For Lexus, the RC is a “radical coupe.”
Radical looking, certainly.
And it offers a V8.
Circa now, that’s pretty rad.
You may have noticed these are disappearing elsewhere. Including under the hoods of rival BMW coupes, which are four-and-six-cylinder-only now.
But then, conservatism rears its head.
No manual transmission – even with the RCās standard four cylinder engine.
Traction control that turns itself back on once you reach 30 MPH.
Then again, Lexus People are more conservative than BMW People and probably wonāt miss the first – or object to the second.
They will like the carās sharpie fighter-jet exterior and equally so interior; its ingot-solid feel and sharp-enough handling…
Even if the back seats are radically cramped.
WHAT IT IS
The RC – radical coupe – is a two-door/four-seater coupe based on the IS series compact luxury-sport sedan.
It is slightly larger on the outside than a BMW 4 coupe but not quite as roomy on the inside as the smaller overall BMW 2 coupe.
At least in terms of its back seats.
Like the BMWĀ 2 and 4 (and other possible cross-shops like the Cadillac ATS coupe and Mercedes C-Class coupe), the RC is rear-wheel-drive-based, with all-wheel-drive available.
Unusually – radically – it offers a V8 (in the RC F) as well as a turbocharged four (RC200t) and a mid-level V6 (255 hp) and a stronger V6 (306 hp).
Thatās four engine options – more than others in this class, which generally offer just two (or, just one, as in the case of the four-cylinder-only 2017 Audi A5, another possible cross-shop).
The RC does not, however, offer a manual transmission option with any of its four available engines.
The BMWs – 2 and 4 – do.
As do the Audi A5Ā (current model; a major redo is on deck for 2018) and Cadillac ATS coupes.
But then, none of them offer a V8.
The only other car in this class that still doesĀ is the AMG 63 version of the Benz C.
God knows how long either will last given the Green Jihad against bigs V8s (and internal combustion generally).
Carpe diem.
Base price for the turbo four-powered RC200t is $40,945. This version of the RC is rear-wheel-drive only.
All-wheel-drive (paired with a mid-level 3.5 liter V6) come standard in the RC300, which stickers for $43,560 to start.
The RC350 comes standard with a more powerful version of the 3.5 liter V6 and in either RWD ($42,780 ) or AWD ($45,015) configurations.
The V8-powered RC F is rear drive-only; it stickers for $63,755 (a relative bargain vs. the $67,000 to start C63 AMG).
It also makes its horsepower the old fashioned way – via displacement. The Benz V8 is much smaller (4 liters vs. 5.0 inĀ the Lexus) and relies on turbos (two of them) to make up the deficit.
WHATāS NEW
The turbo fourĀ (and rear-drive-only) RC200t and all-wheel-drive only RC300 are new additions to the RC lineup.
Both can be amped-up with F-Sport packages that include upgraded brakes, an adaptive suspension system, LFA Supercar-inspired gauge package, staggered-size 19-inch wheel/tire package, an exterior body kit with unique front and rear clips and trim upgrades inside.
WHATāS GOOD
Pick your engine.
Potentially burnout-friendly RWD layout.
Full-size car front seat legroom (45.4 inches; almost 5 inches more than BMW 2 Series; 3.2 inches more than inside BMW 4 Series).
Gulfstream IVĀ jet-looking cabin layout.
Ingot solid, LS quiet.
WHATāS NOT SO GOOD
No transmission option; regardless of engine, you get an automatic.
Not as quick as BMW 2 or 4 – even when equipped with its available 306 hpĀ V6.
Because it’s iIngot heavy: 500 lbs. more at the curb than the smallerĀ BMW 2 coupe; about 300 pounds heavier than a same-size BMW 4 coupe.
Cripplingly cramped back seat (27.3 inches of legroom and 34.8 inches of headroom; a BMW 2ās got 33 inches of backseat legroom and 36.5 inches of backseat headroom).
Touch-feedback mousepad controller looks slick but is better suited for stationary desktops than moving cars.
UNDER THE HOOD
Pretty much anything you want, engine-wise, is available.
The lineup starts with a (surprise!) turbo 2.0 liter four.
You may have noticed the seemingly odd (and all-of-a-sudden) commonality of this exact size (and type) of engine, across numerous brands.
BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Cadillac all put two-point-oh turbo fours in their RC-rival coupes (and other models, too).
