Lexus Announces RC 200t with 2.0L Turbo Engine

[mmcartalk]

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!

True, but if the engineers don't do the throttle-by-wire correctly (and I have sampled this on a number of new vehicles), what you sometimes end up with is a jumpy throttle when starting off from rest and then the engine rapidly running out of breath. Fortunately, in some cases (and this was the case on my brother's new Kia Sportage), the engine's computer learns what your driving style is after a few miles and adjusts the programming accordingly. When I first test-drove it for him to make sure there were no defects/problems, it jumped off the line like a rabbit, even with a soft right-foot, but, after about 5 or 6 miles, seemed much better.

 

[IS-SV]

Lexus needs to keep upping the game with these RC coupes. These entry level configurations are critically important (turbo 4's) to compete with successful BMW 4 series coupes and soon to be released and very stylish Mercedes C-class coupe. Sure the sales volume is never huge in this segment but the margins are high and the brand visibility high. The turbo4's have will be the predominate/highest sales configuration for each, with the more demanding buyers paying extra for more powerful sixes.

 

[mmcartalk]

Lexus needs to keep upping the game with these RC coupes. These entry level configurations are critically important (turbo 4's) to compete with successful BMW 4 series coupes and soon to be released and very stylish Mercedes C-class coupe. Sure the sales volume is never huge in this segment but the margins are high and the brand visibility high. The turbo4's have will be the predominate/highest sales configuration for each, with the more demanding buyers paying extra for more powerful sixes.

Don't you think, though, that, with a traditionally upmarket nameplate like Lexus, there can be expected to be a fair number of those wanting the V6? Like you, I don't expect the RC to sell in huge numbers....but I doubt that many of its potential buyers are going to want to buzz around in a (roughly) 3700 lb. coupe with an entry-level power plant. (not there is anything wrong with the 2.0T, but N/A V6s still have their advantages). I know some of this comes from CAFE (and maybe CARB?), but this may be one area where the wants and desires of auto-buyers may be at odds with current or future mandates.

 

[IS-SV]

Don't you think, though, that, with a traditionally upmarket nameplate like Lexus, there can be expected to be a fair number of those wanting the V6? Like you, I don't expect the RC to sell in huge numbers....but I doubt that many of its potential buyers are going to want to buzz around in a (roughly) 3700 lb. coupe with an entry-level power plant. (not there is anything wrong with the 2.0T, but N/A V6s still have their advantages). I know some of this comes from CAFE (and maybe CARB?), but this may be one area where the wants and desires of auto-buyers may be at odds with current or future mandates.

Of course a "fair number" (whatever "fair number" might be, therefore not especially meaningful ) will be V6's. But a majority of the sales of the BMW and Mercedes sporty lux coupes have been turbo4's. I anticipate Lexus RC coupes will follow that sales trend.

The other minority portion of the buyers will pay the for the extra power/V6 is my prediction based on sales leaders in this class (BMW and Mercedes) of luxury sports coupes. The actual measured performance gap between the Lexus turbo4 and Lexus 3.5L V6 won't be as large as some are expecting, mainly due to the nature of modern DI turbo4 engines with uniquely strong torque curves (and decent horsepower too).

 

[mmcartalk]

(whatever "fair number" might be, therefore not especially meaningful )

OK, I'll buy that.....I could have used a better term.

 

[IS-SV]

OK, I'll buy that.....I could have used a better term.

Not that my prediction with majority turbo4's and minority V6's is that much more granular. But it's not taking a big risk in predicting mix when we see actual BMW and Mercedes turbo4's making up over 2/3 of the coupe sales.

btw - Sporty lux coupes (like BMW 4 series, Mercedes C-class, RC) are all about style first, and performance 2nd to most buyers. That doesn't mean the car should be a dog. The BMW and Mercedes coupe turbo 4's are not dogs, I don't expect the Lexus version of same to be either.

 

[mmcartalk]

Thanks mmcartalk I have learned a lot from your excellent and informative response.

Anytime. Glad it helped.

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!

One thing that certainly helps gas mileage on the IS-F, compared to the NX200T, is the F's 8-speed automatic, which really gears the engine RPM down at higher cruise speeds. Unless it gets to the point where an engine is lugging, less RPM usually beans better mileage. And the IS-F's V8 has so much torque that it can lope along at those low speeds in very high gears, helping economy without much strain. That's probably why you managed to get 29 MPG out of it. In contrast, I myself had an IS300 with the old 3.0L straight six, which was barely half the power of the IS-F. With a 5-speed automatic (as opposed to your 8-speed), and only one overdrive gear on it, the low-to-mid 20s was just about all it could manage , even featherfooting it on the highway (it was EPA-rated at 23/17).

One question, though.....to make it a little clearer: Was the 29 MPG you achieved with the IS-F (as on the NX200t) with British Imperial gallons? That would make the mileage a little lower (maybe 25 MPG) with American gallons.

And back to the NX200t, its mileage ratings are a little unusual compared to most car-based AWD vehicles. Most vehicles of this type do about 1-2 MPG better for all conditions (in American gallons) in their FWD versions, but the NX200t gets the same EPA city/highway ratings in both versions, with the FWD being 1 MPG better combined.

 

[cherrrhc]

Thanks mmcartalk I have learned a lot from your excellent and informative response.

Anytime. Glad it helped.

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!

