RE: Lexus RC F: Review

[405dogvan]

exceed said:

Surely they would have benchmarked this against an M4 to know that there car was either better or on par?

From all the reviews I've read it seems like they were shooting in the dark for a large portion of development...

Audi have never - to my memory - made a performance model which was better than it's BMW equivalent, and yet Audi are now clearly the 'marque of choice' for people who probably used-to-view BMW as their aspirational target.

Many manufacturers have spent fortunes trying to outdo their competitors - but it seems that a better approach is simply to plough your own path and bring people into it who appreciate your sort of car.

Lexus has it's market - it has it's fans - the odds are they don't want an M car or they'd buy one. I guess this car is what Lexus think their customers want - they may be right or they may be wrong but I prefer that they do their own thing rather than saying "we simply must have more go than the M car".

Remember, they once made a car which had noticeably more power than it's M-rival and we still didn't like it - horses for courses...

[British Beef]

"barely seats 4" would be a much bigger concern than "only 400 ft.lbs of TQ".

A 1840kg coupe that is barely more than a 2+2, is for me the worse news regarding this car.

That the M4 manages more practicality (rear space) and 200kg less kerb weight is of gmuch greater concern for a car to be used and enjoyed on the road - not the race track, like most these testers seems to assume.

[Studio117]

Whats not to like.

v8
proper diff
coupe
fast
reliable
rare

Its a shame lexus don't offer appealing finance deals on this sort of thing.


Again one of those cars that people say they want and go and buy a diesel golf instead. In true ph style.

[corcoran]

Good Christ it's fking ugly.

[ayrton12]

TNH said:

I've read a few reviews of this car and the thing that has me confused is that people have been moaning that we are losing N/A motors and going turbo. This car turns up with a thumping great big V8 and all the motoring hacks bemoan the lack of torque?

Because on old NA V8 is totally out of time and the new S55 from the M4 is so much capable at all things.

[Roma101]

405dogvan said:

400kgs is over 10 tanks of fuel - it's 4 average passengers

100kg for a human is average?! Crikey. I better get the pizzas and kebabs in to fatten up!

Agree on the weight of the car though. That is a heck of a lot of additional weight.

[dazsmith69]

If that body style had rolled out 10 years ago, people would say it was a Max Power hodge podge. It really doesn't flow.

Outgunned and out-styled by the BMW.

[HighwayStar]

exceed said:

Surely they would have benchmarked this against an M4 to know that there car was either better or on par?

From all the reviews I've read it seems like they were shooting in the dark for a large portion of development...

That's was never going to happen... The M4 and the RC F were being developed at the same time so it wasn't like Lexus would've been able to buy an M4 to do the Pepsi challenge with.

[ITP]

To start, looks are in the eye of the beholder, if you don't like it, even if it weighed 1300kg, you're not going to drop 60k on one. You could say why does anyone buy a medium optioned M3/4 when for just a few grand more you could have a Nissan GTR which is considerably faster if numbers are the main factor? Probably because its a Nissan.

Not sure why lexus pushed the track side of the car when they must have known what its weight was going to be though. Bit odd.

Anyway, for me, how a car drives on the road is more important really, the overall feel, the noise etc, as for most people it will be there 100% of the time. Even for people who track cars they still will do 98% of their mileage on the road.
M3/4 will still be faster outright here too but how often will owners be flat out on the road? I know in everyday use the torque will tell from low revs, but with that in mind you would choose a 330d over an RC-F, never mind an M3. Its missing the point a bit i feel.

Which is the nicer car to drive upto say, 8 or 9 tenths? It seems clear the M3 is the better drive at 9 tenths and above. Maybe the RC-F is a nicer, more interesting place to be the rest of the time. Which is most of your time in the car. Its not as clear cut as straight line speed and laptimes. Well , maybe it is for some, which is fine for them.

[405dogvan]

Roma101 said:

405dogvan said:

400kgs is over 10 tanks of fuel - it's 4 average passengers

100kg for a human is average?! Crikey. I better get the pizzas and kebabs in to fatten up!

Agree on the weight of the car though. That is a heck of a lot of additional weight.

I pondered that one - in the end I went for 4 average blokes - or -err - 4 me's (actually 96kg but that's splitting hairs)

I was possibly influenced by the Nissan Note I saw earlier - I initially thought it had been lowered but it was just carrying 4 of the biggest people I've seen in some time - easily 600kgs of them!!!!

Which reminds me - that's possibly more than it's designed to carry (it really was flattened!!)

[-Z-]

British Beef said:

"barely seats 4" would be a much bigger concern than "only 400 ft.lbs of TQ".

A 1840kg coupe that is barely more than a 2+2, is for me the worse news regarding this car.

That the M4 manages more practicality (rear space) and 200kg less kerb weight is of gmuch greater concern for a car to be used and enjoyed on the road - not the race track, like most these testers seems to assume.

To put it into different context, the RC F is only a chubby bloke lighter than my F10 M5, which seats 5 with associated luggage. Or to put it another way, 100kg heavier than a GTR with all it's AWD gubbins.

[foxhounduk]

Let it depreciate to £25k and i'll buy one.

[Wills2]

ITP said:

Which is the nicer car to drive upto say, 8 or 9 tenths? It seems clear the M3 is the better drive at 9 tenths and above. Maybe the RC-F is a nicer, more interesting place to be the rest of the time. Which is most of your time in the car. Its not as clear cut as straight line speed and laptimes. Well , maybe it is for some, which is fine for them.

Good points, I cannot believe that 478hp and nearly 400lb/ft isn't enough to shove you along at an indecent pace.

Even weighing 1840kg it has 260hp/tonne, masses of low down torque is overrated IMHO I had 3 M3s and the S65 was a wonderful thing to have under the bonnet a special engine and the car was ballistic and a joy to rev out.

I now have a car with 465lb/ft at 1500 revs and it's dull as ditch water, I've driven the new M3 as well and that engine was an anti-climax too.

[GALLARDOGUY]

I'll take the old IS-F at a third of the price thanks.

[TheFinners]

An appealing package in need of a 200kg diet! And even in a car that heavy 400ft/lb torque is hardly gonna make it feel slow...

[Froomee]

So many potential positives but... It really is rather ugly and overweight...

[3ananaPie]

Despite how an M4 may be better dynamically, I personally find this so much more appealing. The weight is an issue, but then this is really just a fast road car, and on the road it should be fantastic. Can't wait to try.

Strange though how journalists moan about the loss of N/A engines and then complain about this one. Sure it is heavy but then the RS5 for example, has a similar weight too. And the (current) C63 is pretty close too.

[iloveboost]

Continuing the Anchorman references what Harris is saying is the engine, like Ron Burgundy, is dated.
However Lexus studies show that 48% of the time...it works every time.

I know...it's terrible. I'm not even a Will Ferrell fan so I don't know how I remembered that joke.

[peter450]

Not a looker that's for sure, i think the old one looked better

[garypotter]

GALLARDOGUY said:

I'll take the old IS-F at a third of the price thanks.

I was going to type the same message.

And that grill..... grrr not for mr Lexus.