If you’re wonderingĀ how come, here’s why:
That particular size – and layout – is becoming popular because 2.0 liters is exactly the displacement threshold after which – in Europe – a car company gets hit with additional taxes that end up being passed on to buyers; the turbo is a way to enhance the little engine’s power output to six-cylinderĀ levels without crestingĀ the displacement threshold and incurring the taxes.
It is Lexusā first turbo engine, too.
In the RC (and the IS sedan) it makes 241 hp and 258 ft.-lbs. of torque, coming online at 1,650 RPM and holding through 4,400 RPM. An eight-speed automatic is paired up with this engine and together they get the RC to 60 in 7.3 seconds and deliver an EPA-rated 22 MPG in city driving and 32 on the highway.
During a weeklong test drive, I averaged 26.5 MPG.
This is good (0-60 and mileage) but not outstanding.
The BMW 2 Series also comes standard with a 2.0 liter turbo four – and it makes almost the exactly the same power (248 hp) but itās much quicker: 0-60 in just over 5 seconds flat.
AndĀ it gets better gas mileage, too: 23 city, 35 highway.
The same engine in the slightly larger 4 coupe delivers numbers almost as good: Zero to 60 in 5.4 seconds and the same 23 city, 35 highway.
The reason for the two second gap (despite a very slightĀ horsepower gap) is because of the 500 pounds of additional steel/glass and whatever else the RC is carting around vs. the BMW 230i.
The hefty Lexus weighs 3,737 lbs. vs. 3,260 lbs. for the BMW.
The 4 coupe (3,450 lbs.) is also much lighter than the RC,Ā by some 300 pounds.
Lexus installed extra bracing (and structural adhesive) to make the RC feel solid – and it does. But itās also heavier than other cars in this class as a result – and so, not as quick and thirstier.
Next up is the mid-range RC300.
It has a much larger 3.5 liter V6, but this engineĀ barely makes more horsepower than the turbo four (255 vs. 241) and less torque (236 ft.-lbs.) and that not until the engine spins to 2,000 RPM.
No surprise, itās hardly quicker than the RC200t – and not a little bit thirstier: 19 city, 26 highway.
But it does come standard with all-wheel-drive, which is a mitigating factor.
Third up,Ā there’s the Ā RC350Ā – which gets a pumped-up version of the 3.5 liter V6 (306 hp) and so equipped, itās almost as quick as the base-engined BMW 2 and 4: Zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds with rear-drive and six flat with the optionally available all-wheel-drive system.
Both the RC300 and trhe RC350 come with six-speed automatics, incidentally.
The maximum effort RC is the RC F, which is powered by a big (5 liter) V8. It makes 467 hp and 389 ft.-lbs. of torqueĀ without resorting to turbos (as in the Benz C63) which is gumption enough to drop the zero to 60 time to 4.8 seconds.
That’s quick, but note that it’s not much down from the number posted by the base-engined BMW 2.
And the M2’s numbers (zero to 60 in four seconds flat … for $52,695)Ā makes it a Mike Tyson (in his prime) vs. Steven Hawking (today) kind of deal.
The RC Fās sticker price ($63,755) is also about $20k higher than the sticker price of a 430i (and nearly twice the price of a 230i).
On the other hand, it’s also $3,245 less than the MSRP of the twin-turbo’d Benz C63 AMG.
ON THE ROAD
The turbo 2.0 engine is not (like the BMW 2.0 liter engine) a high RPM engine. It is a low and mid-range engine. Redline is about 5,800 RPM (the BMW four spins to 7,000-plus).
It seems happiest from about 2,000 RPM to 4,000 or so, which just happens to coincide with the torque peak.
This makes it an easygoingĀ “everyday driver” engine.
This is equally true for the BMW 2.0, though – which in addition to having ample low and mid-range torque (peaking lower, at 1,450 RPM vs. 1,650 for the RC) also has the upper range lungs the Lexus lacks.
There is sometimes a moment’s turbo lag if you demand right now/pedal to the metal acceleration from a dead stop.
In the BMW with the manual transmission, this is never an issue because the engine spins up faster, allowing the turbo to spool up sooner.
The best way to avoid the momentary flat spot is to not drop the pedal to the metal from a dead stop. Give it about half pedal instead. For just a second or two. Then put the pedal to the metal. What this does is give the little four a chance to gather its breath – without the initial breathlessness.
