First ever test drive - RC300h F-Sport - Not Impressed

[H3XME]

6 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

A bit off topic but the 2 litre diesel that BMW used in the 3 and 5 series is one of the best engines i have driven. Torque a plenty and incredibly fuel efficient. 

Btw, coupes from Mercedes, BMW and Audi. Guess what engines are the best sellers...  Hint, 4 pot petrol 156 hp.

Nobody says they're bad, they just don't suit a sporty car. 
Of course, people want a sporty looking car without the performance of one because it just looks good and unfortunately that's the world we live in. I'd be embarrassed being seen in a good looking, fast looking car even, such as the latest C class coupe or RC if it was a diesel or something underwhelming with 150hp that cannot backup its looks 

[NemesisUK]

Look back at some of the most 'sporty' looking cars of the 50's, 60's and 70's what sort of bhp did they produce? The 0-60 time would seem glacial compared even with modern day shopping cars, never mind performance cars!

I used to drive a 5.5ltr super-charged V8 4 door, 4 seater luxo-barge (OK a CLS55AMG) with a 0-60 of 4.5sec, fantastic car but totally unusable 90% of the time. I also used to drive a 2.6ltr HSR with a similar 0-60 but back in the 80's one could actually enjoy that performance. I also drove a 998cc Monte Carlo Imp and to be honest that car gave the most driving satisfaction at less than half the performance.

The look of a car has little to do with performance or driver satisfaction but a lot to do with 'enjoyment' and 'pride' (if that makes any sense!) My RC has attracted more compliments and comment than any other, far more 'capable', car I've owned. That all said I really do love driving it. Quick blasts round the country roads, long 4-5hrs drives across the country and slow trundles across town. It lends itself to the complete spectrum of journeys, allowing the driver to be as 'involved' as he wishes. Or simply conveyed in absolute comfort and safety.

All IMHO obviously..

[Linas.P]

18 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

 most 'sporty' looking cars of the 50's, 60's and 70's

Maybe that is because they were made in 50s, 60s and 70s? Like yes it was then and this is now... Not sure how that could be used as argument?

But I agree and said before that Lexus bringing RC300h is not a mistake, it is mass-market model and they would have sold most of 300h even if they would have offered 350... not offering 350, that is an issue. And how big of an issue it is depends on how much Lexus values their "enthusiast" clients... turns out not too much! So this is direct result - enthusiasts are not happy! Obviously, maybe Lexus calculation in UK was that we are not "enthusiast" enough, because enthusiasts they were looking for would have no issue buying RC-F... which is probably even more insulting. 

And you absolutely right most of MB C Coupe I see are either C200 or C220d, because that is what you can get for £249/Month PCP, maybe even £199... so that is what most people get. C43 AMG costs only £15k more, but on PCP it is £650/Month! For BMW 430i actually is not that rare, but 440i is similar story.

[H3XME]

2 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Look back at some of the most 'sporty' looking cars of the 50's, 60's and 70's what sort of bhp did they produce? The 0-60 time would seem glacial compared even with modern day shopping cars, never mind performance cars!

I used to drive a 5.5ltr super-charged V8 4 door, 4 seater luxo-barge (OK a CLS55AMG) with a 0-60 of 4.5sec, fantastic car but totally unusable 90% of the time. I also used to drive a 2.6ltr HSR with a similar 0-60 but back in the 80's one could actually enjoy that performance. I also drove a 998cc Monte Carlo Imp and to be honest that car gave the most driving satisfaction at less than half the performance.

The look of a car has little to do with performance or driver satisfaction but a lot to do with 'enjoyment' and 'pride' (if that makes any sense!) My RC has attracted more compliments and comment than any other, far more 'capable', car I've owned. That all said I really do love driving it. Quick blasts round the country roads, long 4-5hrs drives across the country and slow trundles across town. It lends itself to the complete spectrum of journeys, allowing the driver to be as 'involved' as he wishes. Or simply conveyed in absolute comfort and safety.

All IMHO obviously..

