Linas.P

Oops - what have I done! Bought RC200t

Recommended Posts

As many would know - I was considering the model for over 3 years and in the end I concluded that I cannot justify RC-F, so I would go with either 300h or 200t whenever right spec. comes around. There were reason why IS pushed me back into upgrade (Cat-N). As it happened, the right spec. came around for very reasonable price - it is Graphite black F-sport with dark rose interior and every single possible option - in RC there were not many options, but it has everything - ML, sunroof, premium sat-nav, live updates and protection pack.

First problem is that it seems never in right gear - I am kind of learning it now... In IS250 the foot action on the pedal directly correlated to acceleration of the car, but with 200t it is basically either on or off and nothing in between. It is wrong engine and gearbox combo - gearbox is short ratio and high gear overlap whilst engine is very narrow power band. This results in total lack of sense from drive train - your leg does something and engine and gearbox does what they like. Using shifters doesn't make sense either because in best case scenario one would need to downshift like 4 gears - car goes into 6th @30MPH! It is just bizarre set-up, but I know what Lexus tried to achieve with it - fake Co2 figures, because in artificial test car has right gear for every 10 miles and on paper runs very efficiently, in real life not so much.

I had many arguments about overall dynamics and I remember somebody saying that "IS200t would leave IS250 in the dust and I would not even know which way IS200t went"... This is total BS. I would almost argue opposite - in IS250 you gets instant torque at any speed, whatever is the situation you can be sure there will be torque. On 200t it is literally scary, press the pedal and guess when will it wake-up. Yes in straight line 0-60 200t wins, but even then I guess the crossover point will be around 40-50MPH.

The only real strong point is acceleration between ~40/50 > ~90/110, which isn't really that practical with exception of joining the motorway on slip road. I heard it is possible to remap the gearbox to "map-out" the hesitation on first gear... but there is hesitation basically in any gear so not sure it is worth it. Further, by the time you get to 70 it's already running out of gears - actually final ratio is higher in IS250 because it would do ~2000RPM@70 whereas RC does like 2600.

The one thing which I did not expect, although common sense tells me I should have expected... is that fuel economy is unbelievably poor. And yes - what a surprise?!. Turbo is never there to save fuel, if IS250 makes 208hp and 200t makes 240 this means fuel consumtion will be in the ballpark with power figures. I am driving it as gingerly as I can now ... I am still getting like 19MPG on my trip to work. Average of first tank was 19.2 and second tank 23.5... Towards the end my IS250 would do 24-26 and I was considering that to be poor. Some might say - if economy is the problem for you, then you should have gone for 300h - there are some truth, but first of all I was not impressed with economy of 300h either, it is even slower and in the end I am talking about "reasonable economy" - RC-F can justify poor economy, perhaps RC350 can justify it (5.6s to 60), but 200t just isn't fast car and has fuel economy close to much faster cars.

I attribute this economy issue to "on/off" acceleration of 200t - in situations where I would use 1/3rd of pedal in 250 and car would not even change gear, in 200t I start with 1/3rd then I realise the accident is about to happen, because car literally ignores anything but "pedal to the metal" and by the time I press it 2/3rd of the way it suddenly goes into second gear and revs all the way until it blips off the rev limiter... then I obviously need to suddenly brake as it was "unintended level of acceleration". This as well gives very unrefined "push-pull" driving experience.

It is actually nice and quiet ~40-60MPH on say A-road, but terrible in the city and surprisingly not great on motorway either. First of all, it is thirst at any speed over 60 and it keeps playing between 6th and 8th gear on the smallest incline. I went to Cornwall for New Years eve and IS250 did 37MPG at average ~73MPH, in 200t I went to airport twice now and both times at night - set it exactly to 70MPH (~65real) and it would barely reach 36MPG - I literally drove for miles without even touching brakes or accelerator. I can see that previous owner has achieved something like 75.8MPG once so car in theory is capable of good economy, but not in any sort of practical everyday situation. Perhaps doing steady 55 on empty and even road...

The chassis is kind of funny as well, I can literally feel it is hybrid between IS-C and GS.. it feels bigger than it is, AVS does great job keeping it level in corners so it does not feel like a barge, but I would compare experience with E-Class merc. In certain perspective this is probably a good point - you feel like you are in bigger and more luxurious car. It definitely feels like class above 4-series, C-class or IS... I personally prefer more agile and sporty IS, but I do appreciate that some people would actually like this part of RC.