Or, feed it a little gas before you let off the brake. This will build boost, which will give you the launch you want.
Certain engines (small turbocharged ones) paired with certain transmissions (automatics) require technique to get the most out of them – and this is one of those.
Same, incidentally, goes for the automatic-equipped version of the BMW 2 (and 4) equipped with the turbo 2.0 engine. It’s is almost impossible to entirely eliminate “from a standing start” lag from the drivetrain when that drivetrain is small-engined/turbocharged… and automatic transmissioned.
But especially so when the car itself is also heavy.
Getting close to two tons moving from rest instantaneously without the leverage advantage of a big engine the hood is kind of like expecting to find perky breasts under the T-shirt of a 50-year-old.
It is what it is.
The V6 RC300Ā isn’t hugely more powerful than the turbo four, however – just 255 hp Ā – nor does it offer a huge accelerationĀ advantage (zero to 60 takes about 6.3 seconds)
But it is the only way (other than the next-up-after-that V6) to get AWD.
Which makes it winter viable – something neither the rear-drive-only RC 200t or the RC F can claim.
But, how come?
BMW (and Mercedes) both offer AWD with their 2.0 engines. Audi, too.
Why not Lexus?
See that stuff above about the RC’s curb weight.
The AWD-equipped BMWs weigh less than the RWD RC200t. Adding AWD to the mix would add more weight, probably pushing things to almost 4,000 pounds before the driver even opened the door.
Add a 200 pound driver and a hypothetical AWD-equipped RC200t would be in the neighborhood of 4,200 lbs. Which would probably result in a 0-60 time in the neighborhood of 8 seconds.
Which explains why AWD isn’t available in the RC200t.
The RC300’s version of the 3.5 liter V6 may not make huge power, but it does make more horsepower than the four and that’s why it (and not the four) is teamed with AWD.
It’s no threat to the BMW 2 or 4 as a straight-line rival, but if it snows you stand a much better chance of making it up the driveway (and to work and back).
It also hasn’t got a turbo. Or an intercooler.
Which may be a plus.
No offense to Lexus or anyone else offering these turbo two-point-oh engines. But they’ve got more parts, which at minimum means more things that could potentially break, post-warranty. And turbo’d engines are pressurized engines. More stress on the internals. Which may not last as long as a result.
As for the RC F – vs. the Benz C63: The Lexus is notĀ in the same league, acceleration-wise, but it’s the more pleasant everyday ride. This is true across the RC lineup. The “radical” coupe looks aside, the RC is Camry-like in its demeanor.
This is not an insult.
The Camry is the best-selling car in the United States, in part because it is such an exceptionally pleasant car to drive – whether to the office and back or across the country. But the Camry is about as sexy as Hillary Clinton’s pants suits.
The RC, on the other hand, is sexy to look at – and not a demanding car or a compromised car …
Well, except for the back seats.
AT THE CURB
Though they’re related, the RC is not an IS with two fewer doors. In fact – despite being a two-door – it is slightly longer overall than the four-door IS (184.8 inches vs. 183.7) and the two cars have different wheelbases (107.5 inches for the RC; 110.2 for the IS) and the RC is slightly wider (72.4 inches) than the IS (71.3 inches). It also sits noticeably lower; the RC’s roof is 54.9 inches off the pavement while the IS stands 56.3 inches highĀ (a difference of 1.4 inches, if you’re counting).
All the above gives the RC a suitably (for a radical coupe) sexy profile. But it also takes away from the car’s four-seater viability.
The backseats are pretty bunched up: 27.3 inches of legroom and 34.8 inches of headroom.
That is not a lot – of either.
And much less than in the IS sedan, which has a more reasonable 32.2 inches of second row legroom and 36.9 inches of headroom.
The RC’s backseats are a squeeze even compared with what’s available in the much smaller outside BMW 2 coupe, which is 174.7 inches long overall (10.1 inches shorter, bumper-to-bumper, than the RC) but nonetheless has 33 inches of backseat legroom and 36.5 inches of headroom back there, too.
The same-size (outside) Benz C coupe (184.5 inches long) has 35.2 inches of reaseat legroom and 37.1 inches of headroom, 2.3 inches more than the RC.
That isĀ the difference between usable backseats and seats for groceries.
But, there’s no denying the car looks great. It may not actually be quicker than a 2 Series or a Benz C. But if you didn’t know that, which would you put your money on?
