it should get a GT3 treatment.
Agreed, I get triggered by the word "boat". In performance terms, to me that is reserved for something sloppy, incoherent that rolls all over the place, which is probably the opposite of what an RCF is. Very firm, sure footed and actually masks how much speed you are carrying in the straights or in the turns. 90 mph in turns feels like 60 mph.
Anyway, there is no argument the RCF TE is better than all non-TE variants of RCFs. It is not even an argument. I felt the difference was a bit exaggerated by the enthusiastic owner of the RCF TE (I admire his enthusiasm for the RCF TE and the fact that he went from one RCF to another RCF TE rather than going to something else).
I think this shows a very accurate difference between an RCF TE and a non-TE RCF (with TVD stand alone, no carbon) on the older 2015 - 2019 PSS tires. RC TE runs somewhat similar time of 1:37.x as a C63S, standard BMW M4 and a GT350 while the standard RCF is about 1.5 seconds slower than the RCF TE.
Thanks for the chart - definitely puts the TE's (FS) capabilities into context vs other performance-oriented cars. Would think that a cup 2 tire would help with times - like @cvt said, add a rear seat delete to those cup 2's and it would get that GT3 treatment that the name truly deserves. Nonetheless, I have a lot of respect for that car!
Thanks for the chart - definitely puts the TE's (FS) capabilities into context vs other performance-oriented cars. Would think that a cup 2 tire would help with times - like @cvt said, add a rear seat delete to those cup 2's and it would get that GT3 treatment that the name truly deserves. Nonetheless, I have a lot of respect for that car!
The TE also did 7:52 around the Nurburgring Nordschliefe driven by a regular German owner who happens to go to Nurburgring a lot and knows the track very well. It was also with other traffic around so with a pro driver and with no traffic, it could have dipped to 7:45. Regarding lap times, it has become a rat race where people compare numbers on paper for any performance car. SportAuto did a 7:58 with the Mustang Mach 1 in the hands of a pro driver and the Mustang fans were furious as to why Ford supplied the Mach 1 with the PS4S tires and not Cup 2 tires. There were bizarre theories that Ford intentionally did not give a Cup 2 equipped Mach 1 because they wanted to keep the GT350R lap times safe and not to be overshadowed by the Mach 1 etc.
Case in point, if all of the press TE RCF were provided with Cup 2 tires, it would have been great for marketing as everyone looks like numbers.
02-07-22, 05:17 AM
2022 Fuji Speedway Review - Only 1 of 50
....not.