Surprisingly, I actually don't mind weird touchpad "thing" for sat-nav, but overall infotainment system and even "show-piece" LF-A style cluster lacks sense. And I don't mean it is not as good as other cars, but there are options which do not make sense and others which would make sense are not available. There is plenty of real estate to show more valuable info on all displays, but they are not being used for anything.

It doesn't sound well (at least compared to v6, even the muted one like IS250), but I realised it is small issue for me with exception of showing off in supermarket car park - I usually listen music to loud to hear anything anyway. It is however, noticeably rougher engine when pushed and does not compliment you for pushing it to the limits. Ss I guess I much more appreciate it at least has ML.

So finally, what is good about it - I really like the looks, I think it looks amazing and it is rare car to see (for some reason there was one parked next to me in Tesco on the day I bought it and now I see one every day on my way to work.. both 300h thought). It is 10 years newer than my old IS and it makes it feel more modern - as much I as don't like how it drives I probably would not go back in mk2 IS - just feels morally obsolete now. Either way I got it for such a low price that I reckon I will be able to sell with little loss (if any at all) in say 3 years time, or maybe trade for BMW i8 or LC 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only like the looks and the rest is crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

You only like the looks and the rest is crap?

That is a precise summary lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linas, you are a strange one :smile:

That is the single most negative summary I have ever seen a owner produce for their new car, so it does beg the question, why did you buy it?

Oh, and to top it all off, you forgot the pictures!  Bad Linas! :smile:

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Linas.P said:

 I concluded that I cannot justify RC-F,

 

Your post concludes otherwise 😋

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shahpor said:

That is the single most negative summary I have ever seen a owner produce for their new car, so it does beg the question, why did you buy it?

 

considering the MK3 Lexus came with a V6 engine and shares the same platform as the RC... waste of £££'s if you ask me..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting write up nevertheless. In a nutshell it is about the development of the petrol engine over the past decade. 8 to 6 to 4 to even 3 and 2 cylinders with turbos added on all to reduce emissions. Gearboxes that shift up at 2000rpm etc. All well if you slowboat around town but sometimes in realworld driving it doesnt add up. My 250 was great and the only gripe i had was that it was a bit weak below 4000rpm ( and too small and brakes not strong enough ), my 300H in real world driving was wonderful especially the combination of instant torque from the Battery and the CVT gearbox in town driving, always the right gear, a very destressing experience. i never drove a 200t but my BMW 320 was a 4 pot turbo automatic that drove me nuts. Try to enter a roundabout, floor the throttle, wait 2 seconds before the turbo spools up then the gearbox shifts down 3 or 4 gears and the moment is gone, And yes petrolconsumption was horrible. I somehow think a 300h would have been e better motor for you Linas, great gearbox instant pull from standstill and good fuelconsumption. I do agree with you on the looks i find it drop dead georgeos. The IS starts to show its age but the RC still looks exotic in its own right. In the right color Red or Blue it just melts all other cars around it, the only car you see is the RC, it is just beautiful.

And Linas you have won the politician of the year award!  After years of bashing the 200t trashy car that makes you feel sick when driving it you bought one!        

 

 

  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

You only like the looks and the rest is crap?

Pretty much + it is as well noticeably newer and more modern, has sunroof, ML and phone integration... so others appreciate it more.

I guess the thing I liked most was the price, I have actually said that before that I would buy 300h/200t "if the price would be right". I am not sure it really made me happy, but it was "good purchase" based on logic. 

I wish politicians would actually say in advance before making bad decisions... 

11 hours ago, Shahpor said:

That is the single most negative summary I have ever seen a owner produce for their new car

You know... I think you are right - I cannot think about more negative opinion "on own car", but it is honest - "mask off" opinion, without pretending "how cool" my new car is. I actually waited over 4 weeks hoping that car will "grow on me", but overall I just feel like "mehh - just a car".

