RE: Honda Civic Type R

[toenheel]

Mr Whippy said:

toenheel said:

In todays standards 197bhp in a hot hatch is nothing special

Thats because most manufacturers have taken away everything that made hot hatches special to start with!

It was about a good power to weight mainly through low weight, which was the key really... 150bhp will have been seen as nothing special when the Clio Williams came out and the Jordan was offering 165-170bhp and the 306 had 155-167bhp...

What really made those cars was keeping the weight sensible. Add 300kg and 60bhp to an Elise doesn't make it an Elise still.

Yep, going down the route of defining a hot hatch again. Todays hatches are powerfull, and their power to weight is still good, but thats one dimension of performance. All the effects more weight has, yet it's being totally ignored. It's like saying the new Elise IS 300kg heavier, but it's got 60bhp more so thats ok... it simply wouldn't be an "Elise" anymore!


I'd be more likely to say "In todays standards 1200kg or more in a hot hatch is nothing special!"

Dave

The weight issue is a big problem you would just have to ask VW about that with past Golf GTI'S unfortunately safety issues etc hike the weight up on todays cars. But even though the majority of old hatches were lighter they were not quicker, the clio williams was a great car in its day but isnt as quick as a clio 182, likewise the Jordan wasnt as quick as the latest civics. All Honda had to do with this car was like all there competitors hike the BHP up slightly and improve the cars performance slightly to give it a better chance up against other hot hatches.

[havoc]

Mr Whippy said:

I'd be more likely to say "In todays standards 1200kg or more in a hot hatch is nothing special!"

Dave

I'd say a hot hatch weighing 1200kg would be VERY special nowadays - all the ones in the evo group test were 1350kg or more - 1450 for the ST!!!
Even the Clio 197 is heavier than 1200kg.

toenheel said:

But even though the majority of old hatches were lighter they were not quicker, the clio williams was a great car in its day but isnt as quick as a clio 182, likewise the Jordan wasnt as quick as the latest civics.

Frankly straight-line pace isn't the be-all and end-all...there are far more important things a car can have. And IMHO the Williams (and even the Jordan to a degree) have more 'character' and fun built into them than all bar the best current hot-hatches!

toenheel said:

All Honda had to do with this car was like all there competitors hike the BHP up slightly and improve the cars performance slightly to give it a better chance up against other hot hatches.

The thing is, in a straight-line it IS still on the mark - only the ST and the MeganeSport-thingy-xyz-123456789 were any quicker when evo figured them (with the CTR only having 1k on the engine!). So you're completely wrong there.


What lets the new CTR down ISN'T straight-line pace, it's the crap steering and cheap rear suspension!!! From the sounds of things Renault have done it again and made another Civic-beater!

[toenheel]

havoc said:

Mr Whippy said:

I'd be more likely to say "In todays standards 1200kg or more in a hot hatch is nothing special!"

Dave

I'd say a hot hatch weighing 1200kg would be VERY special nowadays - all the ones in the evo group test were 1350kg or more - 1450 for the ST!!!
Even the Clio 197 is heavier than 1200kg.

toenheel said:

But even though the majority of old hatches were lighter they were not quicker, the clio williams was a great car in its day but isnt as quick as a clio 182, likewise the Jordan wasnt as quick as the latest civics.

Frankly straight-line pace isn't the be-all and end-all...there are far more important things a car can have. And IMHO the Williams (and even the Jordan to a degree) have more 'character' and fun built into them than all bar the best current hot-hatches!

toenheel said:

All Honda had to do with this car was like all there competitors hike the BHP up slightly and improve the cars performance slightly to give it a better chance up against other hot hatches.

The thing is, in a straight-line it IS still on the mark - only the ST and the MeganeSport-thingy-xyz-123456789 were any quicker when evo figured them (with the CTR only having 1k on the engine!). So you're completely wrong there.


What lets the new CTR down ISN'T straight-line pace, it's the crap steering and cheap rear suspension!!! From the sounds of things Renault have done it again and made another Civic-beater!

straight line pace yes the type r is still up there with the best of them but it seriously lacks in torque and driveability in anything other than bone dry weather, the new one may be a better car in the wet though so i cant comment there... when i said up the bhp to improve performance i wasnt talking about 0-60 times etc i meant improve the performance all round, torque etc. When i worked at Honda we had lots of interest in the car before it was available and to be honest we were all secretly a little excited to, because big things were being predicted from Honda themselves and unfortunately it has been a complete anti-climax...

[Mr Whippy]

havoc said:

Mr Whippy said:

I'd be more likely to say "In todays standards 1200kg or more in a hot hatch is nothing special!"

Dave

I'd say a hot hatch weighing 1200kg would be VERY special nowadays

Yep, and it was way under 1200kg, and Renault just put the end to it!

