B1RMA

Would the price differ from what the main dealer would charge? plus if there was an issue the dealer fitted stuff would at least be covered.

Actually they don't, Shell V Power fuels comes from a separate refinery. This is a contentious issue where there are as many pro as against. Ultimately it's your money and you're at liberty to spend it how you wish

I've used V-Power for a very long time, mainly due to owning several Japanese imports it was called Optimax in those days. My Pajero Evolution had convulsions on anything else and my RX7 was mapped using it too so I religiously stuck to buying it, plus of course petrol was quite a bit cheaper in 2007. I did get a shock at my local Shell station where I worked out it was 12p a litre dearer than standard. I've read several articles (some were shamed as being funded by Shell) but I'm convinced the cleaning agents in the petrol/diesel are worth the extra. I have noticed my main works van which I put 3 tanks of supermarket then one tank of V-Power diesel does do a bit better on fuel with V-Power diesel and I believe it to be accurate. Plus I hope it does its job at cleaning the old girl. I noticed in Sainsbury the other day that they sell a premium petrol at a much lower price than V-Power, got me thinking that I may start to do one tank of that and one of V-Power but my memory seems to be going these days so I'll probably just stick to Shell.

That's a good plan.

I have a few friends with Aston Martins (one is for sale at Lexus Hedge End) and I have tried two so far when I'm in the market for my annual change of car. Every time I have chosen something else in the price range because in my opinion they all fall well short of expectations. The last one I tried a drop dead gorgeous pair metallic green soft top V8 S I drove back after 15 minutes because the paddle shift system was truly dreadful. I'm perhaps more Brooke Bond than James Bond I guess, but the running costs if serviced properly will make a grown man cry. I thought my V12 twin turbo AMG was expensive but I can't imagine what the V12 Aston Martin would be. It sounds like from your location the powers to be don't like cars in any form and you will without doubt get screwed by whatever hue of Government runs the Authority. Much better out here in the sticks where V8's can at least clear the cobwebs. I'm very impressed with the servicing costs of my V8 Lexus and consider the extended warranty costs considering it's a proper manufacturers warranty as cheap as chips. In time I think V8's and V12's will only be in very expensive exotica way beyond sensible money.

Looks like supercharging is the only way for more power then. I have sent an enquiry to the USA based owners on Facebook who supercharge their cars more than us in the UK if there have been any issues with the TVD on a supercharged car. The answer was a comprehensive no so that's a bonus.

I'm guessing those parts will be expensive, and I can't think of anyone daft or rich enough to buy a set of Carbon Ceramics but I guess some of the other bits might appeal. From the released spec the only thing that got my attention were the specially developed Michelin PS4S tyres so when it comes to replacement time they may be worth looking into. Plus the older cars develop more BHP so I'm guessing an ECU swop wouldn't do anything to help either.

But it still looks a bit too high and needs lowering at least 25mm more if practical. So hopefully the tyres will be available to all.

Here's my old RX7 one of the best track day cars I've owned, 400BHP and turbine smooth. Engine re-builds were a given part of ownership but by God when it was running well it flew. Nearly bought an NSX but bought a V8 Esprit instead (bad move)

Well I'm waiting for someone like Chris Harris to test the car on track before saying anything. Lexus will have had to have done something really clever or even used black magic to get it to perform like or even better than its rivals from BMW and AMG. There are obviously potential customers out there who want a track focused car at the cost of a bit of comfort and good luck to them. Unless this car does better than its competitors I can't see who would buy one as the other two are a proven formula. From my point of view I have long held the belief that there are road cars and there are track cars. Road cars can do long journeys in comfort and are also fun along A roads when the rare opportunity arrises. Track cars have stiff suspension, sticky tyres etc etc. If I were wanting to do both and liked the RCF and was seriously considering one I am of the opinion that for the price of this car new you could buy a secondhand RCF and with the change buy a bloody good track day car. My logic is that when I first started doing track days at the dawn of time I came off on many occasions, now if you have a £20-30K track day car okay you live with it. Do it in a £70K+ car you're likely to break down and cry.

Back in the day they were so nice, speaking as someone who had one of the very first MR2's to hit the UK I always liked the Celica and Supra of that era. I think the new car is more Celica than Supra given the dimensions.

That's it in a nutshell, very well paid. I watched one of his video's once and found his whole persona so irritating I couldn't help but want to punch his lights out for some reason which is most out of character for me. Still plenty of people click on his stuff so every click helps. Back to the important issue the car, I'm guessing you can up the power dead easy which is what I'm sure a lot of people will do. Shame there is no manual on offer though on this model.