The inside is a treat, too.
It’s something I’ve seen before, kinda sorta.
Back in 1982, when GM unveiled the then-new third generation Camaros, a centerpiece of the design was an aircraft-inspired cockpit. Angular and serious, instruments, switches and controls mounted on rectangular panels that made one think of flight decks and afterburners lit.
Similar here – but executed with much nicer materials and offset by real wood inserts and chrome/brushed metal trim plates
.
The F Sport package (available with the 200t, the 300 and the 350) adds ultra-plush perforated leather and (AWD models) a heated steering wheel.
Available, too, is a cold weather package that includes a supplementary electric cabin heater, so you don’t have to wait for the engine to warm up before you get warmed up. The package also comes with windshield wiper de-icers and headlight washers.
THE REST
Toyota is conservative – and so, not surprisingly, is Lexus.
It’s why the RC is a car of contrasts.
It’s a radical-looking car, no question. But the mechanicals are fairly conservative and the car itself is an easygoing fella, notwithstanding the snorty looks (and some snortyĀ available equipment, most notably the staggered-size 19-inch “summer” wheel/tire package, powder-coated high-performance brake calipers and (RC F) carbon fiber roof panel.
The steering is very light; the ride most unexpectedly niceĀ given the looks.
As in LS sedan nice.
Forget the two doors and useless back seats. Up front, it’s a suite – notwithstanding the fighter-jet visuals.
Lexus knows its demographic.
Now, the car has all kinds of potential. Tuners could no doubt get the four to run as hard as the BMW’s four. And the RC F’s V8 makes as much power without turbos as the AMG C63’s V8 makes with two of them. Imagine what a turbo could do for the RC F’s 5 liter V8.
Let alone two.
The handling could be sharpened up, the ride made more radical. But then it wouldn’t be a Lexus, would it?
It’s up for grabs whether the RC’s haptic feedback trackpad controller or BMW’s iDrive mouse (or the similar systems you’ll find in cars like the Benz C and Cadillac ATS) is functionally better – or worse. They are all wowsa when you first encounter them sitting in the car in the dealer’s showroom. None are easier to use than less wowsa knobs and buttons.
So, why?
Cars like these (and new cars generally) come with so many features and functions that there’s no room for all the buttons and knobs that would be necessary to operate them. Hence the menus – and the mice. And trackpads.
The government clucks endlessly about “distracted” driving and crucifies people for using their devices while driving.
But devices built into cars… hey, that’s ok.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Don’t let its radical looks deceive you.
This is a radically nice car.
EPautos.comĀ depends on you to keep the wheels turning! CloversĀ hate us!
Goo-guhl blackballed us!
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
Ā If you prefer not to useĀ PayPal, our mailingĀ address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
I think the problem with the RC is that people are expecting it to be a much-cheaper LFA. And it’s not – it’s really a coupe-styled IS (tight rear seats and all).
It is a good-looking car though. The corporate spindle-grille (which is wildly out of place on their SUVs) looks good-enough on it.
Hi Chip,
I think they’ll sell well. Tight back seat notwithstanding!
Lexus, after all, isn’t Porsche or even BMW. Their demographic is different. I don’t think they are particularly interested in conquests. I think they are interested in giving their customer the option to buy something sleek and sexy that is still a Lexus.
Gnomesayin’?
Eric,
Did you take that pic at the top?
Because that thing looks like it is airworthy. The little yellow chocks by the nosewheel wouldn’t be necessary if it was a museum piece.
Rumor was you could get one for the cost of a new caddy after the Berlin Wall came down.
Only one I’ve seen in the air is Red Bull’s.
The F 86 was pretty cheap at one time too. I recall the guy who played Warf on Star Trek had one he flew often.
A.Yeti,
You might want to start with “Puedo comer su panocha?”.
Well maybe not to start the conversation, but as soon as possible after dispensing with the formalities of “Hola senorita.”
Sorry, T, I missed your response. I think if I get that date with Salma I’ll go with something like “Lo siento, mi amigo Tuanorea ha perdido la cabeza. ĀæQuieres salir de aquĆ e ir a dar un paseo?” š
A.Yeti,
I’d guess all a guy like you has to do is take her for a stroll.
Once she takes a look at the size of your feet, she’s bound throw herself at you.
Sadly my friend, many of us cannot fill your shoes.
