Top Gear Rcf Review

[sofasurfer]

Something was just not that right with the review..ok he didn't like it and spent more time on the LFA than the RCF but part of me thinks that he was trying to make a point about how much better the M4 was. Yes it can beat the RCF in a drag race but then so can a lot of cars. Not putting it round the track made me suspicious that the times between the BMW and the Lexus are not that great. Saying all review how heavy and slow the RCF is and then comes damn close to the times of the lighter, faster M4 would make him look the fool he is. Other reviews have compared them and there doesn't seem to be that much in it. I found the whole tone of that review bad tempered and irritating. I know it has ceased to be a car show and more 3 blokes acting out their childish jokes but this latest episode was appalling.

[rayaans]

Something was just not that right with the review..ok he didn't like it and spent more time on the LFA than the RCF but part of me thinks that he was trying to make a point about how much better the M4 was. Yes it can beat the RCF in a drag race but then so can a lot of cars. Not putting it round the track made me suspicious that the times between the BMW and the Lexus are not that great. Saying all review how heavy and slow the RCF is and then comes damn close to the times of the lighter, faster M4 would make him look the fool he is. Other reviews have compared them and there doesn't seem to be that much in it. I found the whole tone of that review bad tempered and irritating. I know it has ceased to be a car show and more 3 blokes acting out their childish jokes but this latest episode was appalling.

Im going to send Top Gear a very rude email :)

[3 MSF]

I couldn't agree more Andy. In fact, as a current owner of an M4 (great car, don't get me wrong) I'm off to my Lexus dealer later today with a view to purchase providing they still have any remaining allocation (or can get hold of one somehow...). These things are being snapped-up by those who get the whole Lexus thing, and I know my local dealer has already shifted theirs - even the demo went on virtually day one to a customer who was picking something else up, saw the RCF, enquired, drove, cancelled the other vehicle and purchased!

[3 MSF]

Rayaan, we should demand that The Stig puts in a lap, and that Clarkson formally apologises to Lexus and the TG viewers. :)

[wendle]

Agree with you Andy, it seemed to be just because he

couldn’t power slide it and every time he tried the car corrected its self he
doesn’t like it, I don’t know much about the TVD and I am probably wrong, but
isn’t that what its supposed to do, stop you from sliding of the track and
potentially killing your self, surely he should have had the TVD turned off.
And if he really wanted to slag the car of even more why didn’t he let the stig
take it round the track, it according to Clarkson would have put it a really slow
time and he would have been even happier.

We all know its over weight but does that really matter when
99% of ISF, RCF, even LFA drivers are not going to track there cars.

[wendle]

Mark I know there is one at Lexus sidcup as a buyer has pulled out ( nothing to do with any reviews) i know its a bit of a treck for you, but if it fits your requirments.

[3 MSF]

Thanks Chris - I've just been advised that Derby has access to a fully loaded Blue / Grey specimin. Oh dear - this could be expensive...

[Stuno1]

I think for all the reasons debated on this thread the rcf will be a better more enjoyable car for real world driving over the m4/3. In terms of reliability, styling, build quality, rarity, customer service.

[stevet]

Wonder if BMW stopped them from showing the lap time? Bet they pay a fortune in advertising for the magazine.

[3 MSF]

That being said, I'm not sure what mode Clarkson was in, as I don't recall the engine rev's spooling-up bright yellow on the tachometer; he'd probably got it in economy mode, as to be quite frank, he didn't seem to have a clue regarding any of the technology...

[MrW]

I doubt the RCF would be quicker round the track, despite the poor review on TG, virtually every review I've seen or read, agrees with the point that's its a good road car rather than a track car.

[lotusdave]

hey at least it was on tv. No mention of the lotus exige s or new evora 400 despite the former winning evo car of the year a while back.

