RE: Hardcore Lexus RC-F GT due next year
Discussion
Massive fan of Lexus.
Think about it; 1400kg, close to 500bhp, and reliability that the others cant even dream of. Then you have the dealer network, which is among the best in the business. Every Lexus I've ever been in has felt like it was constructed from bank-vault grade materials.
The fact it is the sole remaining NA engine just makes me laugh. So much for BMW et al. Hell, even Porsche have lost the plot.
I am deeply, deeply impressed by this. If the figures bear out, there is no question; one of these will be in my garage alongside my LS.
Think about it; 1400kg, close to 500bhp, and reliability that the others cant even dream of. Then you have the dealer network, which is among the best in the business. Every Lexus I've ever been in has felt like it was constructed from bank-vault grade materials.
The fact it is the sole remaining NA engine just makes me laugh. So much for BMW et al. Hell, even Porsche have lost the plot.
I am deeply, deeply impressed by this. If the figures bear out, there is no question; one of these will be in my garage alongside my LS.
TeaVR said:
In many respects, the motoring press don't have an easy job. Assessment of vehicles within confined time restraints - a tough task.
Chris Harris makes me laugh. JC makes me laugh. They both disliked the RC-F, but loved the GS-F. I've driven GS-Fs and own an RC-F. If you like the one you like the other. You'd be hard pushed to separate the differences from behind the wheel.
Biggest issue with the RC-F was Lexus' mis-marketing. The RC-F was not meant for the track - it's more of a GT car. In the the hands of the average driver it's a much easier car to drive than an M4. Much more forgiving and less spiky.
hold on though they are completely different segment cars are they not? GS F was an M5 competitor, a big fast family/business barge. The RC was a overweight large coupe.Chris Harris makes me laugh. JC makes me laugh. They both disliked the RC-F, but loved the GS-F. I've driven GS-Fs and own an RC-F. If you like the one you like the other. You'd be hard pushed to separate the differences from behind the wheel.
Biggest issue with the RC-F was Lexus' mis-marketing. The RC-F was not meant for the track - it's more of a GT car. In the the hands of the average driver it's a much easier car to drive than an M4. Much more forgiving and less spiky.
apologies if incorrect that's my laymans view.
big_rob_sydney said:
Massive fan of Lexus.
Think about it; 1400kg, close to 500bhp, and reliability that the others cant even dream of. Then you have the dealer network, which is among the best in the business. Every Lexus I've ever been in has felt like it was constructed from bank-vault grade materials.
The fact it is the sole remaining NA engine just makes me laugh. So much for BMW et al. Hell, even Porsche have lost the plot.
I am deeply, deeply impressed by this. If the figures bear out, there is no question; one of these will be in my garage alongside my LS.
a BMW E36 M3 is 1460 kg unladen weight, 1400 kg is fairytale stuff - a M2 is 1625!Think about it; 1400kg, close to 500bhp, and reliability that the others cant even dream of. Then you have the dealer network, which is among the best in the business. Every Lexus I've ever been in has felt like it was constructed from bank-vault grade materials.
The fact it is the sole remaining NA engine just makes me laugh. So much for BMW et al. Hell, even Porsche have lost the plot.
I am deeply, deeply impressed by this. If the figures bear out, there is no question; one of these will be in my garage alongside my LS.
think the weight reduction will be between 50 and 100 kg. which is pretty good!
theplayingmantis said:
hold on though they are completely different segment cars are they not? GS F was an M5 competitor, a big fast family/business barge. The RC was a overweight large coupe.
apologies if incorrect that's my laymans view.
I don’t disagree. Different target audience.apologies if incorrect that's my laymans view.
However, both cars feel so similar and have identical performance. One gets slagged by the critics, one is loved. Makes no sense. I guess my point is, don’t believe everything the motoring press tells you.
Moving on - if you want an ultra reliable (and rare) normally aspirated car, the RCF and GSF could be worth a look.
TeaVR said:
I don’t disagree. Different target audience.
However, both cars feel so similar and have identical performance. One gets slagged by the critics, one is loved. Makes no sense. I guess my point is, don’t believe everything the motoring press tells you.
Moving on - if you want an ultra reliable (and rare) normally aspirated car, the RCF and GSF could be worth a look.
Plenty to agree with here.However, both cars feel so similar and have identical performance. One gets slagged by the critics, one is loved. Makes no sense. I guess my point is, don’t believe everything the motoring press tells you.