Actually, my girlfriend is rather sad that I am not excited about it, because she is and she could not understand why I am not happy. Keeps saying that maybe I will start liking it with the time. But don't get me wrong - I am not "actively hating it" - I just think that with all Lexus assets and R&D this is shame that this cars exists (and 300h, and ES, and 200d!) and that they chosen to sell it instead of RC350.

Further, now that you mentioned it... I realised I have done full multi-stage detailing on the car and ceramic coating myself and don't even have any "beauty shots of it" or even crazy "lotus effect" ! Probably says a lot about my excitement.

There are other things which I cannot appreciate yet - like sunroof which was always very important for me, but as you guess it is not much use in January. I am sure in summer it will give back some positive feelings if I keep the car that long.

20191201_160217.thumb.jpg.3bafca08ac249f66c5ecfb5508372469.jpg20191201_161230.thumb.jpg.105539cf2ed047cbc869b2a7d2bb073a.jpg

6 hours ago, noby76 said:

considering the MK3 Lexus came with a V6 engine and shares the same platform as the RC... waste of £££'s if you ask me..  

You do realise that IS is not RC, right? Further, it probably would be true if I would have paid a lot for the car. Just to save guessing - I paid £15,500 + negotiated 2 years warranty and service, so realistically £14,500. This was amazing deal in mid-December, however recently there was another white RC for £15,800, but it was not via Lexus, more miles and no options... + it is gone now, so I reckon I still did alright.

10 hours ago, Comedian said:

Your post concludes otherwise 😋

Yes it kind of does... on paper RC-F is much less practical car and cheap ones could cost a lot to revive. After driving it for some time, I have actually started looking into option to trade it to something else... like RC-F. Will see how it will go. However, Insurance totally screwed me over even on 200t (I hate those fraudulent s****) - I reckon I would not be able to get insurance on RC-F... I mean like at all!

I guess I should have made "leap of faith" and just go for it... but I have discussed this issue in detail. Lexus range does not have natural progression - one does not make leap of faith from 2006 IS250 straight into 2016 RC-F. However, 3 years ago I would have had courage to go for RC350 and by now I probably would not be scared to go for RC-F - it would be more natural progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

I guess I should have made "leap of faith" and just go for it... but I have discussed this issue in detail. Lexus range does not have natural progression - one does not make leap of faith from 2006 IS250 straight into 2016 RC-F. However, 3 years ago I would have had courage to go for RC350 and by now I probably would not be scared to go for RC-F - it would be more natural progression.

I went from a 2011 IS250 SE-L to a 2017 GSF. Best car decision I ever made, even now that it is mostly driven like my IS250 in this weather, the start up alone makes a smile everyday. The only other car that i would have considered was an ISF as the RCF was out due to needing 4 doors. 

Do it, you wont regret an 'F' car. 

My wife had a IS200t  which I tried when her RX450h was in for a service about 2 years ago and i agree with your comments regarding the gearbox and turbo lag. We were considering a NX200t when it was first launched but the NX was a bit too small for our needs. I have heard that the 200t in the NX is actually a good match, but that could be down to the 6 speed auto I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, F.A. said:

I went from a 2011 IS250 SE-L to a 2017 GSF. Best car decision I ever made, even now that it is mostly driven like my IS250 in this weather, the start up alone makes a smile everyday. The only other car that i would have considered was an ISF as the RCF was out due to needing 4 doors. 

Do it, you wont regret an 'F' car. 

My wife had a IS200t  which I tried when her RX450h was in for a service about 2 years ago and i agree with your comments regarding the gearbox and turbo lag. We were considering a NX200t when it was first launched but the NX was a bit too small for our needs. I have heard that the 200t in the NX is actually a good match, but that could be down to the 6 speed auto I guess.

Indeed. Although I do miss my GS450h, the sound of an F car is just so uplifting 🙂 and yea, its is very tail happy in this weather.....