Yes, old cars didn't have a lot of power, but it's because they didn't need it. Those 50s, 60s sports cars would weight easily half of the RC. Bashing through the rev counter with no assists. That's a true fun factor and an experience of its own.. Power to weight ratio is one thing, but that's not my point. The point is that 300h drive train is not very well suited to an RC chassis due to what it represents. A grand tourer, or even a sports car some would say.. (I'd have more fun driving it even with the 4GR engine that's in the IS250 that technically makes less power at 208hp) 

No doubt your car attracts attention and turns heads. It's a beautiful car, that's what I'm saying. It's so beautiful and the lack of "middle" ground engine option is a real shame because I feel like it would've done a lot better sale-wise if there was the middle ground. Let me use BMW as an example again. We have something like 420 -  the base spec engine for people that want a nice car and don't care about economy. Then there's the turbo 6 cylinder 435, the middle ground for people who want a bit of performance but can't afford the M4. With the RC you only get the Base spec engine or the top tier. A whole category of buyers was forgotten about or ignored.
You say you have fun driving around country lanes and going cross country. I don't doubt it, but I'm sure you and me have a different idea about having a blast on country lanes. I like to stretch its legs and I can tell I wouldn't enjoy doing that in RC300h because the car wouldn't enjoy it. RCF is unfortunately the only way but that's too expensive for most of us. 

[Linas.P]

I have already argued this case to the hell and back... but this view point of "cheap and cheerful" sports car just doesn't resonate in here for some reason. With RC is either all or nothing... 

And I never thought I would say it, but it I started to realise there is such thing as "too much power" and RC-F is that when it comes to daily driven car. Sure RC-F power is very manageable and comes very predictably and you can moderate it very well, so it may never feel like it, but RC350 would practically do all the same, just without the price tag. This almost the same argument as 300h owners make - "fast enough", but "fast enough" at different level. I can still fully use potential of RC350 to the level where that extra power would provide tangible benefit for me over say RC200t, but I truly can't benefit from RC-F more than from RC350.

[H3XME]

28 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I have already argued this case to the hell and back... but this view point of "cheap and cheerful" sports car just doesn't resonate in here for some reason. With RC is either all or nothing... 

And I never thought I would say it, but it I started to realise there is such thing as "too much power" and RC-F is that when it comes to daily driven car. Sure RC-F power is very manageable and comes very predictably and you can moderate it very well, so it may never feel like it, but RC350 would practically do all the same, just without the price tag. This almost the same argument as 300h owners make - "fast enough", but "fast enough" at different level. I can still fully use potential of RC350 to the level where that extra power would provide tangible benefit for me over say RC200t, but I truly can't benefit from RC-F more than from RC350.

Yeah definitely.. 

300h or even is250 may be fast enough.. But fast enough for what? Daily commute? Absolutely

Fast enough for over taking? Not really. 

At the end of the day it depends on what you expect from a car.. and you & me expect pretty much the same things but unfortunately the europe-available RCs can't give it to us unless it's the F. So F this and let's end this thread on the fact we're too poor to own the RC we really want. 

[ColinBarber]

9 hours ago, Linas.P said:

but how about £1700 front disks?

Surely you can make a point without exaggerating to the point of complete fiction?

If you are paying £400 you are paying over retail price.

 

£253 for the pair from the Lexus dealer below or get the Bembo OEMs from Autodoc for around £170 for the pair.

https://lexuspartsdirect.co.uk/product/lexus-rc-f-front-brake-discs/

 

[Linas.P]

Yeah... and the other thing I would say... there are no wrong cars, there are just wrong prices. Would I own RC300h - yes absolutely, if it would come at the right price, same as I would own RC-F if it would come at the right price, same as I did buy RC200t, because it was right price. What that right price would be? For today I would not pay more than £10-12k for RC300h and we all know this won't happen, market as it is won't ever allow it to be sold at that price. I bought RC200t for £15,500 in 2019 and that was the price which back then sounded like too good deal to miss (and it absolutely was). It was 2.5 years old car back then, so if that trend would have continued I think it would be reasonable to expect 5 years old cars now for £10k... and that would be good deal nowadays. 

