Lexus LF-CC / RC350 & RC-F

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Monogram

The GT350 is just another Mustang.

From a bang to buck ratio?..... The GT350 completely clowns the RC-F (and M4 for that matter). If you just wanted something ridiculously fast (that has 4 wheels and isn't an Ariel Atom) for reasonable of money... that'd be the car to get

In regards to the RC-F, it's good for what it is... a deceptively fast GT cruiser, I'd akin it closer to the C63 Amg's..... The M3/4's have always been at the forefront of their performance tier/niche. But even something a ballistically fast as an M4, I still wouldn't call it a sports car as the amount of compromises that a required to meet the need for safety, comfort, amenities are insane compared to some other modes of transportation I can think of.. At the end of the day things like RC-F's, M4's, Stangs, C63 Amg's are 3600lb+ stupidly powerful GT bruisers

If you want a genuine sports car and have RC-F money? Get an Alfa Romeo 4C, Lotus Exige or Cayman GT4 or if your really brave go get and Ariel Atom 3s and call it a day.

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

From a bang to buck ratio?..... The GT350 completely clowns the RC-F (and M4 for that matter). If you just wanted something ridiculously fast (that has 4 wheels and isn't an Ariel Atom) for reasonable of money... that'd be the car to get

In regards to the RC-F, it's good for what it is... a deceptively fast GT cruiser, I'd akin it closer to the C63 Amg's..... The M3/4's have always been at the forefront of their performance tier/niche. But even something a ballistically fast as an M4, I still wouldn't call it a sports car as the amount of compromises that a required to meet the need for safety, comfort, amenities are insane compared to some other modes of transportation I can think of.. At the end of the day things like RC-F's, M4's, Stangs, C63 Amg's are 3600lb+ stupidly powerful GT bruisers

If you want a genuine sports car and have RC-F money? Get an Alfa Romeo 4C, Lotus Exige or Cayman GT4 or if your really brave go get and Ariel Atom 3s and call it a day.

Again, driving down the street where it will be used 99% of the time, it will be just another Mustang.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Monogram

Having run track days in both the FRS and RC F, I can say without any doubt that the RC F is a much better track car than the FRS. It is better in every way ... well, excluding fuel mileage. FRS- 11mpg. RC F- 5mpg.

The FRS slightly oversteers, where the RC F slightly understeers, but both are very neutral. The RC F will drive past the FRS anywhere on any track.

Stating the RC F does not belong near a track is nothing short of ignorant.

My point sailed miles over your head. I'm just going to have to be ok with that.

[roybotnik]

Originally Posted by Monogram

The GT350 is just another Mustang.

Most ignorant statement I have ever seen on an automotive forum. A 522hp flat plane crank, magneride shocks, most likely lower CoG, lots of lightweight parts in the front... But hey, to most people an M4 is just another BMW too.

Former stig Ben Collins drove the GT350 at Goodwood and said it felt "light as a squirrel". Just another Mustang?

And with magnetic ride I'm sure the regular GT350 will be fine as an all around street car too.

--

Q. You’ve driven many a car, Ben. How is this compared to what you’ve experienced before?

A. Unique. That was my first run up the hill [in the GT350R] and it was all hands on deck [showing his hands] to get it up there. It is an amazing vehicle, it’s got a fantastic grip, it’s super lightweight, 525 horsepower, but I really didn’t expect what I got. The amount of power surge you get is incredible so I had a lot of fun, had a big grin. I suddenly found myself on the grass, gathered it up and off we went so I’m learning very quickly.

Q. Ford Mustang we think of as an American cruiser and certainly the older ones were not suitable for the British roads and certainly that road (the hillclimb) is very British. Is this GT350R working well?

A. The new standard of Mustang is very much more European in style so I think the things that we were used to, during the rebirth of muscle cars in 2005, it was still quite soft. The new Mustang is completely different and I experienced that in the standard car and I thought, oh I’d be fine in this 350 Shelby, but this is another grade up, it’s weapons grade superpower.

Q. What are the stats of the car?

A. It’s got 525 horsepower, it’s as light as a squirrel. I don’t know what the weight is but it’s tiny. It’s got big wide tires on it. It’s the Michelin Pilot Cup Sports that are providing a lot of grip. It makes a fantastic sound and you can do all kinds of extreme things with it, you can turn the traction control completely off which is what I did and just have loads of fun. If you really want to be a complete hooligan, you can put a line lock on the front brake and just sit there burning out until the tires shred so it’s built for having fun. I was being chased up the hill by Ken Block in his Focus so we had a good time … Don’t forget your earplugs.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Monogram

Again, driving down the street where it will be used 99% of the time, it will be just another Mustang.