Clio 182 with Cup packs or the Trophy. THE last true hot hatches in my view. Hot hatch is just as much about low weight with the dynamics and feel it brings, as much as it is about the power to weight... something Renault seem to have decided to forget!

Dave

[havoc]

toenheel said:

straight line pace yes the type r is still up there with the best of them but it seriously lacks in torque and driveability in anything other than bone dry weather, the new one may be a better car in the wet though so i cant comment there... when i said up the bhp to improve performance i wasnt talking about 0-60 times etc i meant improve the performance all round, torque etc. When i worked at Honda...[blah blah blah]

What DID you do at Honda, because you seem to lack any real mechanical appreciation of what the moving parts in a car DO!

With a VTEC-style engine (high- and free-revving), you don't NEED torque, you just need low gearing to manage the engine's delivery. Which is why the CTR has consistently been as quick as the turbo'd competition, the owner needing only to stir the stick a bit more often.

[Rant]
FFS, EVERYONE nowadays is obsessed by in-gear times and by 'flexibility' (meaning in their context loads of mid-range power). You can only get this through big-capacity or through FI (IMHO the rise of the turbo-diesel is responsible - in order for 'hot hatches' to stay quicker everyone is bolting turbo's onto them).

And frankly, this has led to laziness amongst owners and journos, and talk of 'real world' performance. People expect their cars to react at the flex of an ankle, so they don't have to do any thinking, any planning ahead, any observation or consideration of the act of driving! They want instant gratification, like everything else in life, without having to work for it or 'earn' it.

Well, I've news for everyone. In exchange for a little bit of driver input and concentration, my old ITR (designed 11 years ago, 187bhp and 133lb ft, so puny in comparison to any modern hot-hatch, even the Clio 197) would keep up or overtake ANY hot hatch in production today (possible exceptions for the ST and MeganeSport, although there'd not be much difference). On-road or on-track. Wet or dry. The reasons being purely mechanical - light weight, excellent LSD, appropriate gearing, sublime suspension. No driver aids beyond ABS, no thick wodges of mid-range torque, no ultra-wide ultra-sticky tyres (195/55/15).
And it's got a bigger boot than any of them (ST?) as well, and would return well over 30mpg on a long run, and c.30mpg combined, something NONE of the FI bunch would get near (a friend with an ST was averaging 22 over it's first few k!).


So exactly HOW, in 10 years, have we made ZERO progress?

[toenheel]

My opinion on the torque issue was aimed at the vtec because i think it feels gutless in the civic and unless your hammering every gear or dropping cogs left right and centre it doesnt pull very well imho, i dont like having to rev the balls off a car to get the best out of it although i would be lying if i said the S2000 didnt sound incredible when revved. I drove a Type R pretty hard up and down the motorway a few times and the fuel it went through was unbelievable for a 2.0 engine in comparison to my current car which is actually quicker and driven hard doesnt drink it half as much. For me its a love hate reltionship with Honda vtecs because they can be a bit mad when revving the balls off them but its because of this that i dont like them either lol..

[fido]

toenheel said:

My opinion on the torque issue was aimed at the vtec because i think it feels gutless in the civic and unless your hammering every gear or dropping cogs left right and centre it doesnt pull very well imho, i dont like having to rev the balls off a car to get the best out of it although i would be lying if i said the S2000 didnt sound incredible when revved. I drove a Type R pretty hard up and down the motorway a few times and the fuel it went through was unbelievable for a 2.0 engine in comparison to my current car which is actually quicker and driven hard doesnt drink it half as much. For me its a love hate reltionship with Honda vtecs because they can be a bit mad when revving the balls off them but its because of this that i dont like them either lol..

Bit of generalisation here - oh, and the Civic and S2000 have two completely different engines. the [outgoing] Civic type-R isn't (noticeably) any less torquey than a Clio 182 or Focus ST 170, but does rev a bit more. what exactly are you comparing it to - a 2.0 diesel, or a scoobie?

Admitedly, the old [DC2] Integra & S2000 have a noticeable hole in the torque curve below the VTEC switchover - but that's the on/off nature of VTEC - i-VTEC smooths it all out.

[Mr Whippy]

toenheel said:

My opinion on the torque issue was aimed at the vtec because i think it feels gutless in the civic and unless your hammering every gear or dropping cogs left right and centre it doesnt pull very well imho, i dont like having to rev the balls off a car to get the best out of it although i would be lying if i said the S2000 didnt sound incredible when revved. I drove a Type R pretty hard up and down the motorway a few times and the fuel it went through was unbelievable for a 2.0 engine in comparison to my current car which is actually quicker and driven hard doesnt drink it half as much. For me its a love hate reltionship with Honda vtecs because they can be a bit mad when revving the balls off them but its because of this that i dont like them either lol..