So again, I don't think there are absolutely unacceptable cars, but price is big part of what I would be willing to compromise on. When I see 5 years old RC300h at £20k+ I just know this is not the compromise I can make. 

[Linas.P]

  

21 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Surely you can make a point without exaggerating to the point of complete fiction?

If you are paying £400 you are paying over retail price.

 

£253 for the pair from the Lexus dealer below or get the Bembo OEMs from Autodoc for around £170 for the pair.

https://lexuspartsdirect.co.uk/product/lexus-rc-f-front-brake-discs/

 

£1700 for fronts and £1300 for rear were the original Lexus prices for brakes. How is that complete fiction? 

And yes, I know - nowadays with aftermarket options you can do much better than that, but it does not means I invented the prices. As well you need to consider context as I made it very clear - it is not about how much the parts actually costs, it is not about how much cheaper you can get it done. It is about car being "top of the range" product which you will be charged premium for at every single step, everything will be super car prices and again in the context, if RC350 can provide "enough" power without this "super car tax" then it would be desirable. The price just illustrates how much Lexus is willing to go to make RC-F feel like it is step above the rest and justify the badge. 

Is RC-F special car - yes it is! But that special car comes with special price and that special price add very little extra in practice - that was my point.

[ColinBarber]

7 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

£1700 for fronts and £1300 for rear were the original Lexus prices for brakes. How is that complete fiction? 

because they were never that price. Someone got quoted £1700 for all 4, probably including pads.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

because they were never that price. Someone got quoted £1700 for all 4, probably including pads.

That is not true, it was £1700 for font pads and discs and £1300 for rear pads and discs, sure enough including labour directly at Lexus. I can go through historic thread and there were several owners being surprised and scared by the prices on RC-F. Have anyone ever paid £3000 for brakes on RC-F... I doubt it. But again that is not the point I am making and I am not sure why you choosing to ignore the context. Which is RC-F same as M4, same as C63 AMG are special cars and every time you will be asked to pay double just because it is "special", be it part of "ownership" experience or whatever you like to call it, because Lexus or any other make want's to justify that badge with price which stands out. Same like Bugatti oil doesn't cost £17,000 and tyres don't cost £21,000, but those prices are charged to set the precedent, to attract certain clientele. There are countless examples like that, I know Aston Martin clutch in DB9 costs like £6000, despite being like of the shelf Ford clutch and those parts are there to set the car apart. So Lexus example is these silly prices brakes.  

[Caspa]

I miss my RC... 

[Rabbers]

11 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

… The look of a car has little to do with performance or driver satisfaction but a lot to do with 'enjoyment' and 'pride' (if that makes any sense!) My RC has attracted more compliments and comment than any other, far more 'capable', car I've owned. That all said I really do love driving it. Quick blasts round the country roads, long 4-5hrs drives across the country and slow trundles across town. It lends itself to the complete spectrum of journeys, allowing the driver to be as 'involved' as he wishes. Or simply conveyed in absolute comfort and safety.

All IMHO obviously.. …

Admirable post, Peter.  Personally, I would further comment that my occasional irritation at the RC300h not being praised for what it is but criticized for what it is not has now turned to boredom. 

[H3XME]

1 hour ago, Rabbers said:

Admirable post, Peter.  Personally, I would further comment that my occasional irritation at the RC300h not being praised for what it is but criticized for what it is not has now turned to boredom. 

What is it? Very very good looking coupe with a great driving position, decent chassis, full of tech and potential. RC itself is great, there are amazing options such as the RC350 (3.5l V6) or RC-F (5.0l V8). What I was getting at in this post is the hybrid version. In my opinion it's a lazy, unresponsive, heavy coupe that does not suit me personally. This car would've been a lot better as 450h if hybrid is what you're after. 300h drivetrain is enough for IS or maybe even ES, but it just does not suit the sportiness of the RC. Are you telling me you wouldn't go for 450h version instead if it was available for extra ~£7000? e.g. The price difference between GS300 and GS450h was only £3k for base spec of either option back in 2006.