Whats your point? Your RC-F would be just another RC on the road... 99% of the time? What your talking about is completely subjective and holds zero weight. I've personally never understood why people pay ~70-80k for something like an RC-F's or M4's. Vehicles which try to be good at everything but then end up doing worse relative to cars specifically built for said task (performance, safety, economy etc..)

We are talking about dedicated performance cars here.... key word being dedicated.

If I had 70k+ to spend on car(s)... I'd grab a used Golf TDI for all the practicality a man needs and then buy an Ariel Atom for when I'm in a bad mood and feel like hurting Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche drivers feeling.

Or

Get a used Golf TDI, then buy a FRS/S2000/Miata.. turbo the fuck out of it and then drop another ~20k on a 1199 Panigale for all the performance a person will honestly ever need in their life

Clear cut vehicles for clear cut needs

[jdmblood]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The GT350 isn't even out yet...



It's obvious that you really like your RCF, but not everyone prioritizes safety, comfort, and reliability when buying a dedicated sports car, especially if they have +60k to spend on a car. I'm sure the RCF is a fantastic car, but I think I would rather buy a M4 if I had that kind of money for a brand new car. It is 500lbs less and it has the option for an old-fashioned manual transmission. It is also much better looking in my opinion.

the m4 doesnt make me feel warm on the inside like an rcf does.

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Whats your point? Your RC-F would be just another RC on the road... 99% of the time? What your talking about is completely subjective and holds zero weight. I've personally never understood why people pay ~70-80k for something like an RC-F's or M4's. Vehicles which try to be good at everything but then end up doing worse relative to cars specifically built for said task (performance, safety, economy etc..)

We are talking about dedicated performance cars here.... key word being dedicated.

If I had 70k+ to spend on car(s)... I'd grab a used Golf TDI for all the practicality a man needs and then buy an Ariel Atom for when I'm in a bad mood and feel like hurting Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche drivers feeling.

Or

Get a used Golf TDI, then buy a FRS/S2000/Miata.. turbo the fuck out of it and then drop another ~20k on a 1199 Panigale for all the performance a person will honestly ever need in their life

Clear cut vehicles for clear cut needs

Hop in the car. Comfortable. Quiet. Decent ride. Daily drive with no major maintenance worries. Drive to the track on occasion. Have an absolute blast driving well under the capabilities of the vehicle. Drive home in worry free comfort.

None of the vehicles you mention even come close to meeting those standards.

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by Monogram

Having run track days in both the FRS and RC F, I can say without any doubt that the RC F is a much better track car than the FRS. It is better in every way ... well, excluding fuel mileage. FRS- 11mpg. RC F- 5mpg.

The FRS slightly oversteers, where the RC F slightly understeers, but both are very neutral. The RC F will drive past the FRS anywhere on any track.

Stating the RC F does not belong near a track is nothing short of ignorant.

...except, you know... the RC-F is MUCH bigger and weighs MUCH, MUCH more.

An FR-S + $10-15k to get sorted with tires, brakes, & forced induction would annihilate an RC-F on track and still cost a lot less money.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Monogram

Hop in the car. Comfortable. Quiet. Decent ride. Daily drive with no major maintenance worries. Drive to the track on occasion. Have an absolute blast driving well under the capabilities of the vehicle. Drive home in worry free comfort.

None of the vehicles you mention even come close to meeting those standards.

Standards are relative to the person...

And again that's because all the cars I listed are true sports cars... Yours isn't. They are built for one thing in mind... To go fast (relative to their price), they don't try to be anything else

I have a Saab 9-5 aero and sure I can run down STi's and Evo's on the freeway, that doesn't mean I can claim it as a sports car, deceptively fast sedan, yes... Sports car... Not in a million miles

You didn't want a sports car you wanted a GT cruiser with power.. And the RC-F does the latter flawlessly, so it's a win I my book for you

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling

...except, you know... the RC-F is MUCH bigger and weighs MUCH, MUCH more.

An FR-S + $10-15k to get sorted with tires, brakes, & forced induction would annihilate an RC-F on track and still cost a lot less money.

Your assumption is incorrect as I have run down forced induction/tired/braked FRS/BRZ's at PIR. I could have driven up their tailpipes in the corners, and easily driven by on the straights. I'm sure at some point with enough money a twin would be faster on the track, but I have yet to encounter one.

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Standards are relative to the person...

