ACEtheOG

Admirer
Founding Member
Messages
51
Reaction score
57
... new car needs to be lighter to achieve the playful feel GR is aiming for...
... cars have to run faster, and that tuning is already (in place)...


Exciting because it sounds like they understand precisely what is "wrong" with current F cars - weight (RC-F) and power (GS-F).
 

Faisal Sheikh

Follower
Messages
262
Reaction score
424
... new car needs to be lighter to achieve the playful feel GR is aiming for...
... cars have to run faster, and that tuning is already (in place)...


Exciting because it sounds like they understand precisely what is "wrong" with current F cars - weight (RC-F) and power (GS-F).
I picked up an RCF carbon a few weeks ago. Even though, it weighs 4000 lbs, it is the most enjoyable car I have ever driven as most of it went towards Frankenstein chassis rigidity with the IS-C chassis center. Before I got the RCF, for 2 years I had read and dreaded the weight as it had been so talked about in the media. Having now the car for 3 weeks and coming from a 2650 lbs 190 HP compact sporty car, I was shocked to realize it does not feel heavy at all as it shrinks around the driver when pushed hard. It feels wide in the back, but still light on its feet. I simply played with the tire pressure to eliminate tire roll and squat. After several trial and errors, 37 psi rear and 36 psi stiffens the tire walls enough to eliminate any tire roll. The chassis rigidity, suspension tuning and the mass near the center, does not make this car feel heavy at all. There is almost zero understeer even cornering at full throttle with TVD in track mode. Again, going by "feel". I have driven the E90 M3 (was on my short list along side the RCF), ISF, IS350, SLK55 AMG and the older 450 HP 2010 c63. Of all of these cars, RCF feels the quickest especially around turns with the howling sound track and the tail easily comes around if either it is slightly cold or you keep the throttle nailed through the corner.

The easiest and most obvious way to make it an M4 or C63S killer is to put big turbochargers on the engine. Personally, it was never about tenths as it was either N/A high-revving V8 or nothing, even if it was not the quickest car in the class. That is why it boiled down to either E90 M3 sedan or RCF. In the end, I chose to go with RCF because overall it was the much superior car.
 
Last edited:

Tinhinnh

Follower
Messages
247
Reaction score
134
They must keep the GS to fill the gap between LS and IS. They should make the new ES (its probably too late) a wagon so it wont steal GS sales.
 

Ian Schmidt

Expert
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
3,030
They must keep the GS to fill the gap between LS and IS. They should make the new ES (its probably too late) a wagon so it wont steal GS sales.
I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.
 

Tinhinnh

Follower
Messages
247
Reaction score
134
I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.
True but the typical buyer will mostly only care about price and since the ES is slightly more roomy and just as comfy as the GS while being cheaper, thats what they end up going with.
 

maiaramdan

Admirer
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
893
So if the Aussie Lexus executive words at the beginning of this year turn to be right about the 4 doors coupe , this makes me excited that his words about the Sport Cross may turn out to be true also
 

Tinhinnh

Follower
Messages
247
Reaction score
134
I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.
That’s why its being outsold 5 to 1.
 

ACEtheOG

Admirer
Founding Member
Messages
51
Reaction score
57
I picked up an RCF carbon a few weeks ago. Even though, it weighs 4000 lbs, it is the most enjoyable car I have ever driven as most of it went towards Frankenstein chassis rigidity with the IS-C chassis center. Before I got the RCF, for 2 years I had read and dreaded the weight as it had been so talked about in the media. Having now the car for 3 weeks and coming from a 2650 lbs 190 HP compact sporty car, I was shocked to realize it does not feel heavy at all as it shrinks around the driver when pushed hard. It feels wide in the back, but still light on its feet. I simply played with the tire pressure to eliminate tire roll and squat. After several trial and errors, 37 psi rear and 36 psi stiffens the tire walls enough to eliminate any tire roll. The chassis rigidity, suspension tuning and the mass near the center, does not make this car feel heavy at all. There is almost zero understeer even cornering at full throttle with TVD in track mode. Again, going by "feel". I have driven the E90 M3 (was on my short list along side the RCF), ISF, IS350, SLK55 AMG and the older 450 HP 2010 c63. Of all of these cars, RCF feels the quickest especially around turns with the howling sound track and the tail easily comes around if either it is slightly cold or you keep the throttle nailed through the corner.

The easiest and most obvious way to make it an M4 or C63S killer is to put big turbochargers on the engine. Personally, it was never about tenths as it was either N/A high-revving V8 or nothing, even if it was not the quickest car in the class. That is why it boiled down to either E90 M3 sedan or RCF. In the end, I chose to go with RCF because overall it was the much superior car.
Now imagine how much better the car would be if it was 2-400 lbs lighter...

My point is not that the RC-F is a bad car because of its weight or that the GS-F is a bad car because of its power, but that they would be better if the RC-F were lighter and the GS-F had more power. It appears Team GR agrees. I will patiently wait to see what the fruits of their labour will be.
 

spwolf

Expert
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
2,622
Now imagine how much better the car would be if it was 2-400 lbs lighter...

My point is not that the RC-F is a bad car because of its weight or that the GS-F is a bad car because of its power, but that they would be better if the RC-F were lighter and the GS-F had more power. It appears Team GR agrees. I will patiently wait to see what the fruits of their labour will be.
I doubt it will be 400lbs lighter... Their new performs are not light, there will not be a big difference.

