Lexus Announces RC 200t with 2.0L Turbo Engine

[krew]

krew

The 2016 Lexus RC 200t has just been announced by Lexus Europe, making the year-old coupe the fourth model to be offered with Lexus’ new 2.0L four-cylinder turbo engine.

View the original article post

 

[Lexus Cohen]

Sales should increase with this affordable model, Great move by Lexus!

 

[Trexus]

Since Lexus didn't make an RC 250, Lexus waited to bring the RC 200t and RC 300 awd similar to the IS 200t, IS 300 awd and IS 350...too bad there is no IS F...

 

[Ruksac]

Great move. Hopefully it's a bit lighter too

 

[mmcartalk]

The F SPORT version has two additional enhancements — a Torsen Limited Slip Differential that adjusts torque distribution to the wheels

I wonder why automakers even bother to continue with open differentials. I'd like to see LSD's standard across the board, though they don't all have to be Torsens. In general, it would give vehicles better traction on slippery surfaces or in hard cornering, particularly with RWD, where wet/snow traction is often poor to start with.

 

[Bulldog 1]

I don't expect a lower price. Just a third engine option like the IS.
Goes back to the old and now new again argument in the 2016 Camaro and Mustang.
If you want a sporty car and are not willing to pay for the gas in a more powerful engine, why bother?
Sports and sporty cars with 4 cylinder anything is a contradiction.
Leave the 4 bangers for the family rides and the mommy mobiles.
I completely understand the CAFE standards as being the reason manufacturers are doing this, but I've lost enthusiasm for Lexus since this was announced.
I purposely denounced the German Big 3 (Audi, BMW, MB) for their use of 4 cylinder engines and now the rest of the world follows.
I'm hanging onto both of my 2015's to term this time or I'll be shopping elsewhere. Killing Matador Red Mica in the IS didn't help either, though I'd forgive part of this if they made an Infrared IS and ES.

 

[mmcartalk]

I don't expect a lower price. Just a third engine option like the IS.
Goes back to the old and now new again argument in the 2016 Camaro and Mustang.
If you want a sporty car and are not willing to pay for the gas in a more powerful engine, why bother?
Sports and sporty cars with 4 cylinder anything is a contradiction.
Leave the 4 bangers for the family rides and the mommy mobiles.
I completely understand the CAFE standards as being the reason manufacturers are doing this, but I've lost enthusiasm for Lexus since this was announced.
I purposely denounced the German Big 3 (Audi, BMW, MB) for their use of 4 cylinder engines and now the rest of the world follows.
I'm hanging onto both of my 2015's to term this time or I'll be shopping elsewhere. Killing Matador Red Mica in the IS didn't help either, though I'd forgive part of this if they made an Infrared IS and ES.

I understand your arguments here (and agree with most of them). But, unfortunately, it seems that turbo-4s are the wave of the future, whether we complain or not. Our opinions on forums like this, while of course important to us (and worthy of respect), rarely influence people in government to change or rescind regulations that they themselves pass....especially gas/mileage or emissions-related regulations like CAFE.

On the Matador Red issue (and I agree it's a great color), it is still listed in the specs for the 2015 IS. Are you saying that it is going to be dropped for 2016?

Sports and sporty cars with 4 cylinder anything is a contradiction.

Leave the 4 bangers for the family rides and the mommy mobiles.

I generally, but don't totally agree here. The extremely sport-oriented Subaru STi and Mitsubishi Evo both come with very strong turbo-4s in the 300 HP range. And, IMO, if you're going to load up Mommy-mobiles with the weight of a big Mommy-family and luggage, you'd probably want to have a least a good V6 under the hood.......many fours, especially non-turbo fours, just wouldn't cut it under those conditions.

 

[IS-SV]

I think it's the right "base engine" today for this heavy car that I expect to weigh at least 3700 pounds. Yes fuel economyCAFE is biggest factor for Lexus in selecting this engine, but the decent power, torque/torque curve, lighter weight/better balance, and refinement/low levels of NVH appropriate for premium car also are important factors.

 

[mmcartalk]

this heavy car that I expect to weigh at least 3700 pounds.

This might be pulling hairs, but it might end up being a little less than 3700 lbs. with the smaller turbo 4. Lexus quotes a curb weight of 3748 lbs. for the RC 350 RWD with the V6.

 

[IS-SV]

This might be pulling hairs, but it might end up being a little less than 3700 lbs. with the smaller turbo 4. Lexus quotes a curb weight of 3748 lbs. for the RC 350 RWD with the V6.