And again that's because all the cars I listed are true sports cars... Yours isn't. They are built for one thing in mind... To go fast (relative to their price), they don't try to be anything else

I have a Saab 9-5 aero and sure I can run down STi's and Evo's on the freeway, that doesn't mean I can claim it as a sports car, deceptively fast sedan, yes... Sports car... Not in a million miles

You didn't want a sports car you wanted a GT cruiser with power.. And the RC-F does the latter flawlessly, so it's a win I my book for you

Don't tell me what I wanted or purchased. I spent 15 years behind the wheel of a modified 1971 240Z. I've spent time behind the wheel of many other sports cars over the years, the last of which was my FRS. I understand what a sports car is.

What I am telling you, from experience, is that you need to quit buying into internet opinions and broaden your perspective just a bit. The RC F handles better than any "sports car" I've owned. It is as or more neutral, feels nimble, hides its weight, and simply works. My entrance and exit speeds into corners I've been driving for 30 years are higher by a fair margin, exit speeds are not even comparable, top speed cannot be compared, and in every way the car is better. Label as you will, but I will still have a perma-grin after every track day.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Monogram

Don't tell me what I wanted or purchased. I spent 15 years behind the wheel of a modified 1971 240Z. I've spent time behind the wheel of many other sports cars over the years, the last of which was my FRS.

Sure I can't tell you what you wanted, but I can definitely tell you what you purchased... and that's a ~70k GT car with a shit-ton of power, not a sports car lol

Originally Posted by Monogram

I understand what a sports car is.

......Something your 240z and FRS would qualify as and your RC-F wouldn't?

Originally Posted by Monogram

What I am telling you, from experience, is that you need to quit buying into internet opinions and broaden your perspective just a bit. The RC F handles better than any "sports car" I've owned. It is as or more neutral, feels nimble, hides its weight, and simply works. My entrance and exit speeds into corners I've been driving for 30 years are higher by a fair margin, exit speeds are not even comparable, top speed cannot be compared, and in every way the car is better. Label as you will, but I will still have a perma-grin after every track day.

My perspective is broader than just about any person I know, which is why I'm having this debate with you in the first place, and don't blindly label anything that can do the quarter mile in sub 13 sec. as a sports car

The problem you seem to want to bat down is that your trying to compare a 70k+ car to bare bones sub 30k sports cars... and then expecting them to hold weight? (something that with tuning would hurt your RC-F's feelings on a track.. something you constantly bring up)

If you want to compare fairly... compare sport cars in the same price range as your RC-F?.... lets say something along the lines of a GTS Cayman, Lotus Exige, Alfa 4c. I'll be nice and not even bring in something like a Z06.


After doing that, I can bet my last penny that you won't ever put nimble and RC-F in the same sentence again..

But hey whatever floats your boat and makes you happy, be happy... we are all entitled to it lol

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Sure I can't tell you what you wanted, but I can definitely tell you what you purchased... and that's a ~70k GT car with a shit-ton of power, not a sports car lol



......Something your 240z and FRS would qualify as and your RC-F wouldn't?



My perspective is broader than just about any person I know, which is why I'm having this debate with you in the first place, and don't blindly label anything that can do the quarter mile in sub 13 sec. as a sports car

The problem you seem to want to bat down is that your trying to compare a 70k+ car to bare bones sub 30k sports cars that expecting them to hold weight? (and with tuning would very much humiliate your RC-F on a track.. something you constantly bring up)

If you want to compare fairly... compare sport cars in the same price range as your RC-F?.... lets say something along the lines of a GTS Cayman, Lotus Exige, Alfa 4c or maybe Z06.


After doing that, I can bet my last penny that you won't ever put nimble and RC-F in the same sentence again..

But hey whatever floats your boat and makes you happy, be happy... we are all entitled to it

Where did I mention 1/4 mile times?

[Monogram]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Sure I can't tell you what you wanted, but I can definitely tell you what you purchased... and that's a ~70k GT car with a shit-ton of power, not a sports car lol



......Something your 240z and FRS would qualify as and your RC-F wouldn't?



My perspective is broader than just about any person I know, which is why I'm having this debate with you in the first place, and don't blindly label anything that can do the quarter mile in sub 13 sec. as a sports car

The problem you seem to want to bat down is that your trying to compare a 70k+ car to bare bones sub 30k sports cars... and then expecting them to hold weight? (something that with tuning would very much humiliate your RC-F on a track.. something you constantly bring up)

If you want to compare fairly... compare sport cars in the same price range as your RC-F?.... lets say something along the lines of a GTS Cayman, Lotus Exige, Alfa 4c. I'll be nice and not even bring in something like a Z06.


After doing that, I can bet my last penny that you won't ever put nimble and RC-F in the same sentence again..

But hey whatever floats your boat and makes you happy, be happy... we are all entitled to it lol

Cayman and Z06. http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/willow...of_willow.html