[Zotto]

Just to say something more, why, needing a sports car, let apart RC and buy (in Toyota brand), a Supra?

[PRT68]

31 minutes ago, H3XME said:

What is it? Very very good looking coupe with a great driving position, decent chassis, full of tech and potential. RC itself is great, there are amazing options such as the RC350 (3.5l V6) or RC-F (5.0l V8). What I was getting at in this post is the hybrid version. In my opinion it's a lazy, unresponsive, heavy coupe that does not suit me personally. This car would've been a lot better as 450h if hybrid is what you're after. 300h drivetrain is enough for IS or maybe even ES, but it just does not suit the sportiness of the RC. Are you telling me you wouldn't go for 450h version instead if it was available for extra ~£7000? e.g. The price difference between GS300 and GS450h was only £3k for base spec of either option back in 2006.

For goodness sake, let it rest.

Some of us want a sheep in wolf's clothing. 

Some want a wolf in sheeps clothing. 

Just get what you want. 

[H3XME]

18 minutes ago, PRT68 said:

Some of us want a sheep in wolf's clothing. 

Some want a wolf in sheeps clothing. 

Yeah I guess this sums it up pretty well.. 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Zotto said:

Just to say something more, why, needing a sports car, let apart RC and buy (in Toyota brand), a Supra?

Zupra is not Toyota, and more importantly it is not GT car - it is tiny sports coupe. 

Why you guys can't accept balanced review - somebody got RC300h and they love it - fine. Somebody tried it and realised it is not for them, gone thought the different aspects of the car in the review so that other buyers can have balanced opinions available on the forum. Why can't you accept that as equally valid point of view?

As soon as somebody mentions that they were disappointed with how 300h drives there are always dozen people telling - that either one drives wrong, or they don't know what they talking about, or they opinion does not matter because they don't own the car or offering their help to find alternative. Nobody is asking for that! OP just said 300h drivetrain doesn't suit RC. I wish there was RC350 - it would be better car. That is opinion, nobody telling you that you should not own 300h, maybe it is fast enough for you, but as you see it isn't fast enough for other people - just accept that.

[Rabbers]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

…Why you guys can't accept balanced review … etc., etc.

Could it have something to do with the tendency of some people to pontificate at excessive length? 

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, Rabbers said:

Could it have something to do with the tendency of some people to pontificate at excessive length? 

Is that the reason, not to accept different view? Too long post? Really? 

[Rabbers]

Yes.

 

[Linas.P]

so you expect post like this:

"Tried RC300h - it is sluggish". 

Is that better? More justified opinion? No need to explain how one comes to such conclusion? Is that not relevant for informed discussion?

[Rabbers]

Yes.

[Linas.P]

Ok.

[serbarry]

I would like to defend Linas here as I think his judgement on the car should not be seen as an offence by the owners. I understand that someone may not like that the car he loves is "destroyed" by Linas and Lucas but the purpose of the forum (and maybe the richness of it) is to have different views and opinions which may contribute to inform the readers. I have never driven a RC300H even though I have always admired it as a stunning coupe. I am pretty sure it would satisfy my taste and it would be an excellent driving experience. But this is probably because I have driven a Prius for 12 years and in all these years the Prius was just good for me: roomy, comfortable with an unbeatable fuel economy, with a huge boot which proved very useful and practical in many occasions. Even though I have had colleagues and friends who told me that my Prius was a sh..y car: slow, boring, without any excitement in driving it, etc. I never got offended: it was their opinions and I never cared. They were driving diesel cars which for me were prehistory compared to the technology of my Prius. Now that I drive a GS450H I understand why the Prius was boring and slow but still my driving is mostly in the city with low speed limits where the Prius was just fine and where now I can't get the best of my GS which I love anyway (but as for the fuel consumption I still miss the Prius). Even if Linas and Lucas are drastic in their judgement on the RC300H, for some owners it will still be the best car they own, but probably Linas and Lucas have different priorities and expectations from the RC300H than the owners and personally I welcome different opinions and views in this forum, otherwise it would be kind of boring flattering opinions on how our Lexus are fabulous.