IS/RC [Official] Lexus RC Coupe

[Merc1]

LOL to anyone reading it, that is how it was phrased. To you it might not appear that way, but to anyone reading it, it is not obvious at all. I never talked about RC350 F Sport, yet you disagreed with on both, which is why to a reader, it seems a 2 to 1 relationship.

Oh you are also incorrect that RCF has never won in its category. While it did lose...

Great you found an outlier/test. Point proven, RC F = Laggard in class. Next.


M

 

[330CIZHP]

Great you found an outlier/test. Point proven. Next.


M

Outlier? I can post several more, but the point remains the same. All of them seem to use engine/driving experience and not numbers as the best argument in favor of the RCF. The guy with the beard in AutoCar also said he prefers the RCF over the M4.

 

[Merc1]

Outlier? I can post several more, but the point remains the same. All of them seem to use engine as the best argument in favor of the RCF.

The MAJORITY of the tests show the RC F losing to the competition especially the M4.


M

 

[330CIZHP]

The MAJORITY of the tests show the RC F losing to the competition especially the M4.


M

Thanks for the correcting that. Again, if the emphasis is on track numbers then the clear winner is M4 and in reviews where they place emphasis on subjective balance/experience/engine noise, RCF actually earns more praises (even if overall winner is M4).

 

[Merc1]

Thanks for the correcting that. Again, if the emphasis is on track numbers then the clear winner is M4 and in reviews where they place emphasis on subjective balance/experience/engine noise, RCF actually earns more praises (even if overall winner is M4).

Are you done? Nothing you’ve posted here today changes anything I’ve said and you're still at it. The. RC LOSES TO THE COMPETION. What are u even arguing about?

M

 

[330CIZHP]

Basically, using the same analogy. While you find RCF "dull", as it is clear MAJORITY who drive/own RCF completely disagree with you.

Are you done? Nothing you’ve posted here today changes anything I’ve said and you're still at it. The. RC LOSES TO THE COMPETION. What are u even arguing about?

M

 

[Merc1]

Basically, using the same analogy. While you find RCF "dull", as it is clear MAJORITY who drive/own RCF completely disagree with you.

And I disagree with that so now what. Doesn’t change anything still.

M

 

[330CIZHP]

And I disagree with that so now what. Doesn’t change anything still.

M

You used majority to support your argument that the M4 is better than the RCF. Yet, you would not let anyone else use that as a supporting argument that RCF earns high praises from majority of people simply because that does not fall in-line with what you described?

 

[Merc1]

You used majority to support your argument that the M4 is better than the RCF. Yet, you would not let anyone else use that as a supporting argument that RCF earns high praises from majority of people simply because that does not fall in-line with what you described?

The M4 is the superior vehicle, that is the end result. The RC F could be great, but the M4 is greater. That is what the majority of the test show. Not sure what you aren't getting or why you're still going on with this bs.

M

 

[330CIZHP]

You are saying something completely different. It shows your double standards.

You still don't get what the point is. It is one thing that you trash something that is praised by majority of the other people. You still don't get the semantics of things when someone says "I don't like this" vs "this thing is trash". Everyone has likes and dislikes. Just because I don't like something, does not mean it is trash.

When you say something is trash and it is praised by an overwhelming majority of people, you should blame yourself and not the car.

The M4 is the superior vehicle, that is the end result. The RC F could be great, but the M4 is greater. That is what the majority of the test show. Not sure what you aren't getting or why you're still going on with this bs.

M

 

[Merc1]

Nope, you're the one kept changing the conversation in order to try to find a way to twist what I said.

Someone suggested that the RC platform be used for Supra. I then said that the RC platform is too heavy and numb. It's literally a jigsaw puzzle of other Lexus cars and it shows in my time driving it. You then proceed to try to force your experience over mine with everything under the sun only to wind up back where we started. The RC F's weight hasn't changed, nor did my experience driving it.

You don't get that you don't have a point. It's called a disagreement. I never once said that I didn't like the car, I said that it disappointed me in driving it. If I didn't like the car I wouldn't have wasted my time driving it. Big difference. You're just upset that I don't share your opinion and you've used everything but the kitchen sink to try to force me to change mine and you can't.