I did consider the NX200t when I was looking at the SUV line up, and it does drive well and kind of fun. But then, i didn’t find it making much sense compared to the hybrid in every other departments, especially as the price was so similar between the two models when I was looking two years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Linas.P said:

You do realise that IS is not RC, right? Further, it probably would be true if I would have paid a lot for the car. Just to save guessing - I paid £15,500 + negotiated 2 years warranty and service, so realistically £14,500. This was amazing deal in mid-December, however recently there was another white RC for £15,800, but it was not via Lexus, more miles and no options... + it is gone now, so I reckon I still did alright.

why buy a car which only ticks the box for looks and nothing else if you couldn't live with how its drives, mpg, gearbox shifting , engine sound etc etc??

clearly would the MK3 IS250 in F-Sport model not be the perfect compromise in term of still having an NA V6 with descent poke, handling dynamics, engine sound and still have the striking looks and interior layout of the RC? well! plus two more doors? this example here would have been a good compromise.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/202001226444868?make=LEXUS&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly New&onesearchad=New&postcode=mk160ay&radius=1500&model=IS 250&sort=price-desc&colour=Black&advertising-location=at_cars&page=1

i'm not the one to tell a man how to spend his £££'s but £15,000 on a car just for its looks without enjoying anything else about it? i wouldn't mind an RC200t myself but what was the point of owning one if everything else about it was not up to your expectations..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, noby76 said:

£15,000 on a car just for its looks

Well... Not exactly - the difference between the cost of cars is realistically £1000 which is exactly the cost of sunroof on my car, further IS is 2.5 years older, does not have dark rose interior... and has 2 more doors. So realistically, despite being cheaper, the car you have linked is arguable a "worse" deal.

In fact I do not even consider mk3 IS to be that much different or "an improvement" over mk2, so in my mind  buying it for any money would be "£13,500" just for looks. If I would go for IS I would just get something like this: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201911104223176 or just stick with mine... or... indeed IS-F.

In some imaginary world were I would have choice between two identical RC's and one would have 4GR-FSE and second 8AR-FTS - yes indeed I would choose V6, but we don't live in imaginary world. Further, I know it might sound confusing, but I don't think IS250 mk3 is that great - yes in my opinion 4GR-FSE is better engine than 8AR-FTS.. but it is not that simple as "just an engine". If it would be that simple, then again you don't need to spend £13,500 to get car with this particular engine, actually one could get car for £2000 and as far as drive-train goes have the same experience.

In 2005, 4GR-FSE was as good as the engine could be, it was massive improvement over previous generation and better than competition, however in 2020 it is just not that appealing anymore. I think in summary I am just disappointed that Lexus spent 10 years and probably £100's of millions developing new engine... and not only it is not better, but arguably it is outright worse (bar some fake emission figures). It is just disappointing and hard to understand - what Lexus were doing in that decade?! They could have done nothing at all and we would arguably be in better place.

Different story on 350 (2GR-FSE), they did make some minor improvements and kept engine relevant (2GR-FKS) and even adapted to new applications (8GR-FKS/FXS). In later models it has Atkinson cycle as well as minor tweaks on timing and although it rather old, it is not yet obsolete. Further they linking it with AA81E (or even AWRHM50) which is much better and faster gearbox than A960E and this overall makes it appealing option. I cannot say the same about 4GR-FSE - they have literally fitted it since 2005 until 2015 without any changes and then discontinued when it got obsolete - like in mk3 IS250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you just like how the man is trying his utmost best to justify and "differentiate" when the RC is just a MK3 IS without the rear door... they share the same platform, they share the same interior and accessories but yet still i am made by Linas to think the RC is a special model on its own..  

dude just give it time it might grow on ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, noby76 said:

Don't you just like how the man is trying his utmost best to justify and "differentiate" when the RC is just a MK3 IS without the rear door... they share the same platform, they share the same interior and accessories but yet still i am made by Linas to think the RC is a special model on its own..  

dude just give it time it might grow on ya!

At a risk of getting in the middle of this...

Unlike the 3IS which  has its own platform,  for some reason the RC is made  up of a combination of platforms IIRC. The front is 4GS  the middle is from the ISC and the rear is from the 3IS. But yes it does have the same interior as the 3IS. I guess it all made sense to Lexus! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GS front allows for a wider track, the middle section adds much more chassis stiffness, the rear adds a boot that fills up with water when you open it in the rain.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedian said:

The GS front allows for a wider track, the middle section adds much more chassis stiffness, the rear adds a boot that fills up with water when you open it in the rain.

 

Not forgetting the rain water running off the roof and onto the car seat each time one opens the doors!

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

Not forgetting the rain water running off the roof and onto the car seat each time one opens the doors!