Exactly why I said what I did. Every car magazine that has actually weighed RC350 rwd "wet" has recorded weights at about 3900 pounds. (C&D reported 3894 pounds)

Dry weight doesn't matter to most since engine oil and fuel is necessary to drive car properly.

 

[mmcartalk]

Exactly why I said what I did. Every car magazine that has actually weighed RC350 "wet" has recorded weights over 3900 pounds. Dry weight doesn't matter to most since engine oil and fuel is necessary to drive car properly.

By "wet", do you mean a completely full tank? Gas weighs just over 6 lbs. a U.S. gallon.

Back to the engine, regardless of the total weight of the car, like some other automotive components these days, engines seem to be contributing less and less of it these days as new metal alloys and more efficient ways of designing parts come into play. I can remember when it took practically a construction-crane to lift a big cast-iron V8 in and out of a car. Now, some small engines, even with turbos, are down to just a couple of hundred pounds....less than that in some cases.

 

[IS-SV]

By "wet", do you mean a completely full tank? Gas weighs just over 6 lbs. a U.S. gallon.

Back to the engine, regardless of the total weight of the car, like some other automotive components these days, engines seem to be contributing less and less of it these days as new metal alloys and more efficient ways of designing parts come into play. I can remember when it took practically a construction-crane to lift a big cast-iron V8 in and out of a car. Now, some small engines, even with turbos, are down to just a couple of hundred pounds....less than that in some cases.

"Wet" means all fluids at full and correct levels, not just fuel.

But more meaningful is ACTUAL wet curb weight, no surprise. And both RC Lexus engines will have lightweight alloy blocks.

 

[cherrrhc]

Very disappointed to read 0-62 km/hr of 7.5 secs for the RC200t in the Toyota report, when the quoted brochure km/hr for the NX 200t is 7.1 secs. What have they done with the mediocre 7hp increase for the RC 200t to make it 0.4 sec slower to 62 km/hr?

 

[mmcartalk]

Very disappointed to read 0-62 km/hr of 7.5 secs for the RC200t in the Toyota report, when the quoted brochure km/hr for the NX 200t is 7.1 secs. What have they done with the mediocre 7hp increase for the RC 200t to make it 0.4 sec slower to 62 km/hr?

Transmission gearing can make a difference, but even in vehicles with similar engines and transmissions, a number of other factors can also cause different acceleration times....final-drive gearing, tire size/rolling resistance, vehicle weight, type of road surface, altitude, etc... One big factor is air temperature/humidity conditions. In general, the warmer and more humid the air, and/or the higher the elevation, the more power it takes out of auto engines. Turbos and superchargers, by compressing the outside air, delay the power loss somewhat as you climb in altitude, but eventually they are affected, too. So, while I don't want to sound indecisive LOL....any number of those factors, if applicable, could explain part or all of the difference between the two.

 

[Och]

I wonder why automakers even bother to continue with open differentials. I'd like to see LSD's standard across the board, though they don't all have to be Torsens. In general, it would give vehicles better traction on slippery surfaces or in hard cornering, particularly with RWD, where wet/snow traction is often poor to start with.

Thats actually can't be further from the truth.

Keep in mind that traditional LSD is a purely mechanical unit, with no "intelligence", and can be very dangerous on RWD vehicles in slippery conditions. If you take a fast curve in slippery conditions, and one of the wheels loses traction and slips - the LSD will send torque to the other wheel and your back end will come 180 degrees. If you don't believe me, just look it up on internet, or even look in 2GS section of the old forum - many members that swapped LSD in their 2GS got their cars wrecked.

Then you have modern stability control systems that can very effectively emulate effects of LSD by applying brakes to individual wheels and limiting throttle. These systems work very well on modern cars, and a mechanical LSD device would only interfere with them.

The latest trend however, with AWD systems is torque vectoring. Instead of a dummy mechanical LSD unit, they use differentials with computer controlled electronically activated clutches. They implement sensors that monitor for wheel spin hundreds times per second, and intelligently sending torque and at the same time apply brakes to the appropriate wheels.

Thats not to say that mechanical LSD is completely dead, as it is still offered on some vehicles. For instance it was optional on my m235 - but I did not opt for it. I like spirited driving, but I'm not a professional driver, and there way too many horror stories of people crashing their LSD equipped cars - I'm not taking any chances.

 

[mmcartalk]

Thats actually can't be further from the truth.