"When you say something is trash and it is praised by an overwhelming majority of people, you should blame yourself and not the car."

I don't give a shite what the majority of people say and that is about the stupidest logic going. Since when does anyone have to agree with majority? Think on your own and draw your own conclusions.


M

 

[330CIZHP]

You are again back to BS'ing again. Explain how did the "jigsaw of other Lexus" manifest itself into your driving experience. I am talking driving experience. I won't let you wiggle out of this one. What the hell does that even mean? For once, be clear, specific and concise. You keep bullsh*tting about things without any kind of proof or factual evidence to back it up?

That is the biggest thing where you are spewing nonsense cr*p against a car because of your own bias and you have no way of backing or clarifying exactly what that even means. What a gong show.

Nope, you're the one kept changing the conversation in order to try to find a way to twist what I said.

Someone suggested that the RC platform be used for Supra. I then said that the RC platform is too heavy and numb. It's literally a jigsaw puzzle of other Lexus cars and it shows in my time driving it. You then proceed to try to force your experience o...

 

[Merc1]

Nope, you can't handle the facts about the car itself + any experience that doesn't jive with yours. Heavy and numb in driving it. Why would Toyota take a chopped up chassis like the RC and make a Supra out of it? Really silly. Proof? Ready any article about the RC platform/chassis. It is literally a cluster of the IS, IS Convertible and the GS. Really a lazy effort by a company like Toyota in order to get a coupe to market without doing the hard work.

Nah you're just salty because I don't share your opinion. No one hates anything, those are your words. It's a car not a person.

Try again.

M

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

Guys, do you try to regain access to the scan section?

 

[330CIZHP]

No, I cannot put with the BS. I am the only one here who is talking facts and not some subjective nonsense.

In saying the jigsaw statement, I could totally spot that you believed Lexus takes three different chassis and from three different parts and then screws them together. Why? Because you read it somewhere. I am sure if the internet said that, it must be true.

That is not the truth. I said above, RCF is a UNIBODY construction. Technically, a UNIBODY construction from the ground up is built as one single unit. It was designed taking three different existing chassis, but the construction itself of the final car is using one single unibody construction just like any other chassis with the addition of added reinforcements. the net effect should be the same. It is impossible you could have spotted any driving characteristics because it was designed off three different chassis parts because it it is all one single unit.

I would also finally answer your question as to why Lexus added so much rigidity to the chassis? Simply because it was so that the roof could be chopped off and no reinforcements would need to be added to strength the chassis.

Also, no one said, Lexus should chop an RCF chassis to make a Supra chassis. It makes no sense. It is fine as it is with the existing BMW chassis. I mentioned above, it was because Supra always had been a 2 + 2 with some practicality. Only then, it can be a plausible option to re-use the existing RCF chassis if it had a longer wheelbase and more practical car.

Nope, you can't handle the facts about the car itself + any experience that doesn't jive with yours. Heavy and numb in driving it. Why would Toyota take a chopped up chassis like the RC and make a Supra out of it? Really silly. Proof? Ready any article about the RC platform/chassis. It is literally a cluster of the IS, IS Convertible and the GS. Reall...

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

Just a point of clarification...the chassis was done in a Frankenstein manner because they wanted additional structural rigidity (either in the midsection or the rear of the chassis) for the still-born RC convertible. I haven't really kept abreast with the RC-F, though I do remember an MT video where one of the tester (Lago, I think) came away less than impressed with RC-F vs. the M4 while on the track. His chief complaint: weight. Again, though this was on a track.

Carry on....

EDIT: Looks like that was addressed in the above post while I was typing this.

 

[330CIZHP]

And it was only 3/10ths apart despite the weight difference. His complaint while summarizing was that the RCF gets to 10/10ths and does not give any more (does not allow you to go more wild) while the M4 was more of a hooligan car with a tail happy balance and you could drift it past 10/10ths.

Just a point of clarification...the chassis was done in a Frankenstein manner because they wanted additional structural rigidity (either in the midsection or the rear of the chassis) for the still-born RC convertible. I haven't really kept abreast with the RC-F, though I do remember an MT video where one of the tester (Lago, I think) came away...

 

[Matski]

Guys, do you try to regain access to the scan section?

You broke the streak, I almost had an entire page of one person posting to themselves..

 

[Merc1]

No, I cannot put with the BS. I am the only one here who is talking facts and not some subjective nonsense.

In saying the jigsaw statement, I could totally spot that you believed Lexus takes three different chassis and from three different parts and then screws them together. Why? Because you read it somewhere. I am sure if the internet said that, it must be true.

That is not the truth. I said above, RCF is a UNIBODY construction. Technically, a UNIBODY construction from the ground up is built as one single unit. It was designed taking three different existing chassis, but the construction itself of the final car is using one single unibody construction just like any other chassis with the addition of added reinforcements. the net effect should be the same. It is impossible you could have spotted any driving characteristics because it was designed off three different chassis parts because it it is all one single unit.

I would also finally answer your question as to why Lexus added so much rigidity to the chassis? Simply because it was so that the roof could be chopped off and no reinforcements would need to be added to strength the chassis.

Also, no one said, Lexus should chop an RCF chassis to make a Supra chassis. It makes no sense. It is fine as it is with the existing BMW chassis. I mentioned above, it was because Supra always had been a 2 + 2 with some practicality. Only then, it can be a plausible option to re-use the existing RCF chassis if it had a longer wheelbase and more practical car.

So if that is the case with the BS then stop giving it.

That is what is widely reported in every review of the RC the day it came out. Do you not understand that all three cars they took the body from are unibody cars? That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM COMBINING THEM to make the RC. You're confused. If this wasn't true then Lexus would have refuted it long time ago. I never said that I "spotted" anything. I said that car was a dull disappointment in my drive of it and that I could see why.

I didn't ask you why Lexus added anything, that is just your excuse session about something I honestly couldn't care any less about. I never questioned the RC's rigidity, only why it weighs so much. If it is for structural reinforcement that's fine, doesn't change the end result of the car being dull and numb to drive.

Good glad you realize that about Supra. So what about what the Supra has always been, it isn't a 2+2 anymore. They aren't using the RC chassis so get over it.

M

 

[330CIZHP]

I am explaining what a unibody is. It is all constructed as oneLexus has nothing to refute since Lexus is not sitting around and correcting people on the internet. People trashed the LFA transmission and Lexus did not go and correct them on the internet.

The added weight on the RCF is to achieve added stiffness. More stiffness means, better handling. So while the weight is getting added, so is the chassis dynamic capability. That is why RCF has better cornering in many turns than M4 in the chart above despite being heavier. Also, where the weight is, also matters. In the case of RCF, it is mostly concentrated within the wheelbase/closer to CoG and close to the ground. It actually adds downforce/stability at higher speeds.

All of the cars these days are heavy. It is the progression of automotive engineering. About 10 years ago, 3500 lbs used to be considered very heavy. As chassis, suspension, tires get advanced, the weight goes up as well with the added safety features. I remember when E46 M3 came out in 2001, it was considered heavy at 3450 lbs because E36 M3 was 3100 lbs. The new upcoming GT500 will be over 4500 lbs. RCF is in the same weight category as the Giulia, C63 AMG, GT350, RS5. It has become the norm even for cars like Stinger or Red sport. There is nothing wrong with being 3900 - 4000 lbs as long as the chassis tuning, tires and suspension tuning. The track edition is supposed to be stiffer and 180 lbs lighter so that puts it at a much higher performance envelope.

I came from cars that weighed 3100 - 3200 lbs. I owned a BRZ for a little while as well and it was 2800 lbs. I track my cars every so often as well, which I doubt you do. Great tossable chassis and suspension, but hated the engine, interior and performance. The RCF is infinitely more well engineered than my BRZ despite being over 1000 lbs heavier that the car shrinks around the driver when pushed hard on big sweeping turns because of how well the chassis behaves when pushed hard. I absolutely miss nothing about my BRZ other than zipping around in city traffic where my RCF feels like an overkill and rather

So if that is the case with the BS then stop giving it.

That is what is widely reported in every review of the RC the day it came out. Do you not understand that all three cars they took the body from are unibody cars? That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM COMBINING THEM to make the RC. You're confused. If this wasn't true then Lexus would have refuted it...