“The V8-powered RC F is rear drive-only; it stickers for $63,755 (a relative bargain vs. the $67,000 to start C63 AMG).”
This afternoon’s bike ride route went past the Ford dealer. He had a row of pickups out by the road, with price stickers on the windshield. One of them was $78,000! Who’da thought a luxury-sports car would be cheaper than a pickup?
I really like the new look of Lexus’ interiors, but I can’t say they look luxurious. Their new exterior styling just isn’t beautiful. I still don’t consider Lexus to be a true luxury brand.
Hi Handler,
They look better in person.
I’ve been less-than-impressed with several recent BMWs I’ve driven in this respect. Especially given what they’re asking for them!
I don’t read many of your reviews as I’m not a new car type of person. But you got me with the Russian Fighter.
Overall, very informative. I really like how you broke down the differences in the model numbers. Now I can grok the difference in otherwise identical vehicles.
The most popular car in my friends shop is the RX350. Occasionally he will get in a RX300 or RX400 and I would ask the owner what the difference was. Of course the only answer given was price.
At least I can still tell the difference between a Nova, Omega, Ventura, and Apollo.
While I miss going to Cobo for the auto show, I’m pretty sure we only went to get away from our old ladies and to check out the babes on the hood. The concept cars were cool, but they never came to fruition.
Thanks, amigo!
I try to make it an interesting read, even if you’re not particularly interested in the car!
T, I run 6-700 miles per day. I see every new car there is for the most part. I can’t tell one from the other. We have catfish front end this and cat fish front end that…..happy catfish, sad catfish, mad catfish and big ol asses like I avoided like the plague when it was women though I’ve lowered my standards on women and think a lot about tying them to the back of the pickup and running them every day to get that big ass and fat rolls off like we do with horses.
I may be thinking of something else now, but I could almost swear cars had enough difference you could see it from any angle and know what brand it was. I recall when “Body by Fisher” was the best you could get. I recall the first Porsche 911 that was $3000 back when half that much would get a nice looking, good running American car but the Porsche was a dream machine. Now we have cars that are twice the price and not nearly twice the performance or looks.
Just about the only car I can identify from a good distance is a Mercedes and recall the days when most Mercedes were full of bullet holes and people avoided them because of their home country. Now, nearly everything we can buy is built in China or Singapore or weird Eastern Bloc countries.
A big Merc, a Peterbilt Classic…..and that’s fairly the only vehicles I can identify from distance. It depresses me. Now all pickups look like they want to be the most macho looking thing on the road, looks be damned. I still say the 90’s GM pickups are still the cleanest, nicest looking pickups ever made with maybe the exception of late 40’s Fords which are totally different and of a totally different era.
I saw a big 5th wheel travel trailer being pulled by an old Classic 359 Peterbilt tractor the other day. Think about that and what the ancient Peterbilt is worth and what it costs compared to a new pickup and these people are tens of thousands of dollars ahead. When you find the right insurance for the Pete, it beats pickups hands down and there are no computers involved. Old school me.
You know that ‘van down by the river’ Eric keeps talking about? Check this out.
https://www.lazydays.com/rvs/tampa-fl/class-c/peterbilt-379-u139560
PhiliptheBruce,
And 8 grand less than the Ford pickup.
Hi Phillip,.
Is this one of those “just because it’s possible” experiments? Or is there any good reason to build an RV around a Peterbuilt? I mean, that thing must be even more of a beast to drive/deal with than a Winnebago and the fuel/maintenance bills… holy mackerel!
3rd time’s charm, maybe this will post. eric, I see rigs like this occasionally. Mostly they’re owned by truckers, current and ex. People make them. This one was probably a fifth wheel trailer grafted onto the big truck. There are clubs of these. Sites on the web show a lot of people and their stories of how they made them. I’ve seen some that have about a 30′ trailer behind. The trailer may be more living area or toy haulers. I saw one with a 20′ slide/ramp a fishing boat sat on and the slide would extend into the water and a car in front could be backed down.
OTR big rigs often have their own a/c system powered by a tiny diesel engine. These things are great since they rarely need to have a hook-up since they’ll likely have their own generator and large fresh water and grey and black water tanks. I’d love to have one.