Keep in mind that traditional LSD is a purely mechanical unit, with no "intelligence", and can be very dangerous on RWD vehicles in slippery conditions. If you take a fast curve in slippery conditions, and one of the wheels loses traction and slips - the LSD will send torque to the other wheel and your back end will come 180 degrees. If you don't believe me, just look it up on internet, or even look in 2GS section of the old forum - many members that swapped LSD in their 2GS got their cars wrecked.

Then you have modern stability control systems that can very effectively emulate effects of LSD by applying brakes to individual wheels and limiting throttle. These systems work very well on modern cars, and a mechanical LSD device would only interfere with them.

The latest trend however, with AWD systems is torque vectoring. Instead of a dummy mechanical LSD unit, they use differentials with computer controlled electronically activated clutches. They implement sensors that monitor for wheel spin hundreds times per second, and intelligently sending torque and at the same time apply brakes to the appropriate wheels.

Thats not to say that mechanical LSD is completely dead, as it is still offered on some vehicles. For instance it was optional on my m235 - but I did not opt for it. I like spirited driving, but I'm not a professional driver, and there way too many horror stories of people crashing their LSD equipped cars - I'm not taking any chances.

Probably the best car I ever had for winter driving was an AWD Outback with a center differential and traditional LSD in back. Almost nothing stopped it if it was driven sensibly.

I agree that an LSD doesn't help if you overdo it on a slippery curve, but I was refering to sensible driving, not people who think they are invincible in winter.

On the thread-topic RC200t, my guess is that it will come with an LSD, as a number of sports-sedans and sport coupes do. I suspect the reason we don't see it on more vehicles, though, is cost and weight, not just because of torque-vectoring.

 

[Och]

Probably the best car I ever had for winter driving was an AWD Outback with a center differential and traditional LSD in back. Almost nothing stopped it if it was driven sensibly.

I agree that an LSD doesn't help if you overdo it on a slippery curve, but I was refering to sensible driving, not people who think they are invincible in winter.

On the thread-topic RC200t, my guess is that it will come with an LSD, as a number of sports-sedans and sport coupes do. I suspect the reason we don't see it on more vehicles, though, is cost and weight, not just because of torque-vectoring.

For sensible driving, the so called e-LSD systems do just as good, without being potentially dangerous.

 

[cherrrhc]

Very disappointed to read 0-62 km/hr of 7.5 secs for the RC200t in the Toyota report, when the quoted brochure km/hr for the NX 200t is 7.1 secs. What have they done with the mediocre 7hp increase for the RC 200t to make it 0.4 sec slower to 62 km/hr?

Transmission gearing can make a difference, but even in vehicles with similar engines and transmissions, a number of other factors can also cause different acceleration times....final-drive gearing, tire size/rolling resistance, vehicle weight, type of road surface, altitude, etc... One big factor is air temperature/humidity conditions. In general, the warmer and more humid the air, and/or the higher the elevation, the more power it takes out of auto engines. Turbos and superchargers, by compressing the outside air, delay the power loss somewhat as you climb in altitude, but eventually they are affected, too. So, while I don't want to sound indecisive LOL....any number of those factors, if applicable, could explain part or all of the difference between the two.

Thanks mmcartalk I have learned a lot from your excellent and informative response. In real terms the difference is insignificant I know but the surprise to me was that the RC200t was going to be "slower" than the NX200t. About a year ago I read reports on Torquenews, who speculated, based on their tests and expectations, that the IS200t (when it came out which has now been announced) as well as the RC would be a bit over 250 bhp and have a 0-62 km/h of around 6 to 6.5 secs. Now that would make sense to me given the aerodynamic differences in body style between the NX and RC. Plus the 8 speed gearbox etc. We bought a NX200t partly for me to assess the new turbo engine in the hope that I could look forward to my personal next change to a RC200t but these figures don't give me much sense of desirability. Oh and btw I am not impressed by the fuel consumption on the NX. Despite economic claims for this turbo engine I am getting barely 27 mpg (UK) on a 300 mile round trip. On the same journey, different weekend I got 29 mpg out of my ISF. Now that's impressive!

 

[mikeavelli]

If you have driven the NX, the engine is adequate but it never is overpowering and that has the 6 speed not the 8. Not sure how aggressive the IS gearing will be. I hope also the gas pedal has more response with minimum lag. That can make a car feel faster than it is and vice versa.

Great to see a LSD option!

 

[Travis]

That pictures... In that red and that lighting the RC looks amazing.

LSD and a manual trans would turn this car out.