They invest those pounds into sophisticated suspensions and luxury, it all costs.
 

ACEtheOG

Admirer
Founding Member
Messages
51
Reaction score
57
I doubt it will be 400lbs lighter... Their new performs are not light, there will not be a big difference.

They invest those pounds into sophisticated suspensions and luxury, it all costs.
You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.

If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.
 

ssun30

Expert
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
3,397
You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.

If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.
Look at how much aluminum and CFRP is used on the LC, yet it still managed to be 200 lbs overweight. That's Lexus for you, these engineers always use the extra weight budget on improving reliability and safety rather than saving them for a couple of tenths on tracks.
 

Faisal Sheikh

Follower
Messages
262
Reaction score
424
You're right, 400 lbs is wishful thinking for the current car. I was presenting a hypothetical.

2-400 lbs lighter should be a target for the next-gen car however.




If memory serves correct, the GT and GT3 cars shed about 800 and 1000 lbs respectively from the production RC-F. Luxury bits are heavy.
Yes. I can see your point. I agree in theory weight reduction can never be a bad thing, but some times it is there for a reason. The GT and GT3 are stripped out cars with no luxury, no rear seats, no safety equipment to meet crash testing. I stated a lot of that weight went into extra rigidity of the chassis with the IS-C middle section. If it were say, 200 lbs lighter (the weight of ISF), it would not quite possibly be as rigid and therefore would not have so much consistency through the turns. That weight into some good measure and Lexus went through a lot of pain to make sure the weight is near the center of the car. You feel in how stable the car is through rapid slaloms. Regarding understeer that the media beat to death, simple answer (according to my finding), the stock toe/camber alignment is too conservative (for safety and liability reasons) and the tires on RCF are not 'XL' (but, 'Y') version of the MPSS. The XL have extra stiff tire walls. I have learned it now so that the next set I get, will be the XL version of the MPSS or MPS4. I had to raise the tire pressure to 38 psi (37 psi front) on the rears to get the tires to show some serious roll resistance in slow turns (at high speed turns, the steering rack is so quick that the tire wall is barely used). My alignment has slight toe out (done by the previous owner) and it constantly wants to oversteer through hard turns (lots of fun). With the TVD in track mode, it wants to turn very quickly and hang the tail out easily with slight power-on cornering.

You can reduce the weight by putting a smaller, lighter turbo engine and gain all of that torque, but this engine is a pure masterpiece. Quite possibly one of the very best engine Toyota/Lexus ever produced. I would not have it any other way. It feels so special that I never even thought of an M4 (even though, I can buy a loaded M3/M4 for the same price).

Some pictures of my RCF (with slight toe-out alignment)







 
Last edited:

Ian Schmidt

Expert
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
3,030
True but the typical buyer will mostly only care about price and since the ES is slightly more roomy and just as comfy as the GS while being cheaper, thats what they end up going with.
I think it's krew that likes to use the phrase "doesn't scare Granny" about the ES. In that situation Granny was never buying a GS, because everyone in her sewing circle knows FWD is better in rain/snow. Similarly, someone who cares about RWD and performance will get a GS. And if that person cares about RWD but they "care only about price" they'll get an IS.

For those who don't care about that stuff either way, if they end up in the ES that's pure Darwinian selection. And Darwin would be really disappointed if people went around killing off successful, well-adapted species in order to favor the genetically less-successful. In less high-falutin' language, the solution to the "problem" that the ES is a pretty great car for the money is to make the GS a better car for the money.
 

spwolf

Expert
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
2,622
Look at how much aluminum and CFRP is used on the LC, yet it still managed to be 200 lbs overweight. That's Lexus for you, these engineers always use the extra weight budget on improving reliability and safety rather than saving them for a couple of tenths on tracks.
and more sophisticated suspensions as well... everything takes weight.

Also when it comes to turbos, we all know Lexus will never go with really all aluminium and light engine... they will reinforce it to last longer and lose 50lbs just there.
 

Gecko

Connoisseur
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
2,825
Reaction score
5,748
I don't think the ES steals GS sales. They're very, very different cars. The ES is very much a comfy-cruiser with some nice Lexus touches, while the GS is much more performance-oriented.
Many of you have heard me say it for years, but this unfortunately happens all the time. I have a friend who is car shopping right now, sent her into a dealer to look at a GS 350 and they told her she "didn't really need that" and the "GS is a man's car," so they set her up with an ES.

Needless to say, that didn't go over well.

In reality, the two cars are just too similarly sized and the ES costs less but has similar options. Your average consumer doesn't really care about FWD or RWD - they came for a "Lexus midsize sedan" and are delighted to find out you can get a nice ES for $8k less than a GS. Case closed.
 

Ian Schmidt

Expert
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
3,030
In reality, the two cars are just too similarly sized and the ES costs less but has similar options. Your average consumer doesn't really care about FWD or RWD - they came for a "Lexus midsize sedan" and are delighted to find out you can get a nice ES for $8k less than a GS. Case closed.
So what you're saying is there's no reason to have a GS in the first place and/or that it's a very niche car. Which we knew - BMW has essentially the same problem with the 5 Series.
 
Top