[rayaans]

Rayaan, we should demand that The Stig puts in a lap, and that Clarkson formally apologises to Lexus and the TG viewers. :)

Already done mate :P It was a good essay criticising Top Gear. Would be pretty funny if they read it out this week :P

[Grey One]

All the reviews on the RCF I have seen (to repeat earlier comments) are that it is too heavy, doesn't handle well and doesn't match the competition. Personally I think the NA approach is a plus, it is more likely the bulk the car has to haul around that creates so much of a gap with the turbo'd German rivals.

Two door sports coupe (or 'coup' as the yanks say) = 911 or GTR

IHMO, Lexus making the RCF a heavy two door seems an odd choice rather than just doing a straight ISF replacement, but then Lexus has done some awful cars in the past in the genre (remember the IS coupe and convertible).

I think we may all have lucky to own the 'wild child' car of its generation from Lexus for the masses before they went back to type...

[MrW]

Whilst I agree Clarkson behaved badly, the whole thing has a sense of anger, frustration and disappointment from him...... I know I feel a bit like that about the RCF, it could have been a wonderful NA alternative to the current crop and yet isn't. Hand on heart you guys must feel the same in some regard?

[3 MSF]

Guys - I think you need to drive one and make up your own mind, that's if you get the opportunity as the demonstrator vehicles are being snapped-up before they even land at the dealers. I drove one at Derby that they had to borrow from Nottingham on Sunday for the purpose; I have an M4 (and plenty of driving / test track / MIRA development experience as an automotive engineer) and I was very impressed.

The vehicle may be on the heavier side (but that's a function of delivering other positives like sound insulation etc) so it's a real feat of engineering to have achieved something so flexible, fast, stable, quiet yet aggressive when kicked and with a wonderful V8 soundtrack that no YouTube video will ever represent effectively... oh yes, it's very well rounded, it looks beautiful in the metal, and exclusivity will be assured...

[MrW]

why did you buy an M4?

[3 MSF]

The M4 promised to be much of what it is. I love coupes, and after the 323i, 328i, 330i, 335d M Sport, Alpina B3 BiTurbo, Alpina B3s BiTurbo and M3 (V8, Competition Pack), the M4 seemed a logical progression (my experience was that turbos were no issue on the Alpinas, with bags of torque DELIVERED APPROPRIATELY for road or track). Where the M4 isn’t ideal is in the delivery of the incredible torque that the engine delivers – it is in no way progressive. There’s no build up at all. The M4 has actually made me better appreciate the beauty of the M3 V8 engine with its lower, more progressive torque delivery. It’s difficult to get a quick getaway on anything but warm, dry surfaces without the tyres and back-end wanting to rip itself free, bounce around and tyre-squeal whilst the nanny controls do their best to keep things in check.

Some will love those characteristics and the way they are delivered, but it’s the case that many of the formal respected automotive journalists / reviewers are stating that the M4 has an issue in that it doesn’t deliver it’s power down so well, even on the track, and it’s for this reason amongst others that the RCF makes up its ground and keeps on the M4's tail, and on some of the twistier closed tracks, beats it. If only the M4 was a little heavier(!), this might not be such an issue, but then its all about compromises and the goals of the designer and marketing teams…

Interestingly, the new Mercedes C63 AMG, with its twin turbos has an engineering countermeasure for this issue; the torque generated in the first 3 gears is limited by the ECU to improve traction. Because the RCF doesn’t have turbos and has a progressive torque delivery, it doesn’t suffer with these issues, and where traction could become an issue on the limit, the TVD pretty much takes care of that.

I really like the M4 in so many ways – it’s not about taking sides or liking only one 'ultimate vehicle' (where forums often seem to end up going for some reason) but I just preferred the overall feeling of solidity, the smooth and un-burstable progressive power delivery and soundtrack of the RCF V8 (not to mention the Lexus customer experience, whereas the M4 hasn’t exactly been fault free, and BMW aftersales service in no way reflects the fact that you are treated like a king until you’ve signed on the dotted line… The M4’s been in for 5 issues since November, and there’s a whine from the engine bay that’s getting progressively louder that is apparently ‘a characteristic of the model’. Really? And it gets louder with time (just before failure?)? Well, no such whine from the RCF.