The one shown most likely has a C 12 Cat. The only problem I have with this one is it’s too new, computerized engine. Of course it’s not easy to have cruise on one without the computerized engine/throttle. It might be an automatic, fine for light duty. More OTR trucks have automatics that are great for running on the highway, not meant for construction trucks.
It’s neat to read the articles people have posted about what they used to do (trucking)and what they made the rig with.
They often have a pictorial history of the build. I’d imagine this rig gets better mileage than one of the Winnie’s and is probably much more reliable. A Peterbilt Classic is the ideal start since they’re easy to work on. You have over a foot of clearance between the engine and firewall and can reach the top of the transmission from under hood. This rig probably has a leaf/air suspension and full airbag suspension of the cab.
“This is a radically nice car.”
Yes but…….
If the Supra is ever re-introduced, I sure hope it comes back as a Toyota.
Because these Lexus guys would screw it up for sure!
Mike,
“If the Supra is ever re-introduced, I sure hope it comes back as a Toyota.
Because these Lexus guys would screw it up for sure!”
I was given (and I restored) a 93 Celica. It broke my cherry as far as rice burners go. I was going to scrap it out until I took off the valve cover and saw how clean it was inside. 300k miles, and when I went to the dealer to replace stuff, he wouldn’t sell me some parts. He said I wouldn’t need them until 500k or more.
Are the old Supras that much bigger? How did they do on mileage. I could cruise I75 from Detroit to the Mackinac bridge doing 125mph and still get 39.5mpg. The same trip at 55mph got me 27mpg.
I loved that thing. Only had two problems with it. It was a little tight getting in and out, and the little rods for the retracting headlights would always break in the winter.
T,
The First Gen Supra was literally a Celica with nicer interior, and that sweet, straight six engine. So, same size.
The second Gen Supra, with the angular styling was, I think, still built on a Celica Chassis.
The third Gen, which I had, was on a completely different body and frame. It was probably bigger in every dimension but height. My Turbo model had a big, functional factory wing, for downforce, which produced some serious drag as speeds increased.
It probably got around 14mpg at 120mph. Over 130mph, you could practically see the gas needle drop. (I speak figuratively, because at that speed, I didn’t take my eyes of the road.) That car was pretty stable up to 140, at which point, it quickly became scary.
This turbo Supra only had one problem, but it was a big one. That sweet six cylinder mill couldn’t stand up to the pressure of turbocharging. I blew the head gasket at about 35,000 miles. Thought it might be a result of the way I drive. But a couple of friends liked my Turbo Supra so well that they bought them too. One was an “average” driver. The other was a slow, gentle driver. They both got blown head gaskets too.
The fourth Gen Supra was for it’s gorgeous, and seriously fast. Don’t know if they fixed the head gasket issue , or not.
I’m confused, I’ve both seen this car in person (white RC F sport), and managed to read your entire review without making my mind up on whether I like it or not…? š
Like the look from the posterior, but not the front…(too “squish faced”)
Like the interior in general (love that clock), but not that odd off set tachometer…or the track pad
Like the idea of Toyota mechanicals for reliability, but not the performance…
Like the fuel economy (26 is more than I get from a 1.6 BMW), but not the idea of a turbo 4 luxury coupe, or the 5800 rpm redline…
Like that it’s available in AWD, but not in top OR bottom trim…
Like that it’s “radical” for a Lexus, but not that it’s not radical enough…needs more lasers and rocket launchers. No I’m being facetious of course, but it looks “too Toyota” still. Needs more LFA retardary like a triple tail pipe exhaust, carbon fiber pillars, or a tri-turbo straight six that spins to 9k or something of the sort.
I don’t know, I’ve never managed not to make up my mind after reading a review on something I’ve both seen in person and read about. Help?
Hi AJ,
I sweated over this one for three days. It was one of the hardest reviews I’ve had to write. Just like you, I’m not sure whether I like it or not!
Thank god it’s not just me then! As I kept waiting for the deal breaker/maker while I continued reading, it never came and I was left permanently on the fence.
I’ve been trying to equate a politician to this scenario, but haven’t come up with one yet as I either seem to love or hate everyone I have to vote for. Mostly hate.
A.J.,
Honestly, do you like ANY of the cars since they have become politically correct? And by that I mean since the days of the ashtrays?
Eric once wrote about a sci-fi story where the big ugly cars would come out and terrorize the pretty pastel cars. (Hint Eric, please give us the name of that story again.)