Assuming ~ same speed per gear vs say a Leon Cupra R 210 and the weight.

CTR 1204kg
Torque

1000rpm 110Nm
2000rpm 140Nm
3000rpm 175Nm
4000rpm 180Nm
5000rpm 190Nm
6000rpm 195Nm
7000rpm 185Nm
8000rpm 180Nm

with peak power of 197bhp @ ~ 7500rpm



Seat Cupra R 210 1376kg
Torque

1000rpm 100Nm
2000rpm 170Nm
3000rpm 275Nm
4000rpm 300Nm
5000rpm 280Nm
6000rpm 220Nm

with peak power of 210bhp @ ~ 5500rpm

BUT, the CTR has useable revs over 8000/6000 more range, so 33% better gearing potential. So lets just add 33% to all those values for a relative comparison of the kinda pull it has... (ignore the rpm's now)

CTR 1204kg
Torque

1000rpm 110Nm = 145Nm
2000rpm 140Nm = 185Nm
3000rpm 175Nm = 235Nm
4000rpm 180Nm = 240Nm
5000rpm 190Nm = 255Nm
6000rpm 195Nm = 260Nm
7000rpm 185Nm = 245Nm
8000rpm 180Nm = 240Nm


BUT, then we see that the CTR weighs less too, to the tune of 1376/1204 ~ 14%

So,

CTR 1204kg
Torque

1000rpm 110Nm = 145Nm = 165Nm
2000rpm 140Nm = 185Nm = 210Nm
3000rpm 175Nm = 235Nm = 270Nm
4000rpm 180Nm = 240Nm = 275Nm
5000rpm 190Nm = 255Nm = 290Nm
6000rpm 195Nm = 260Nm = 295Nm
7000rpm 185Nm = 245Nm = 280Nm
8000rpm 180Nm = 240Nm = 275Nm


Just for now, take my word on it, I'll compress the values to a best fit curve in Excel so the rpm's match the Cupra's...



Cupra vs CTR corrected for revs and weight

1000rpm = 100Nm vs 165Nm
2000rpm = 170Nm vs 235Nm
3000rpm = 275Nm vs 275Nm
4000rpm = 300Nm vs 295Nm
5000rpm = 280Nm vs 285Nm
6000rpm = 220Nm vs 275Nm


So, the above really represents what you would feel across the rev range in both cars. Ultimately, like has been said MANY MANY times before, POWER TO WEIGHT is the biggest determinant factor on performance, and here it is clear that the CTR has the measure of the Cupra across the rev-range after weight is considered, and it suffers from none of the lag either.

People are distracted by the revs and lack of shove as a turbo comes into play. The reality is that a revvy NA is very potent even at low-rpm simply due to gearing!

If anything I'd say the CTR was more flexible, waiting for turbo's to wake up vs the 1000rpm grunt even in 3rd or 4th gear offered by the CTR is what makes you appreciate a nice NA lump for driving with!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 5th February 14:10

[havoc]

Good post Dave. Explains very clearly why CTR and LCR are pretty comparable in a straight line, when you look at the 'working' revs.

Oh...one other point to add for toenheel's education.

The 'feeling' of acceleration is directly proportionate NOT to power (or even to torque), but to the rate of increase of power.

Thus when a turbo is spooling up you're getting a high rate-of-increase, so it feels like a rocket-ship.
This also explains why TDi's feel so quick - massive ramp-up of torque (and hence even more so of power) from say 1750/2000rpm up to 3,000 rpm or so, then the torque curve is artificially limited, and often tapers off...in which case the rate of increase of power drops to almost nil, so no feeling of acceleration.


For n/asp engines, the rate of increase of power is far lower, but starts sooner and (in good engines) goes on for longer, so you get a more gentle, but consistent and constant, upwelling of acceleration. The car is moving as quick, it just doesn't feel it.

Edited by havoc on Monday 5th February 18:36

[hennogarvey]

Doesn't matter what it drives like. Looks like it was designed in 1979 by a committee who were 'imagineering' what cars would look like in 2007. If this is the case, then they were spot on. If it was designed after 2000 then it's a rotter.

[havoc]

hennogarvey said:

rotter.

Haven't heard that word used in anger for decades!!! Are you as old as that henno?

[hennogarvey]

I'm probably older...

[fido]

hennogarvey said:

I'm probably older...

ah, then that would account for your personal 'tastes' ...

