RE: Honda WILL make a new Civic Type R

[paranoid airbag]

Darren61 said:

Martyn, care to share the car you own?

stty clio 1.2, I'll be replacing it as soon as practically possible. Any reason why?

[Mastodon2]

Neith said:

I'm kind of surprised they opted for the turbo route though.

They didn't have a choice, they wouldn't be able to get the emissions low enough with a high revving NA engine, they need to develop a turbo engine to get it to market with the strict emissions controls. It's a shame, this will probably not sound anywhere near as good as the Type Rs that have gone before, but it's better than nothing.

[wolves_wanderer]

Mastodon2 said:

MrTappets said:

A shame to see the old NA engine going, but I suppose in the real world it didn't have enough torque to be 'everyday' fast.

Funny, I have a Type R, and I drive it fast "every day" in the "real world". I'm not really sure what this post means tbh..

It is an easy way to identify people who struggle to use a manual gearbox.

[SonicHedgeHog]

Mastodon2 said:

but it's better than nothing.

Is it though? Do we really need another 4 cylinder turbo hatch? Where's the variety? Where's the choice? Back in the 80s and 90s we had a choice of NA, turbo, supercharged with engine sizes ranging from 1.4 to 2.9 litres and a choice of 4 or 6 cylinders. Now we're all we get is basically the same engine in a different body with some different suspension.

The more I think about it the more I think I need to get myself a hot hatch from that golden era and keep it because everything I see in dealerships today is boring.

[Mastodon2]

SonicHedgeHog said:

Is it though? Do we really need another 4 cylinder turbo hatch? Where's the variety? Where's the choice? Back in the 80s and 90s we had a choice of NA, turbo, supercharged with engine sizes ranging from 1.4 to 2.9 litres and a choice of 4 or 6 cylinders. Now we're all we get is basically the same engine in a different body with some different suspension.

The more I think about it the more I think I need to get myself a hot hatch from that golden era and keep it because everything I see in dealerships today is boring.

No one is forcing you to buy one, and the move to downsized, turbocharged engines doesn't thrill me either. That said, I feel like I've done hot hatches now, I doubt I'd have another as I think I'd have to spend a lot more money to have a lot more fun than I do in my EP3 and I'd rather go for something a little bigger and more luxurious next time. However, in 10 years time there will be someone else looking for a cheap, fun hot hatch like I was and the EP3s, EK9s etc will be older and much more fragile, and the next Type R will be cheap. They won't get the choice that we had of turbo or super, NA or FI that we had. If I was in the young lad's shoes in 10 years time, I think I'd still probably pick the Type R over the rest of the competition, if it is the high revving engine they claim it will be.

If it must be turbocharged, at least make it as much of a screamer as you can, because that will set it apart from the competition, there won't be a shortage of turbo hatches that deliver everything from 3000-5500rpm and leave you needing to shift up well before the redline.

[Spanna]

VAG's 1.8T was put into the S3 with 225BHP around 13/14 years ago and could be ran reliably at 260BHP plus with just a remap.

It's not the power of these new turbo engines that is impressive, it's the way they manage to combine that whilst still delivering a frugal every day car. BMW seems to lead the way on this currently, nearly 50mpg from their latest 320i (1.6 litre turbo) and 60 comes up in 7.5 seconds. That is impressive and long may it continue so we can enjoy pace with economical running costs.

[havoc]

motor mad said:

K20 in a DC2. That would be the best.

I have to disagree. The B18C has more character, better throttle-response and a lot better reliability. The (very minor) mid-range gains really aren't worth it, IMHO...



Spanna - BMW's new 'ultra-economical' petrol engines aren't anywhere near as reliable as their old 'decently economical' petrol engines...they've stretched the damn things too far. I'd rather have an N52 than an N53/54, and would rather have the old 320Si petrol engine than the new turbo'd one, economy be damned*.



* Yes you'll save fuel money...but how much do warranty trips to the dealer cost you in time/effort? And how much does that extra depreciation cost you because everyone realises they're a money-pit on the 2nd-hand market?

[TameRacingDriver]

havoc said:

I have to disagree. The B18C has more character, better throttle-response and a lot better reliability. The (very minor) mid-range gains really aren't worth it, IMHO...

Agree 100%. Standard for standard, the K20 sounds like a sewing machine in comparison to the B18C. In fact, I also prefer the noise the 2ZZ Toyota engine makes compared with the K20 too.

And while we're on the subject, these 4-pot turbo's all sound dull. An Audi 1.8T may make as much as my 350Z's engine with a remap, but the latter sounds about 1000x better and is so much nicer to use. These engines will be all but dead in a few years, so enjoy them while you can.

Edited by TameRacingDriver on Friday 21st September 21:13

[Zajda]

RobCrezz said:

What are you basing that on?

Honda are masters of getting lots of power out of small capacity (they managed 185bhp in 1997 out of a n/a 1.6), I don't think its unbelievable that they could make it possible as well as reliable.