The front end of this thing is just atrocious. It is so ugly that I’d say it isn’t even worth the sales tax, let alone the sticker price.
“Iāve been trying to equate a politician to this scenario, but havenāt come up with one yet as I either seem to love or hate everyone I have to vote for. Mostly hate.”
The reason you’re having a problem with that is because ugly people don’t get elected. If the ass end of that car looked as bad a Hitlerly’s, you’d have no problem.
It’s what I’ve said for years and years. It’s refreshing to watch a movie made in Europe with really neat looking cars. Hey, I remember those. Alfa’s still look like Alfa’s and so on.
Last week a Mustang near pulled out in front of me but stopped a bit in my lane. I knew I was gonna miss the headlights but that other two feet of front end past them was another thing altogether. No optical illusion with the Camaro though, it could be a pickup with no trunk lid…..what a monster. You see pics of these cars and think “Well, they stuck to the old format pretty well” and then you see one at the pumps and notice it’s about the size of your old 3/4 T pickup….only larger wheels and tires.
Something about the Camaro seems to piss off the DPS. I rarely see a Mustang stopped but see Camaro’s getting jacked up all the time. I think they stop them to see if there’s anybody behind the wheel since you can’t see them.
The front end of this thing is just atrocious. It is so ugly that Iād say it isnāt even worth the sales tax, let alone the sticker price.
I gotta second this. I’ve never been a Lexus fan, so no deal breaker there.
Honestly, do you like ANY of the cars since they have become politically correct?
Depends on what you mean ‘like’. Out of the last bunch of reviews, I really liked the M2 and the C300 and could happily drive either one. Each of them still maintain a little ‘fuck you’ to the greenies (not like a Hellcat, of course, but…)
I’d like them a hell of a lot more without all the garbage, though!
Oh, and the sub-$4K difference in the Lexus and the C63? That’s like saying I can go out with Salma Hayek, but I’ll have to learn a little Spanish. Pretty easy call, there.
“Honestly, do you like ANY of the cars since they have become politically correct?”
Yes, I like several (listed below). I’m not sure which era the PC era is, but cars after 2000 are what I’ve listed.
#1 R50 MINI (my daily “new” car). Sure it’s a pig on fuel (22 mpg on a 1.6), and eats thermostats every 2 years, and has gone through 4 transmissions (auto), and that I’ve had to disconnect the DRLs, auto door lock, outdoor temp sensor, shift lock and all the BMW electronic retardery, etc…but it’s so much fun to drive.
#2 Huge fan of the 2-series BMWs in general, especially the M235 (not familiar with the M2) for the same reason as the MINI. Small car, semi practical, lots of fun, higher end build quality. Big plus, MASSIVE power for it’s size.
#3 I also like the new Mitsubishi Mirage because I feel it’s the best “true commuter”. No nonsense mechanicals, rock bottom base price, unoffensive looks (unlike the Kia Soul or Scion Xb).
#4 VW Golf TDI, on practicality and economy alone. RIP VW, may the US government be avenged on your behalf.
#5 2003-2009 Toyota 4 Runner V8. Perfect “mid-size” SUV on a “true” truck frame fitted with more engine than you need.
#6 Chevy Volt. Politics and government aside, it’s the concept that counts. I used to live in West L.A., and know how nice EVs/hybrids are for city commuting. Plus, I think it’s a million times better than the Telsa Musk mega battery garbage people are touting now.
#7 L494 Range Rover Sport. Why? Because 550 horsepower V8, and good looks, that’s why.
#8 ND Miata, still holding true (as much as possible) to it’s roadster/fun roots. Still also makes a kick-ass track day car.
#9 Ford Transit. Practical van meant for a person who actually uses vans, not soccer moms.
and I’ll stop at #10, the Suzuki Kizashi. It’s really hard to describe unless you’ve driven one. It’s like the perfect mix of usability, fun and economy at the same time, all in an unassuming but eye pleasing package, inside and out.
That being said though, I greatly dislike 9 out of 10 cars on the road these days.
Hi AJ,
I like several of the cars on your list as well, especially the Transit Connect, VW Golf TDI and the Mirage.
The Volt is the only (kinda sorta) electric car I’ve praised, for all the reasons you’ve listed. However, GM is selling each one at a huge loss; if it were priced to reflect what it actually costs to make plus a reasonable profit margin, it would so expensive as to render its good points moot (economically speaking, at least).