[leonodell]

I have just see the gearing figures/ratios for the 07 CTR as posted on Autocars' site,

Gearbox
Type 6-speed Manual
1st 3.266 / 6.4
2nd 2.13 / 9.8
3rd 1.517 / 13.7
4th 1.147 / 18.2
5th 0.921 / 22.6
6th 0.739 / 28.2
Final drive 3.583



These seem massively low ratios to me given the engines nature.
If these figures are right (and I doubt it) its taller in 5th than the old one is in 6th, perhaps they realy have beefed up the mid-range (maybe there's more to the engine mods than just shifting the cam profile shift point down by a few hundred revs)

Fancy picking this one to pieces HAVOC?

Edited by leonodell on Tuesday 6th February 17:21

Edited by leonodell on Tuesday 6th February 17:43

[Mr Whippy]

I'll wait until someone gives me mph/1000 for each gear vs the old car first and foremost before Autocar who probably just plucked numbers from thin air to fill in the gaps on roadtests which imho are getting more flaky wrt to accuracy as time goes by.
(evidence being half are not proof-read, with lots of typo's, cars having 6000bhp at 150rpm and other such silly mistakes)


Just checked those ratio's.

Getting 50mph in 1st, 80mph 2nd, 110mph 3rd, and 3600rpm @ 100mph in top...

Hahaha, Autocar! Good joke...

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 6th February 21:32

[havoc]

leonodell said:

Fancy picking this one to pieces HAVOC?

I'm with Dave - it doesn't stack up with what we know from road-test reports (shorter gearing than EP3-R) and what we know about Hondas in general.

My guess? The FD is 4.583, not 3.583, and even that wouldn't be ultra-short as we expected. As Dave says, Autocar is a tabloid, and not exceptionally accurate...


Ah...one last piece of evidence:-
www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=153021&automobile-Honda
...this shows the FD as 5.06, which IS very short gearing and is far more likely to be accurate than the data you showed.


Is that enough pieces for you Leon?!?
(There's never a 'smug' smiley when you need one is there!!! )

[havoc]

Gazboy said:

Whippy- on paper figure fudging makes a convincing arguement, until you get in the thing and actually drive it- the reality is in the CTR you'd be in 4th where's other cars you'd be in 3rd or even 2nd. You use what you've got at the end of the day to get the job done.

Not so sure...to get the power in the CTR2 you'll drop a cog and use the revs...so you probably WOULD be in the same gear as an FI car...I know in the S I overtake in 3rd on A-roads, 4th on M-way or if I've time to spare. I imagine the CTR2 will be no different.

[Mr Whippy]

Gazboy said:

Whippy- on paper figure fudging makes a convincing arguement, until you get in the thing and actually drive it- the reality is in the CTR you'd be in 4th where's other cars you'd be in 3rd or even 2nd. You use what you've got at the end of the day to get the job done.

Maybe, but that IS the issue with jumping from car to car.

People drive them for an hour, maybe two days at most. Very unlikely people get into the swing of them until a few months down the line when you get used to the push in the back and where the power lives.

There is no denying that the CTR thumps out enough grunt over it's rev-range to match a Cupra R 210, it's just that at first drive, or first week of driving each, the Cupra would always "feel" quicker, even if it wasn't.

Being brutally honest numbers are the only reliable measure because perception gets in the way. I'm sure a seasoned CTR driver would know they could use 4th gear, more likely they would be in 3rd or 2nd because they like revving it to savour the gearchange and noise, and because the car begs them to, wheras the Cupra driver doesn't like the gutless *feeling* top end and dull engine note, and likely chose that cars nature because their driving nature is more wafty along, and 4th suits them just fine.


Lets not pretend the Cupra is still quicker or more flexible because it's not. It's the driver reacting to the cars character that determines how the performance is extracted, and a driver will only full appreciate that after owning for a long time!

Dave

[bad_roo]

I've driven both the old and new Civic Type Rs (was on the Goodwood press event).

In James' defence, I think he gets it right more often than Car magazine's review which is a farce. Read evo for a more considered review on the latest CTR.

What's better? Fitment of traction/stability control (superior damp traction), slightly improved steering feel, better seats, better low speed ride quality, more refined on motorways, better perceived interior quality.

On the other hand body control is woolly, the gearchange has lost the snap of the old car, it feels less focused than before and visibility out of the car is not great. It also quickly runs out of rear suspension travel when driven quickly down a typical B-road. It's also got seriously expensive as you can't fit a/c as an option to the base car which means that nearly everyone will opt for the GT.

I was rather disappointed. I thought the CTR would kick the Clio 197 into next week but it feels an also-ran. It feels more dramatic but ultimately less capable than the Renault. I'd buy a Megane F1 given the money.

Edited by bad_roo on Monday 12th February 09:31

[Mr Whippy]

I'd get an early Golf GTI and Morego tune for the money!

Good on road, subtle looks, good performance (alot with tune), and a residual stronghold vs all the other cars there no doubt!

Dave