Cars.com Performance Challenge: M4 vs RC-F vs ATS-V

MavRick · 07-14-2015, 04:40 AM

Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Full review and writeup: https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...1420680695167/

Not sure I've seen an M4 with as fast of an ET in the quarter. Also...not sure I've seen an RC-F with a slower one. Hahahaha. I'm sure this is just the first of many that will pit these cars against each other...

Full review and writeup: https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...1420680695167/

Name: Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 9.31.28 AM.jpg
Views: 9547
Size: 114.3 KB

Name: Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 9.31.37 AM.jpg
Views: 9533
Size: 109.1 KB

Name: Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 9.31.46 AM.jpg
Views: 9563
Size: 102.6 KB

DocWeatherington · 07-14-2015, 05:21 AM

MavRick

Great Post...

/// M sa · 07-14-2015, 06:48 AM

The rcf numbers are equivalent to a 335.

CirrusSR22 · 07-14-2015, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocWeatherington

The performance times of the ATS-v are where they should be vs the Car and Driver comparison..

Car and Driver had the auto and this test was a manual. The auto is faster.

bimmerj · 07-14-2015, 07:28 AM

Serious. I got better time than the caddy in my W204 coupe, in 90 temp with shitty Conti tire and letting off at the end. I personally don't know how these people test. I think one run and call it a day.

auf Deutsch · 07-14-2015, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by /// M sa

The rcf numbers are equivalent to a 335.

Par for the course...

320i~is250
3/428i~is350/rc350
3/435i~rcf
M4~vacant model

bimmerj · 07-14-2015, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auf Deutsch

Par for the course...

320i~is250
3/428i~is350/rc350
3/435i~rcf
M4~vacant model

Did you drive the RCF? I did as well as the 435. The answer is: No they are not equal.

Powerslide · 07-14-2015, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocWeatherington

The performance times of the ATS-v are where they should be vs the Car and Driver comparison..

Car and Driver had the auto and this test was a manual. The auto is faster.

I expect further tests to show the ATS-V with auto for quarter mile to be within no more than .1-.2 ET and within no more than 1-2 mph Max vs. m3/m4 with DCT (the manual times for the caddy basically matched the M3/M4 with 6MT). Keep in mind the caddy manual (unlike the 6MT in the bimmer) does not require lifting off the throttle for shifts - which should in theory give it a slight advantage, all other factors being equal).

M4TW · 07-14-2015, 09:27 AM

Notable tidbits...

Quote:

We tried the M4's Launch Control to improve its times, but the race-start launch only resulted in violent wheel hop. The quickest acceleration came with all assists off, engine and transmission in Sport Plus settings, the suspension in the softest setting and a little overlap of the brake pedal and throttle to get the revs up before launching.

Quote:

The M4 was clearly equipped for track days with its huge carbon-ceramic brakes. The heat- and fade-resistant carbon-ceramics became superstars during the subjective road-course evaluations.

Robinson certainly felt the brakes lived up to their high-tech hype. The "brakes are worth every penny if you plan on doing track days regularly, even though it's quite a few pennies. It would take much more than we threw at it to get them to fade."

auf Deutsch · 07-14-2015, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bimmerj

Did you drive the RCF? I did as well as the 435. The answer is: No they are not equal.

I agree, not equal cars regarding chassis, NVH, handling, etc. I'm strictly referring to straight line speed here. A 109 trap is downright pathetic for a 70k performance coupe that supposedly competes with F8x/W205/ATS-V. So is an ET of over 13 sec.

bimmerj · 07-14-2015, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auf Deutsch

I agree, not equal cars regarding chassis, NVH, handling, etc. I'm strictly referring to straight line speed here. A 109 trap is downright pathetic for a 70k performance coupe that supposedly competes with F8x/W205/ATS-V. So is an ET of over 13 sec.

OK, makes more sense. Also, I am not sure what to think of these launches. As I mentioned I got better time with my W204 with pathetic tire (255). I guess it is what it is.

kdphan · 07-14-2015, 10:10 AM

wait til you hear what the guys over at clublexus are saying...

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-f...4-vs-rc-f.html

MavRick · 07-14-2015, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auf Deutsch

I agree, not equal cars regarding chassis, NVH, handling, etc. I'm strictly referring to straight line speed here. A 109 trap is downright pathetic for a 70k performance coupe that supposedly competes with F8x/W205/ATS-V. So is an ET of over 13 sec.

i think its pretty safe to say that those numbers are a bit of an outlier with respect to the RC-F. its a low 4 sec to 60 and mid to high 12 second car, nine times outta ten. physics being what they are, its just hard to overcome its heft.

i was actually more disappointed in the ATS-V's numbers. the purist in me hates it, but automatics are now faster accelerating than manuals.

nicknaz · 07-14-2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CirrusSR22

Car and Driver had the auto and this test was a manual. The auto is faster.

+7mph trap speed is huge for ATS-V just from going manual to auto

ixse · 07-14-2015, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavRick

i was actually more disappointed in the ATS-V's numbers. the purist in me hates it, but automatics are now faster accelerating than manuals.

No, the purist in you shouldnt give a dam about .2-.3 sec diff. Purist in you want engagement and connection more than 0-60 times

Vectors2final · 07-14-2015, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdphan

wait til you hear what the guys over at clublexus are saying...

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-f...4-vs-rc-f.html

Pretty quick to post that one video...

kdphan · 07-14-2015, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vectors2final

Pretty quick to post that one video...

some of them defend the RC-F to death

MavRick · 07-14-2015, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixse

No, the purist in you shouldnt give a dam about .2-.3 sec diff. Purist in you want engagement and connection more than 0-60 times

True, indeed. But I would love for that 'engagement' to show on a stopwatch, too!!! 😉

Put who am I kidding....last time I took my old MT 370Z to the dragstrip, I embarrassed myself and my family. Smh...

MavRick · 07-14-2015, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdphan

some of them defend the RC-F to death

It's only a couple. One, in particular. But good lord does he give that community a bad name. There's absolutely no reasoning with him.

kdphan · 07-14-2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavRick

It's only a couple. One, in particular. But good lord does he give that community a bad name. There's absolutely no reasoning with him.

i know who you're referring to.

Np2014 · 07-14-2015, 11:47 AM

Wow that RC-F put up horrible dog shit numbers as usual! The Lexus brand should be ashamed of themselves putting out a car for 70k plus that is a generation and then some behind its competitors. Anyone that chooses it over an M3/M4 or C63/C63S should be ashamed of themselves your doing a great injustice to your wallet.

kdphan · 07-14-2015, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Np2014

Wow that RC-F put up horrible dog shit numbers as usual! The Lexus brand should be ashamed of themselves putting out a car for 70k plus that is a generation and then some behind its competitors. Anyone that chooses it over an M3/M4 or C63/C63S should be ashamed of themselves your doing a great injustice to your wallet.

I almost did and then came to my senses

07-14-2015, 04:40 AM	#1
MavRick Captain 688 Rep 750 Posts Drives: My Wife's M Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: USA iTrader: (0)	Cars.com Performance Challenge: M4 vs RC-F vs ATS-V Featured on BIMMERPOST.com Full review and writeup: https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...1420680695167/ Not sure I've seen an M4 with as fast of an ET in the quarter. Also...not sure I've seen an RC-F with a slower one. Hahahaha. I'm sure this is just the first of many that will pit these cars against each other... Full review and writeup: https://www.cars.com/articles/which-...1420680695167/
	Appreciate 2 Tweet Quote

07-14-2015, 05:21 AM	#2
DocWeatherington Brigadier General 2951 Rep 4,094 Posts Drives: F90 CP Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: US iTrader: (0) Garage List 23 Bmw M3 [10.00]	MavRick Great Post... Last edited by DocWeatherington; 07-27-2015 at 02:58 AM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

07-14-2015, 06:48 AM	#3
/// M sa Major 242 Rep 1,418 Posts Drives: F80 MG Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Delmarva iTrader: (0)	The rcf numbers are equivalent to a 335.
	Appreciate 3 Quote

07-14-2015, 07:28 AM	#5
bimmerj Captain 146 Rep 795 Posts Drives: cars Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canada iTrader: (0)	Serious. I got better time than the caddy in my W204 coupe, in 90 temp with shitty Conti tire and letting off at the end. I personally don't know how these people test. I think one run and call it a day.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

07-14-2015, 10:10 AM	#12
kdphan Captain 338 Rep 774 Posts Drives: everything is gone! Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Emeryville, CA iTrader: (0)	wait til you hear what the guys over at clublexus are saying... http://www.clublexus.com/forums/rc-f...4-vs-rc-f.html
	Appreciate 0 Quote

07-14-2015, 11:47 AM	#21
Np2014 Second Lieutenant 137 Rep 238 Posts Drives: M4 Bsm/Sb Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Ohio iTrader: (0)	Wow that RC-F put up horrible dog shit numbers as usual! The Lexus brand should be ashamed of themselves putting out a car for 70k plus that is a generation and then some behind its competitors. Anyone that chooses it over an M3/M4 or C63/C63S should be ashamed of themselves your doing a great injustice to your wallet.
	Appreciate 0 Quote