Motor Trend has published a comparison between the Lexus RC F & BMW M4, and it’s a total mess of conflicting information:
We preferred the Lexus around town, as it’s a more interesting car to sit in thanks to its wealth of technical and visual details. The styling may be a large miss, but we admire the effort. And we were genuinely impressed with the ground the RC F made up on the racetrack. It offers performance similar to the M4’s, but it feels friendlier.
Alas, we picked the M4 when it came down to the car we’d rather take home. Its engine lacks the Lexus’ aural satisfaction, but its powerband over-delivers. Its suspension works excellently on a bumpy racetrack and isn’t exceptionally rough on normal roads. Overall, it offers a higher performance envelope than the Lexus, and while it might take more time to get accustomed to, we found more engagement and satisfaction in the process.
Let’s see — the RC F is easier to drive, handles better on public roads (where 99% of all owners will drive), costs $10,000 USD less, has better technology and a more impressive cabin. On the other hand, the BMW has a powerband that “over-delivers” and “offers a higher performance envelope”.
How does the M4’s “higher performance envelope” over-deliver? By returning a track time just .32 seconds faster than the RC F:
The M4 performs (marginally) better than the RC F on the track, it’s right there in the numbers. The testing is not the issue.
No, the issue is that a major automotive magazine has decided that a half-second and subjective opinions are worth more to their readers than near-identical performance, $10,000, and better everyday driving comfort, technology and utility.
Great photos, though.