I can't say i noticed the heating up factor much on mine, but early Carbon Ceramics did squeal a lot. As for Aston Martin well they had big issues with disc balance too requiring the wheels to be balanced on the car, this required an old fashioned machine to do the job. The reason I know this is my late V8 Esprit had an unusual stud arrangement which meant I had to seek out a specialist near Silverstone to balance the wheels on the car. When I arrived he had a number of Aston Martins parked up awaiting wheel balancing because of the disc imbalance. I know I have been banging on about BHP per tonne but it is a factor in car performance as well as gearing and unsprung mass so maybe the track edition has a few tricks up it's sleeve but i doubt it's anything revolutionary. Lets wait and see what the first tests of the car are and just hope someone who can drive properly like Chris Harris, Plato of Tiff get to test it first before all the other 'Experts/Clowns' get to test it.

You're right about the Carbon Ceramics, I concluded that I'd never specify them on a new car due to the expense but I would have them on a secondhand car, that is provided it was a genuine low mileage car because the only way to tell what state of wear they are in is to weigh them. One other tip for any potential purchasers of a Carbon Ceramic brake equipped RCF is this. The first time I washed my car with Carbon Ceramics I had the shock of my life, I live on a hill and drew out of my drive and near the bottom of the road applied the brakes, nothing they didn't seem to work, so I pressed really hard and managed to stop at the bottom of my road's junction about 6 inches over the white line. This was a true brown trouser moment, luckily the road is never really busy but in future always applied the brakes after washing the car. One thing that is great is absolutely no brake dust at all, my wheels always stayed perfectly clean, plus they should last for about 100K miles under normal driving.

I couldn't agree more, I wish Lexus every success with this car. I think it's fair to say that the RCF isn't that good on track (the Chris Harris youtube confirms this) and to make it any good it needed a drastic re-think/re-work not what I think we have here and that's to put it very bluntly/truthfully a few cosmetic tweaks. I like the RCF as a road car at which it's rather good, again Chris Harris concluded that too. With this and the new Supra getting criticised for it's looks etc I wonder if Toyota/Lexus have lost their way a bit. If the figure of 457 BHP is correct the power to weight ratio is 3 BHP more that the standard RCF. Oh and that red interior.

I thought I was the only one who thought that, he just grinds on me.

I think this was the original concept which I like

It's a very nice car but to be honest I'd be tempted to just supercharge a current RCF, although a heavy car can't really see the advantage of the carbon ceramic brakes although they are supposed to last for about 100K miles provided you don't have Quik Fit or some other incompetent outfit damage them as they are fragile.

That's a good point as quite a few USA based RCF owners have supercharged their cars, plus the sound of the supercharger and a decent exhaust (Mercedes SLS for example) sound truly wonderful. Although the AMG SL 63 when it went from the V8 N/A the the twin turbo engine didn't sound any different so it can be done.

I thought I'd just start this as a not too serious thread about what we might expect from the proposed F version of the LC. I've just done some power to weight figures of the RCF and the LC as it stands at the moment. The RCF has a power to weight ratio of 255 BHP per tonne The current LC has a figure of 233 BHP per tonne If the LC F gets 600 BHP at the current weight will have 297 BHP per tonne If they can shave the weight down to say 1845 KG like the current RCF it will have an interesting 325 BHP per tonne. That will be interesting because my last track day car a VX 220 turbo with quite a few tuning mods was 320 BHP per tonne and that was very lively on track. Of course this is all wild speculation at the moment because I'm not aware of any actual figures being released any one have any more thoughts on the subject?

Most people serious about track days tend to remove the carbon ceramic discs and replace with steel. This makes sense as they can be easily chipped if you land up in the kitty litter. Plus from experience (my Porsche had them) you have to be really anal about who does any work like changing tyres as they can also be easily chipped because you have to replace them in pairs and at something like £6K + per pair. The odd track day error could be very expensive. You also have to be a Driving God to notice any benefit in the unsprung weight advantage. But speaking as someone who always managed to boil his brakes on track days I can confirm they never boil or fade and you can brake harder and later with them.

I had well over 600 BHP in my last AMG and I found plenty occasions to enjoy it, bearing in mind these cars are quite heavy so a fair bit was absorbed by having to shift the mass. I'd hazard a guess that an F series LC will still be a bit of a pudding.

I've had my fair share of convertibles and have to say that a folding metal roof is better in many respects. As mentioned above its not like they need to save weight although I was shocked at just how much a metal folding roof assembly weighs. I like the idea of a convertible LC but the prospect of an F version of the LC has me salivating and the thought of a 600 BHP V8 in N/A would have me smash my piggy bank, but I'm resigned to thinking it will be a V6 turbo I did see some photos of it and it looks interesting.

Good point because the SC 430 didn't look too good with the roof up for some reason.

Very nice, no mention of the engine type other than the F version will have 600 BHP I'm guessing this will be the new V6 twin turbo