RE: Honda WILL make a new Civic Type R
Discussion
Grovsie26 said:
Agreed. What the hell does character mean? Sound like JC Havoc. The K20 is just better, can the B18c get to 240-250bhp with bolt ons?
Oh dear, here we go again.By your logic then the VAG 2.0T engines are better still as they can get 300bhp with some simple mods, and closer to 400bhp on stock internals. But that misses all sorts of other factors, the main one being 'enjoyment'.
Power is not everything - IMHO the DC2 has enough top-end as-is, for the car, the grip, the brakes. And I genuinely believe a stock B18C6 has more character* and better throttle response than a stock K20A (having driven 3x EP3s**, 2x DC5s and ~5-6x DC2s). I also think it has better throttle response than the C30A and C32A.
* On the same score, the 1.8 K-series and 2.0 Duratecs in Caterhams have more character still - massively so on TBs, and something like a Lotus 2.2 Twincam is an utter hoot. Modern engines are getting too sanitised, too 'well mannered', too quiet. Better technically, more economical and more refined (but not necessarily more reliable, note)...but essentially 'missing' some of the fire that makes older sports cars so entertaining.
** All of which had too-linear a power delivery which, despite being in an allegedly stripped-out 'raw' hot hatch, disguised the pace of the car. THAT is what I mean by character...
DaveX said:
kambites said:
310bhp from 1.6 litres in a shopping car - these small capacity turbocharged engines are certainly advancing at a fair old rate.
Not really, BMW got 1300bhp out of 1.5 litres back in 1986 for F1 
I wonder if the ring time reference is going to mean much reduced weight rather than hammering the engine up to 300bhp in road trim, not an unbelieveable number but 2 years is a long time for things to change. So perhaps we'll see a very low kerb weight, i.e. back to the roots of the type R - reduced weight, great chassis and a motorsport derived engine.
280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
renrut said:
I wonder if the ring time reference is going to mean much reduced weight rather than hammering the engine up to 300bhp in road trim, not an unbelieveable number but 2 years is a long time for things to change. So perhaps we'll see a very low kerb weight, i.e. back to the roots of the type R - reduced weight, great chassis and a motorsport derived engine.
280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
Would it meet modern crash standards though?280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
Art0ir said:
Would it meet modern crash standards though?
There is no doubt in my mind that it is possible to build a Civic sized car down to 1000kg while still meeting contemporary consumer expectations of crashworthiness. Whether people are willing to pay what it would cost and put up with some NVH and reduced perceived build quality is another matter.
Art0ir said:
renrut said:
I wonder if the ring time reference is going to mean much reduced weight rather than hammering the engine up to 300bhp in road trim, not an unbelieveable number but 2 years is a long time for things to change. So perhaps we'll see a very low kerb weight, i.e. back to the roots of the type R - reduced weight, great chassis and a motorsport derived engine.
280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
Would it meet modern crash standards though?280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
Art0ir said:
But with all of the modcons today's buyers expect (Multimedia, A/C, etc) do you really think they could come out 500kg lighter than say the most recent RS Focus?
Type-Rs used to be stripped out - minimal equipment, minimal sound deadening, thinner glass, that kind of thing. If Honda are thinking of returning to that kind of thing, then along with a general move towards lighter cars, perhaps. I don't think a car based on the current Civic will be anywhere near as light as 1000kg, though.
otolith said:
Type-Rs used to be stripped out - minimal equipment, minimal sound deadening, thinner glass, that kind of thing. If Honda are thinking of returning to that kind of thing, then along with a general move towards lighter cars, perhaps.
I don't think a car based on the current Civic will be anywhere near as light as 1000kg, though.
Is there any indication they will return to that though?I don't think a car based on the current Civic will be anywhere near as light as 1000kg, though.
Captain Muppet said:
Art0ir said:
renrut said:
I wonder if the ring time reference is going to mean much reduced weight rather than hammering the engine up to 300bhp in road trim, not an unbelieveable number but 2 years is a long time for things to change. So perhaps we'll see a very low kerb weight, i.e. back to the roots of the type R - reduced weight, great chassis and a motorsport derived engine.
280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
Would it meet modern crash standards though?280bhp in a car approaching a 1000kg kerb weight that would be astoundingly quick and allow everything else to be dialled back (engine, brakes, economy etc) without over-stressing the engine or the CO2 boogiemen.
At some point the endless horsepower/torque battle will be beaten down by realworld mpg and even EU test figures and the only way they could improve the car performance wise will be reduced weight.
One question, if Toyota can do a NA engine for the GT86 with decent emissions and economy, why cant Honda, the number 1 NA engine builder in the world, do something for the Civic? I dont buy all this "we cant live in the past and need to move on" talk.... shame they didnt do a NA engine with around 210 BHP and then just strip the car out, go for total light weight and a pure driving experience and hang that bloody nurburgring lap time--they really should leave that sort of thing to Renaultsport and their big turbo engined meganes!!!
Art0ir said:
Is there any indication they will return to that though?
I would say that if they are making noises about chasing ring records, yes, that is an indication that they are considering refocusing the Type-R brand on credible track performance rather than the GTi-rivalling trim level it has become. Art0ir said:
Captain Muppet said:
Lighter cars have less mass to control in a crash - it can be an advantage for passing crash tests.
But with all of the modcons today's buyers expect (Multimedia, A/C, etc) do you really think they could come out 500kg lighter than say the most recent RS Focus?I was just commenting on the ability of light cars to pass crash tests well.
Captain Muppet said:
No, I don't think that you can build a light car while pandering to customers who want all the toys to play with. Not without it costing more.
I was just commenting on the ability of light cars to pass crash tests well.
Sorry I should have been more clear in my first reply as in would it pass crash standards if they had to lose weight elsewhere while meeting the expectations of the average 21st century driver.I was just commenting on the ability of light cars to pass crash tests well.
Bezza1969 said:
One question, if Toyota can do a NA engine for the GT86 with decent emissions and economy, why cant Honda, the number 1 NA engine builder in the world, do something for the Civic? I dont buy all this "we cant live in the past and need to move on" talk.... shame they didnt do a NA engine with around 210 BHP and then just strip the car out, go for total light weight and a pure driving experience and hang that bloody nurburgring lap time--they really should leave that sort of thing to Renaultsport and their big turbo engined meganes!!!
Agreed! It would suffer from the same problem as the GT86 - a horrible annoying whining noise from behind the wheel every time a diesel driver gets in it.
Even the likes of Evo are now more interested in mid range torque than sweetly revving engines, it's as if the shed-draggers have inherited the earth.
Even the likes of Evo are now more interested in mid range torque than sweetly revving engines, it's as if the shed-draggers have inherited the earth.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff