Michael
Thanks for the considered comments. It is always good to hear from owners. Let me address your points:
– The car has already run a 4.2 zero to 60 in sport +, track mode, automatic, expert setting.
I’m not denying it can do a 0-100 run that fast.
If you wish to drift, put it into slalom mode an hammer it.
I didn’t get the chance to drift the car. The test was on public roads. However, it seemed to be that track mode locked the rear diff more which is what you want for drifting. But as I didn’t get a chance to drift I’ll have to reserve judgment. There’s no question it’s got the power to drift!
As for the tranny, it is faster than the outgoing ISF, and that tranny was lightning fast.
This transmission is simply not fast. There is a perceptible lag between command and execution, even in Sport+, which is well off the pace for 2015. Drive an high-performance BMW, Porsche, Jaguar or Audi and notice the difference.
Lastly, the RC F ECU learns the driver’s preferences, and in time it “delivers” based on your driving habits. This will not reprogram and learn during a cursory test drive.
Heard this point before about many other cars. All I can say is that this ECU must be different to every other one on the market. ECUs learn very quickly, over a period of minutes. I spent time driving the RC F as hard as possible on public roads, and if after that it hadn’t learned, then the learning is too slow. Moving the selector into Sport+ should instantly set the car to its most responsive settings.
As for handling, when enabled in TVD track mode, the RC F becomes a slot car that powers through the apex.
The handling was not criticised in terms of ability, but involvement. In my test, I found slalom to assist more with directional changes and help combat understeer.
You do not buy the car to save on gas, drive in ECO or normal, or to avoid speeds achieved in the 4,000-7,200 rev range.
You might not, but others may well. I have to test the car’s features. You must drive in 4000-7200 on public roads, and if the car is not enjoyable and responsive at those speeds then that is a big black mark.
You’re clearly an driving enthusiast, some others may just like the shape and not care about the handling so much, only wanting a quick burst of V8 power every now and again…that happens a lot with such cars. The review needs to cover all bases. If this was say a track-foucsed car like a Lotus Exige then you could forgive the lower rev band problems, but the RC F is clearly a daily driver, GT cruiser and sportscar, so it fair to expect it to perform well in all areas. As indeed do many other cars.
The engine is a masterpiece, it will not come alive until you exceed 4,000 rpm. It’s a race engine.
Unfortunately, it’s a street car. If this was a track-focused machine it’d be a different review. At 6000rpm in 2rd gear you are at our legal speed limit of 100km/h, so you can’t legally really enjoy the engine unless you’re on a track. Again, this review was done on public roads for normal drivers. It is not a track test.
If would seem there is a bizarre gravitation on the part of many reviewers to focus on the weight angle.
Given the importance of weight in all vehicle and especially sportscars it is not bizarre at all. The RC F handles its weight well, but it would be a better car if it lost 400kg which should be well within Lexus’ engineering capabilities.
The car is strong, planted, and capable of hitting 175 mph in 40 seconds.
No question there
It outperformed the M4 and RS5 is closed circuit testing and Road and Track had the RC F finish the Motown mile long in advance of the M4 and RS5. If you want to see decent track driving, watch the Motorweek review of the car. It is every bit as capable and even more in many ways than the M4. MotorTrend was surprised at how close Randy Pobst’s track times for the 2 cars were nearly identical.
This is a car that is not mastered on a cursory road or track test.
I didn’t claim it was mastered, nor slow. Please re-read the review to see what was stated and what was not. 0-100 times, quarter-miles, times around a circuit are all interesting but not critically important.
What is important is how the car feels and how much fun it was. Neither I nor my test drivers felt the RC F was, on public roads, quite the car it could be. An example from lower down the foodchain is WRX vs 86. The WRX is quicker and easier to drive but not as much fun as the 86. In some ways the RC F reminds me of the SL400, very quick, very competent but not as much fun as say a Boxster. There is a growing recognition that sportscars should be about enjoyment not raw numbers, as typified by the Toyota 86 and Mazda MX-5 of late.
If pure figures and laptimes are the question, then the GT-R is usually the answer.
If you a looking for vanilla, by all means this is not the car for you. If you want the best road and track car in the class, lay out the bucks to secure the carbon TVD. It is a work of genius and not a wanna be German auto.
If by the carbon you mean the carbon option pack then having looked at what you get I cannot see the point of the extra cash. The kerb weight of the car is the same, so I assume the heavier wheels (rotating mass) cancel the weight saved elsewhere. Why do you think it worthwhile?