That is also true...

which brings me to 5 annoying things about RC:

  • No passenger memory seat, which honestly I have rarely used on IS. It actually makes more sense for RC to have it, because when you let somebody out of the rear seats and don't immediately put the seat back before turning the engine off it won't return to last position.
  • Boot springs-up in your face far too violently and has no handle, nor button to close it, requiring good slam to do so - cannot be weight saving measure when car already is as heavy as tank
  • Car has lane departure system and electric steering, but only beeps without correcting the car - further for some unknown reason it doesn't have RTCA and BSD? makes no sense - most cars are opposite and RTCA with BSD are much older technologies than LDA.
  • The seatbelts seems to be twisted (and I confirmed that in user guide) and the added "guide" is literally pointless, because it would just hold on the twisted belt.
  • General lack of configuration on both main screen and instrument cluster - what is the point of digital cluster if you only allow few options?!
18 hours ago, noby76 said:

trying his utmost best to justify and "differentiate" when the RC is just a MK3 IS without the rear door...

They are not the same platform, but it is not what matters. It is all related to looks and design, which to be fair is completely arbitrary measure... If people would apply same logic as you do, then coupes would not exist, because almost for every coupe there is 4 door equivalent which, if not cheaper, then certainly is always more practical. But coupes do exist, because there are people for whom less doors matters and they are willing to pay extra for it. Not that I did pay extra at all..

For the same reason I find mk3 IS more comparable for me with mk2 IS, but not comparable at all with RC. Even if you say - "well but they share many of design cues!", so do Shuanghuan CEO and BMW X5, does not make them same car thought:

533 bmw ceo1 498x168

Much better argument can be made about mk4 GS450h - which I have repeatedly compliment for the engine and power in particular, and which would be indeed much better than both IS250 and 200t... and even arguably 350. Problem is ... it is 4 door saloon and not 2 door coupe. And yes - the number of doors is apparently that important!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

which brings me to 5 annoying things about RC:

  • No passenger memory seat, which honestly I have rarely used on IS. It actually makes more sense for RC to have it, because when you let somebody out of the rear seats and don't immediately put the seat back before turning the engine off it won't return to last position. Can't say I've noticed this but then I rarely had anyone (other than my dog) in the back and they have always entered/exited when the engine was off..
  • Boot springs-up in your face far too violently and has no handle, nor button to close it, requiring good slam to do so - cannot be weight saving measure when car already is as heavy as tank  Again not suffered this on either of my RCs. There is a handle on the inside lip, a quick pull down and gentle press on the boot lid edge closes it without slamming or getting a grubby hand.
  • Car has lane departure system and electric steering, but only beeps without correcting the car - further for some unknown reason it doesn't have RTCA and BSD? makes no sense - most cars are opposite and RTCA with BSD are much older technologies than LDA. The 2019 facelift brings auto-correction to the LDA. Both RTCA and BSD ore options on both pre and post facelift F-Sports and standard on the Takumi grades
  • The seatbelts seems to be twisted (and I confirmed that in user guide) and the added "guide" is literally pointless, because it would just hold on the twisted belt. I've noticed the twist but it has no impact on the function of the guide, which IMHO is a necessity for easily accessing the seatbelt
  • General lack of configuration on both main screen and instrument cluster - what is the point of digital cluster if you only allow few options?! It's what Lexus designed it to be ...

My twopence worth added in red ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, the 5 annoying things are really least of my issues and for most I just mentioned them for fun..

  • Re seats - when fold the seat forward it retracts and when you fold it back it will automatically go to the last position ( so it is kind of 1 memory setting). However, if you fold it with engine on and then turn it off before folding it back, then it will return to sort of "middle position" which is rather cramped and certainly unnecessary unless you have somebody in the back. Again, I think I am more surprised that cheaper IS has it and RC does not, especially considering the rest of interior is almost copy/paste.
  • Admittedly there is like a "crease in lining", but it is not distinctive handle, boot at least on my car definitely needs good slam - as gently pressing it won't do.
  • I know Lexus included LSS+ in facelift and this is exactly what is strange... it seems they kind of got on the way to include something, but forgotten what they were about to do half way - what exactly is benefit of LDA if it does not auto correct.. and where RTCA is kind of more modern thing the BSD was standard on most car for at least last 10 years. It seems one would include BSD for free instead of LDA?
  • Again, I cannot say it really affects anything, except of making guide useless as if you clip the belt there (as you say for easy access) then it makes it actually less easy to access, because you not only need to reach for it but as well twist it into correct orientation. Small thing, but it does makes user guide warning rather hilarious:Untitled.thumb.jpg.4ef4c9e664e4ba90270162ddcbea8efb.jpg
  • Yes I know that, but you cannot argue that functionality of the screen could be enhanced 10 fold - it is actually already there, there is just no option to configure it the way you want. It is like not being able to arrange icons of the apps on your smartphone - that would be clear oversight by design team.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