One thing that certainly helps gas mileage on the IS-F, compared to the NX200T, is the F's 8-speed automatic, which really gears the engine RPM down at higher cruise speeds. Unless it gets to the point where an engine is lugging, less RPM usually beans better mileage. And the IS-F's V8 has so much torque that it can lope along at those low speeds in very high gears, helping economy without much strain. That's probably why you managed to get 29 MPG out of it. In contrast, I myself had an IS300 with the old 3.0L straight six, which was barely half the power of the IS-F. With a 5-speed automatic (as opposed to your 8-speed), and only one overdrive gear on it, the low-to-mid 20s was just about all it could manage , even featherfooting it on the highway (it was EPA-rated at 23/17).

One question, though.....to make it a little clearer: Was the 29 MPG you achieved with the IS-F (as on the NX200t) with British Imperial gallons? That would make the mileage a little lower (maybe 25 MPG) with American gallons.

And back to the NX200t, its mileage ratings are a little unusual compared to most car-based AWD vehicles. Most vehicles of this type do about 1-2 MPG better for all conditions (in American gallons) in their FWD versions, but the NX200t gets the same EPA city/highway ratings in both versions, with the FWD being 1 MPG better combined.

yes it was imperial. So the NX converts to 22.41 US. That doesn't look very good to me.

 

[mmcartalk]

yes it was imperial. So the NX converts to 22.41 US. That doesn't look very good to me.

yes it was imperial. So the NX converts to 22.41 US. That doesn't look very good to me.

What were your driving conditions on that trip with the NX? Was the road level, or did you have to deal with significant hills? Did you have the vehicle heavily loaded, or just 1 or 2 persons? Was the road fairly congested, which meant speeding up and slowing down, or was it light traffic? Did you use the A/C a lot on a hot day? Were the tire pressures correct? Were you driving at or near the speed limit, or lead-footing it? These, and many other factors, can affect gas mileage.

(Since you said it was highway, I'm going to assume that you didn't have to deal with many stop signs or stoplights).

 

[IS-SV]

This is the European announcement of turbo4 in RC and in article they mentioned this us the 4th model with this 2.0Lt engine offered.. 4th? Did I miss something here?

 

[CIF]

This is the European announcement of turbo4 in RC and in article they mentioned this us the 4th model with this 2.0Lt engine offered.. 4th? Did I miss something here?

In Europe, they will soon have a 2.0T lineup of: NX200t, IS200t, RX200t, and RC200t. Those are the 4 models right there. In North America, as it stands, we won't get all of those models.

 

[IS-SV]

In Europe, they will soon have a 2.0T lineup of: NX200t, IS200t, RX200t, and RC200t. Those are the 4 models right there. In North America, as it stands, we won't get all of those models.

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for, the full list. So RX will be probably be version North America doesn't get, can't say I'm surprised.

 

[CIF]

You're welcome. Yeah I agree.

 

[mikeavelli]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/18/2016-lexus-rc-200t-quick-spin-review/

Not particularly kind...

Even if you're not going to be tackling mountain roads on the regular, the RC's simple lack of straight-line pace makes it a difficult vehicle to recommend. We aren't really sure how Lexus engineers broke out the stopwatches and decided that 7.3 seconds was acceptable, but it was a bad call. The good news is, the formula for fixing this two-door isn't tough – give it more power. Until that happens, the least powerful RC you'll want has a 3.5-liter V6.

 

[IS-SV]

In short, RC has a weight problem (about 250 pounds) that I do not expect Lexus to address in this gen.

Unlike BMW, Mercedes, and Audi which do multiple (ww) versions of their 2.0Lturbo 4's with different horsepower ratings, Lexus has only one version currently.

 

[Och]

Of course a "fair number" (whatever "fair number" might be, therefore not especially meaningful ) will be V6's. But a majority of the sales of the BMW and Mercedes sporty lux coupes have been turbo4's. I anticipate Lexus RC coupes will follow that sales trend.

I don't know if its true for BMW. From my observation, there are at least as many 6 cylinder 4 series and 6 cylinder last gen 3 coupes as 4 cylinder. Of course it is a different story with sedans.

 

[Och]

I configured an IS200t F-sport on Lexus website, with nav and mark levinson packages - came out to be 49,600. I think my m235i was 49 and change comparably equipped and with twice the engine. Lexus needs to get more competitive with their pricing.

 

[IS-SV]

I don't know if its true for BMW. From my observation, there are at least as many 6 cylinder 4 series and 6 cylinder last gen 3 coupes as 4 cylinder. Of course it is a different story with sedans.

Agreed about 6 cylinder popularity in the BMW coupes (versus sedans), but I'm still seeing 4 bangers as the most popular config in 4 series sold in CA. Today in 2015 in US, I expect that 4 bangers are most popular config for BMW 3, 4, 5 series.

Therefore I think it's true for BMW.

 

[Bulldog 1]

10 second assessment: $50K for a 4- cylinder "sporty coupe" that has turbo lag (read other threads where this is stated by owners of IS200t), the same 0-60 as my discontinued RWD V-6 IS250 F Sport, and IMO negligible fuel economy advantage. What's not to like?

 

[IS-SV]

My 10 second guess is I don't think Lexus is losing any sleep over the lack of 2.5L V6 offering, especially since they offer an optional 3.5L V6 that gets very similar fuel economy plus an additional 100hp (yes, that's a significant power bump). So Lexus still offers a (profitable) upgrade path. I agree, these are premium cars so a V6 option still needs to be offered. Regardless, the RC weight problem and somewhat hampered performance versus competition exists with any of these engines in current state of tune (2.0Lturbo, 2.5L, 3.5L).