Now - where’s that piggy-bank…

[Stuno1]

The whole VAG reliabikity issue raises its head once again. The perception of the general populous could not be more wrong regarding VAG reliability.

The cars characteristics is a personal thing as you day. The m4 seems a bit more yob like and the RCF more refined.

Let us know if you but one, then drive to my house and let me rag it for a bit :0)

[noby76]

i have now seen a few more videos of the RC-F vs M4 and noticed and noticed the drivers of the M4's were fighting the steering wheel a lot which makes me think the BMW has setup the M4 to over steer more more than the RC-F while not making a lot of difference in terms of lap time when compared to the RC-F. I watched one video where the guy was complaining about the RC-F's brakes this made me laugh. does he not realise those brakes are designed and made by brembo..

I also noticed how almost all the reviewers were praising the M4 for its huge torque advantage . but what they fail to tell us is how different the engine characteristics are in terms of design in that the M4 starts making quite a bit of power early in the rev range 1850 to 5500 rpm to be exact due to the twin turbo's helping it generate a flat torque curve of 405 ft lb(550NM) once the rpm is past 5500rpm the M4 starts loosing torque and a lot of it. BMW claims the M4 makes 431bhp between 5500rpm to 7300rpm.

where as the RCF would start of with low torque figure just enough to propel it from 0-60 in about the same seconds or as close to the M4 as possible and whilst the BMW's torque is falling off once it hits 5500rpm, the RC-F's is maintaining its 389 ft lb (527NM) of torque pretty much from its peak point of 4800rpm to its redline of 7300rpm.

RC-F also looses torque from its peak of 4800rpm to redline of 7300rpm but not a lot of it hence why M4 engine manages to generate 431bhp at 7300rpm and RCF generates 470bhp at 7100rpm. so one starts off strong with a flat torque curve from idle speeds and runs out of puff later and the other starts off slightly on the back foot and makes more power later.

so depending on the track layout, there will be some corners were the BMW driver will not need to shift down a gear and the RC-F driver will. but for them to say the RC-F lacks torque is BS. The thing makes more power than the M4 and power is generated from torque multiplied by rpm.

M4 = 431BHP at 5500 to 7300rpm

RC-F = 470BHP at 7100rpm

so can we say the RC-F will be making similar power or as close to 431bhp at 5500rpm aswell if it is making more high up ??

[matt-c]

Jesus , John - you need to get out more!

[noby76]

if this is your way of inviting me again to get out with you on a date then try harder matt... :ooh-ducky:

[matt-c]

No, just out - anywhere, so long as it's actually with someone, and not copying and pasting figures from one internet page into another.

[fjcfarrar]

Perhaps its because I'm getting old (no! I've actually got old), but am I alone in thinking that Lexus have dug too deep into the ugly bucket to come up with the looks of the RCF? I think it is just too much "in your face".

All the their current crop have a touch of the 1950's Dan Dare look about them with too many whiplash lines and style points as if conceived by a huge committee where everyone was able to add their own favourite styling cues irrespective of the effect on the whole. And overdone on the RCF - perhaps today's take on the huge tail-fins and tons of chrome of America's yesteryear.

For me, less is more. By chance, above this a picture of the IS200 which had timeless, subtle stying and still looks good and not desperately from nearly two decades back. I don't see that in the RCF.

I am not surprised Top Gear didn't like it. They didn't like the ISF either - I think wrongly with the ISF with their twaddle about it constantly changing gear, and maybe time will prove them equally wrong about the RCF whether it is ugly or not.

[3 MSF]

It's a point of view on a personal, subjective matter. I happen to think it's beautiful, looking incredible 'in the flesh'.