Wonder what they could achieve nowadays without more-strict-than-ever emission regulations...sad thoughts, I wish I was born some decade ago to experiece all the great cars, which are now rusty junk mostly.

[otolith]

Fantuzzi said:

otolith said:

StottyZr said:

Ali_T said:

Fantuzzi said:

Alfa got 180bhp from a 1.3...at 9000rpm!

Now thats impressive...

(Alfa GTA junior 1300)

Mazda got 231PS from the same displacement and revs. Everyone always forgets the rotaries.....

Its not really the same displacement, its 2.6l.

Displacement is arbitrary, all that really matters is (a) what size box will it fit in and (b) what does it weigh.

What year did mazda get that?

Alfa did it in the late 60s.

1967.

[auyt]

Honda make good cars and they do there own thing, problem is they take so long by the time they release something the whole game has moved on.
300 HP race car is great but that buy 2015 300 will be in shopping carts not hot hatches.

I have just sold my FN2 TypeR Great car but it would have been even better if the engine was 2.4 and 250 HP 200 FT of Torque and a better ration gear box the sales would have been far higher.

[elementad]

I've had 4 Hondas including one of the early EP3s and an S2000 and whilst I read this thread with eagerness and interest I still feel disappointed.

Honda quite clearly chose to abandon its sports car market due to emissions or not and chose the green route. Half the news sounds good that they are developing this new engine SO like most of the Type Rs before it (apart from the FN2) this will be having (hopefully) its own bespoke engineered engine for it.

I feel that Honda have left it so late to genuinely join this game that they may just make this a nippy all rounder like a Golf which sickens me and being old school I'm not sure I can swallow the fact that it won't be a NA Vtec.

Like Tameracingdriver said, the NA 4 pots, straight 6s, V6's are going to be a thing of the past so we'll just have to see what they bring to the table, but I'm pleased that I owned 2 of they're best machines in the day when they built great machines.

I hope this is a great machine, but I already have my doubts.

[Ninjaboy]

Why are they all 1600cc? god i'm sick of hearing that size now lol. Is it a shared engine like MINI and the french manufacturers? I have nothing against turbo engines but it loses it appeal if that all you can have. I like choice,

Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 22 September 18:44

[Ninjaboy]

SonicHedgeHog said:

Mastodon2 said:

but it's better than nothing.

Is it though? Do we really need another 4 cylinder turbo hatch? Where's the variety? Where's the choice? Back in the 80s and 90s we had a choice of NA, turbo, supercharged with engine sizes ranging from 1.4 to 2.9 litres and a choice of 4 or 6 cylinders. Now we're all we get is basically the same engine in a different body with some different suspension.

The more I think about it the more I think I need to get myself a hot hatch from that golden era and keep it because everything I see in dealerships today is boring.

Spot on, frot what i feel and what mny mates say the cars we are being offered now don't appeal to the young. I don't even look now as all i see is boring euroboxes.

[xRIEx]

Ninjaboy said:

Why are they all 1600cc? god i'm sick of hearing that size now lol. Is it a shared engine like MINI and the french manufacturers? I have nothing against turbo engines but it loses it appeal if that all you can have. I like choice,

Edited by Ninjaboy on Saturday 22 September 18:44

Touring car and wrc regs, probably.

[Repent]

That and despite our road tax bands being based around emissions, other key markets still use capacity, China for one.

[motor mad]

havoc said:

I have to disagree. The B18C has more character, better throttle-response and a lot better reliability. The (very minor) mid-range gains really aren't worth it.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I've owned both and currently own a B18. I preferred the K20. A lot better reliability is debatable. Engine failures can normally be attributed to a lack of basic maintenance or bad mapping. Also there were far more K20's engines around with EP3's and FN2 selling in their tens of thousands. You can go on any forum and find examples of failures of both.

Throttle responses on both are pretty similar. My Integra has a lightened fly wheel, whereas my EP3 was a pre-facelift (i.e didn't have a lighted f.w). There's little difference in it.

[Grovsie26]

motor mad said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. I've owned both and currently own a B18. I preferred the K20. A lot better reliability is debatable. Engine failures can normally be attributed to a lack of basic maintenance or bad mapping. Also there were far more K20's engines around with EP3's and FN2 selling in their tens of thousands. You can go on any forum and find examples of failures of both.

Throttle responses on both are pretty similar. My Integra has a lightened fly wheel, whereas my EP3 was a pre-facelift (i.e didn't have a lighted f.w). There's little difference in it.

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?

[otolith]

"character" is stuff like the subjective factors which make me wish my Lotus had a Honda K20A instead of a Toyota 2ZZ-GE. It's not the torque or horsepower deficit in this case, the Honda is just a nicer engine.

[Kozy]

Grovsie26 said:

Agreed. What the hell does character mean?

A way of justyfying something not being as good as it could be? The B18C is almost retro now, still a fantastic engine but not really up to the standard of the more modern, more powerful, lighter K20 with its better six speed gearbox.