Moving on - if you want an ultra reliable (and rare) normally aspirated car, the RCF and GSF could be worth a look.
Can you imagine a buyer saying "No, I don't want reliability"? I guess my next question really would be, if you DO value those things, then what are your realistic options, given most of the supposedly "drivers cars" have succumbed to blow(n) jobs?
I'm sure the new model will be very good, the standard model isn't too shabby either. I'm a recent convert to the RCF. Before that I had a CL65 AMG the V12 twin turbo car and as usual after a year of ownership fancied a change. I did test drive one of the last V8 M3's and loved the fact that compared to the CL65 everything felt alive, but after about 20 minutes with the car I decided it was too much a case of wanting to drive fast all of the time.
Having seen an RCF in my local filling station it's left field/unusual looks attracted my attention then when it pulled away with a deep exhaust note and the four rear exhausts I had to check it out.
In the Chris Harris review he rightly says it's too heavy on track but when he takes it on the road finds a different conclusion to the car.
My opinion has always been buy a car for the road and one for the track. I had great fun with my track prepped VX220 turbo but I wouldn't like to have driven it anywhere else than to a track.
A few weeks into RCF ownership I love the car, I bought a 2017 model with the active suspension and Torque Vectoring Diff OK when driving as it should be used I get 16 MPG but that doesn't bother me at all, plus the servicing costs on this car are so little you can blast around getting 16 MPG anyway.
The active suspension model can do smooth cruising too as it can either be programmed or left to adjust to your way of driving.
As to whether it will go beyond my 12 month ownership boredom threshold is another matter but I really rate the car.
Having seen an RCF in my local filling station it's left field/unusual looks attracted my attention then when it pulled away with a deep exhaust note and the four rear exhausts I had to check it out.
In the Chris Harris review he rightly says it's too heavy on track but when he takes it on the road finds a different conclusion to the car.
My opinion has always been buy a car for the road and one for the track. I had great fun with my track prepped VX220 turbo but I wouldn't like to have driven it anywhere else than to a track.
A few weeks into RCF ownership I love the car, I bought a 2017 model with the active suspension and Torque Vectoring Diff OK when driving as it should be used I get 16 MPG but that doesn't bother me at all, plus the servicing costs on this car are so little you can blast around getting 16 MPG anyway.
The active suspension model can do smooth cruising too as it can either be programmed or left to adjust to your way of driving.
As to whether it will go beyond my 12 month ownership boredom threshold is another matter but I really rate the car.
Edited by BIRMA on Friday 2nd November 18:42
Edited by BIRMA on Friday 2nd November 18:44
TeaVR said:
I don’t disagree. Different target audience.
However, both cars feel so similar and have identical performance. One gets slagged by the critics, one is loved. Makes no sense. I guess my point is, don’t believe everything the motoring press tells you.
Moving on - if you want an ultra reliable (and rare) normally aspirated car, the RCF and GSF could be worth a look.
Do you think that it might just be a case of, rightly or wrongly, having a preconceived expectation of how a smaller coupe should feel when compared to a larger saloon? I have very little experience of the Lexus but they differ, on paper at least, to the competition (M4/M5 - C63/E63) by being near enough the same weight and having an identical power plant as each other. Should it be a surprise that they feel more alike than the competition do when the others have put clear daylight between the weights and powerplants of the respective models?However, both cars feel so similar and have identical performance. One gets slagged by the critics, one is loved. Makes no sense. I guess my point is, don’t believe everything the motoring press tells you.
Moving on - if you want an ultra reliable (and rare) normally aspirated car, the RCF and GSF could be worth a look.
Do you think that the timing is right for this more focused model of the RC-F? Feels a little late to me but I might have that wrong.
The final car is the RCF Track Edition and is 165 lbs lighter than the standard car and the engine has been massaged to make 5 more hp and 6 extra lb ft. Looks great but it was obvious from the get-go that they wouldn't reduce the luxury inside too much. It now comes with an all red leather/alcantara interior that looks amazing and the exterior paint is a matte grey or a white.
Guvernator said:
Most places are reporting 176kgs which is just shy of 80kgs. A decent weight saving to be fair considering they haven't totally paired it back and it still retains quite a lot of luxury.
I think it also looks fantastic.
Yes, 176lbs not kgs which does equate to about 80kg. I think it also looks fantastic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff