[KennyFSU]

Carfax offered me $28k so I took it and ran (paid $26k 3 years ago).

Test drove this RC F and fell in love, it has the Performance Pkg so full carbon fiber roof and wing (rises at 50 mph too). Loaded with features that the F22 didn't have.

5.0 V8, 8-sp auto, RWD, torque vectoring diff, 19x9/19x10 wheels, 6 pot Brembos, and that's about it.

[thecooltype]

Nice upgrade in terms of power. I was never a fan on Lexus interior.... did you see 28k as the value of your car elsewhere? I am wondering if carfax found the car for someone that was willing to pay like 30k or your car appreciated instead of depreciated

[wtwo3]

Congrats. Love that NA 5L V8. I've driven the RC-F a few times and it's fun.

[KennyFSU]

Originally Posted by thecooltype

Nice upgrade in terms of power. I was never a fan on Lexus interior.... did you see 28k as the value of your car elsewhere? I am wondering if carfax found the car for someone that was willing to pay like 30k or your car appreciated instead of depreciated

The F22 was slightly quicker from a dig (xdrive helps) but the F pulls much harder up top.

Carmax had the highest offer out of Carvana, KBB, and the dealer.

[5.M0NSTER]

Nice upgrade. No replacement for a NA V8. Well done sir.

[dangerus_car]

Originally Posted by KennyFSU

Carfax offered me $28k so I took it and ran (paid $26k 3 years ago).

Test drove this RC F and fell in love, it has the Performance Pkg so full carbon fiber roof and wing (rises at 50 mph too). Loaded with features that the F22 didn't have.

5.0 V8, 8-sp auto, RWD, torque vectoring diff, 19x9/19x10 wheels, 6 pot Brembos, and that's about it.

congrats on the Lexus, but basically you don't earn any profit since you are putting back that money into a car you bought now at an overpriced market

but again, congrats

[SteveinArizona]

Congrats. A much nicer car.

[maxdriver]

Originally Posted by crislee

congrats on the Lexus, but basically you don't earn any profit since you are putting back that money into a car you bought now at an overpriced market

but again, congrats

Yeah it's all relative for sure.

[cfm56d7b]

Very nice car. Enjoy V8 enabled power delivery!

[stein_325i]

Congrats, the 5.0L in that car is a joy to rev out.

[KennyFSU]

Thanks all. So far the MPGs have been the same (was getting 20 combined after stg 1 93).

Not bad for a 467 hp V8 thanks to the Atkinson/Otto cycle.

[Burrcold]

Awesome, congrats!

[Humdizzle]

really wish this engine was in the f80

[BMWCCA1]

Was your previous BMW also an automatic?

[chassis]

Nice looking Lexus. Was it an even trade or did you put cash into the deal?

[Germanauto]

Interesting. Congrats.

[KennyFSU]

Originally Posted by BMWCCA1

Was your previous BMW also an automatic?

Yeah I used to be a hardcore manual guy until I drove the ZF lol. Plus, I have a daily 40-mile commute in traffic so was getting real tired of rowing gears.

Originally Posted by chassis

Nice looking Lexus. Was it an even trade or did you put cash into the deal?

I actually ended up selling the F22 through Carmax and using the equity for down payment.

Thanks guys, loving the car so far and surprisingly the MPG has been identical.
The F22 had better low end torque (boost and awd) but the F has gobs of top end power.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by KennyFSU

Thanks guys, loving the car so far and surprisingly the MPG has been identical.

This is the funny part.

People assume that bigger engine = worse fuel economy.

In reality, it comes down to driving style. Under heavy load, bigger naturally aspirated motors actually have the same or BETTER fuel economy than smaller, turbocharged motors.

So why are smaller turbocharged motors rated higher on EPA fuel economy numbers? Because those numbers assume everyone drives like a grandma. Yes, if you drive like a grandma, then smaller turbocharged motors will have better fuel economy numbers than a large V8. But you don't buy a sports coupe to drive like a grandma.

Manufacturers are well aware that their high powered sporty coupes/sedans will be typically driven in a spirited manner. But because of blanket government policies, they're incentivized to hit a target fuel economy figure. In the case of the EPA, out of the series of tests they conduct, the most aggressive test assumes a 0-60mph time equivalent of 7 seconds. Now with cars in this class easy in the 3-4 second mark, 0-60 in 7 isn't exactly "spirited".

[BMWCCA1]

EPA test is the same for every vehicle. For an auto trans they put it in D and run the cycle which is generally at an average speed of around 56-mph for the highway figure. It is for comparison purposes, nothing more. Don't know if it's still the case but, in the past, once the figures are calculated there is a 15% reduction in calculated versus what's on the sticker to compensate for manufacturers cheating on their calculations.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by BMWCCA1

EPA test is the same for every vehicle. For an auto trans they put it in D and run the cycle which is generally at an average speed of around 56-mph for the highway figure. It is for comparison purposes, nothing more. Don't know if it's still the case but, in the past, once the figures are calculated there is a 15% reduction in calculated versus what's on the sticker to compensate for manufacturers cheating on their calculations.

What they should do is create different sets of tests for different classes of vehicle. Performance cars should get more aggressive tests, which would show that the smaller turbocharged motors do not in fact have better fuel economy when driven the way a performance car will typically be driven.

Of course there's no real incentive for the EPA to do this. Plus they'd argue you shouldn't be driving so aggressively anyway.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

car is a boat, but an amazing GT

[///MPhatic]

Fantastic car IMO, well done.