now Lexus included LSS+ in facelift and this is exactly what is strange... it seems they kind of got on the way to include something, but forgotten what they were about to do half way - what exactly is benefit of LDA if it does not auto correct.. and where RTCA is kind of more modern thing the BSD was standard on most car for at least last 10 years. It seems one would include BSD for free instead of LDA?

Done deliberately to drive the desire to upgrade to the model, as many marques do. Omit some functions in lower grade models/series but included as standard on more expensive versions creates model/grade differentiation. Then include them in the next face-lift.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would have been true if not for bizarre limitations not to allow to select certain options between F-Sport and Premier.

As such - if you want LF-A dials you have to go to F-sport, but if you want RTCA/BSD and even DCC you have to go Premier, which for some strange reason cannot be equipped with mentioned dials, not rose leather interior. Basically, by going Premier one has to make sacrifices to something quite important (at least for me), which kind of defeats the goal of making people to upgrade?!

I do agree that they have solved this logical issue in face-lift where you can go for Luxury>F-Sport>Takumi>Fsport+Takumi and get best of both cars without actually sacrificing anything (except some cash).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifying the 2019 F-Sport with Takumi Pack is(was) approx £1500 cheaper than going for the Takumi grade. What does the Takumi grade get that the F-Sport + Takumi pack doesn't? Keeping in mind the F-Sport has AVS and LFA style meters that the Takumi doesn't get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

They are not the same platform, but it is not what matters. It is all related to looks and design, which to be fair is completely arbitrary measure... If people would apply same logic as you do, then coupes would not exist, because almost for every coupe there is 4 door equivalent which, if not cheaper, then certainly is always more practical. But coupes do exist, because there are people for whom less doors matters and they are willing to pay extra for it. Not that I did pay extra at all..

For the same reason I find mk3 IS more comparable for me with mk2 IS, but not comparable at all with RC. Even if you say - "well but they share many of design cues!", so do Shuanghuan CEO and BMW X5, does not make them same car thought:

533 bmw ceo1 498x168

Much better argument can be made about mk4 GS450h - which I have repeatedly compliment for the engine and power in particular, and which would be indeed much better than both IS250 and 200t... and even arguably 350. Problem is ... it is 4 door saloon and not 2 door coupe. And yes - the number of doors is apparently that important!

last time i checked the RC belonged to the Toyota New N Platform so does MK3IS and MK4GS so if the RC is put together using two models of the same platform are you then telling me it all of a sudden becomes a different platform? 

half of Platform N(MK4GS)  + another half of Platform N(MK3IS) = you guessed it..

i can understand if some chassis sections have been made more rigid and strengthened in the RC but a male and female chicken do not produce a dog. RC is not a special thing just an offspring of two platform N parents put together.

so i dont understand the whole hoo-ha above..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, noby76 said:

so i dont understand the whole hoo-ha above..

hoo-ha above is that having 2 less doors is reason good enough for many people to get a different car.

Further, if I would apply the same logic, then Lexus ES and LC are the same car - because both are based on TNGA and I further ignore the fact that there are significant variations within the platform. Even applying same logic on TNN would render bizzare conclusion - basically GS and IS is as well same car.. it must be right because they are both TNN?!

In short - you are wrong, barely being built around same platform doesn't make the car comparable or the same... for many reasons, although the only one important for me in this instance is purely looks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

although the only one important for me in this instance is purely looks...

even when no other aspect of the car you will be getting in and out of everyday appeals to you..i will say money well spent 🤘 rock on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.