RE: Honda WILL make a new Civic Type R

[KMB]

P1H said:

I agree the it needs to retain the lighter and high revving ethos of previous Type R's. But I think the EP3 falls into this era, it weights significantly less than a Clio 197 which has smaller dimensions, it revs to 8000rpm and can out accelerate other hot hatches with 220bhp +.

I agree that the FN2 departed from this ethos.

I think EP3 and Clio 197 weights were virtually identical, although you're correct on the FN2, the Type R branding became rather softened at this stage, but sales were good so it was obviously a successful Honda Marketing led decision

[Darren61]

otolith said:

I am very surprised to see that you own a Renault.

I'm shocked to see you own a Lotus

[RobCrezz]

Buzz word said:

I think this will change a lot from how this article suggests it will develop. I can't see 1.6 boosted to thosed power levels lasting. The new ST is a 2.0 Megane, astra, golf all are too. The astra has some serious grunt to it. The rest of the crop will need a suburb chassis to buy that advantage back. My guess is that 1.6 will get stroked to a 1.8 minimum to give it better bottom end torque and make it last a bit longer by dialling the revs back from the race engine. I don't think a 1.6 producing 260 odd hp will be drivable and robust enough. Just my guess though.

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.

[Richair]

Ignoring the 'fastest fwd 'ring target claims' (because really, who really cares!?) this is very good news proving that Honda haven't lost their egde or bottle just yet!..

..You had us all worried for a while.

[Will1602]

A car better suited to British roads and a car that is quick around the 'ring? As we are led to believe, you can have one or the other, not both.

[Russ_16v]

I think the whole Ring lap time thing is combination of personal goal for Honda and a great marketing exersize.

As the Ring is just as much road as race track, if it performs well there then most of the buying public will think it will perform just as well around their local ring road. (yes, we know how smooth the Ring is, and it doesn't bear any resemblance to our local a or b roads, but lets be honest, most of the buying public won't know that)

So if they say 'yes, it gets around the Ring in the quickest time, then every motoring journo will want to test it, every magazine will have 'New FWD Ring record!' splatted over it's cover - Honda want to get back the hot-hatch market sector, and by doing that they have to directly take on the current hot-hatch top dogs - Renault. And of course what is the best way? By saying they want to better the title Renault have had for the past few years.

[Lunar Tick]

motor mad said:

Good news. All Honda need to do then is sort out an S2000 replacement, Integra DC5 replacement, put the engine mentioned in this article in the CR-Z and crack on with releasing the NSX.

Well some say the JDM FD2 Civic (what I have) was effectively the replacement for the DC5. It's up there with the very best Type-Rs - some say it is the very best.

Back on topic, although I'm sad about the demise of the K20A (one of the greatest production engines ever), I see no reason why Honda can't engineer a 1.6 turbo that delivers north of 250bhp with superb reliability

[paranoid airbag]

Darren61 said:

One last point, what are all the V-TEC fanboys going to say now? TURBO POWER!

Turbo just spooled up, yo?

[havoc]

Hoygo said:

Not that it will matter but they haven't a chance to beat the ring record,no one haven't beat yet the second fastest fwd time,beating a 8.00.8 it will need a touring car setup which i highly doubt the T-R will have or 280 hp (+) and immense grip,which still i doubt the first turbo T-R will have more than 250 hp.

You're forgetting about weight, which is the one thing Type R's have always been good at - typically +/-100kg lighter than the competition. Light weight, a good diff and some 'helpful' rear suspension behaviour to improve agility without compromising stability and they've a chance.

But I agree it sounds as much Marketing guff as it does a mission statement.

Art0ir said:

Am I the only one put off by the "fastest fwd car around the 'ring" statement?

Do people still cream themselves over road car lap times?

Know exactly what you mean, but the Marketing departments now insist upon it...

TameRacingDriver said:

R.I.P. Normally Aspirated engines.

Agreed...first BMW, now Honda. Pagani have gone FI, Ferrari are going hybrid...bloody bureaucrats have a LOT to answer for...

Will1602 said:

A car better suited to British roads and a car that is quick around the 'ring? As we are led to believe, you can have one or the other, not both.

Probably true, but if anyone can work it it'll be Honda (or Lotus, if they ever do another FWD) - the DC2 when launched managed that sort of trick - in competition it started setting 2.0 lap records with a 1.8, yet was compliant enough on the road to take apart your average B-road quite happily.

[Buzz word]

RobCrezz said:

Buzz word said:

I think this will change a lot from how this article suggests it will develop. I can't see 1.6 boosted to thosed power levels lasting. The new ST is a 2.0 Megane, astra, golf all are too. The astra has some serious grunt to it. The rest of the crop will need a suburb chassis to buy that advantage back. My guess is that 1.6 will get stroked to a 1.8 minimum to give it better bottom end torque and make it last a bit longer by dialling the revs back from the race engine. I don't think a 1.6 producing 260 odd hp will be drivable and robust enough. Just my guess though.

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.

Just a feeling. The highest specific output engine I know of is the fq400 which was a special edition and had a service interval of 5k miles which i think suggests it was quite tightly wound. At that specific output a 1.6 could make 240hp. My guess is it will need a shade more power especially to beat the 276hp astra and have a target of a 15k service interval. 1.6 making that power, no problem. Doing it for 100k miles with acceptable reliability, consumables and drivability i'm not so sure. Everyone else is running 2.0's there has to be a reason for that. They do make remarkable engines which is why i think they can do better and i'm calling 1.8. Just a guess though on my part. No more, no less. I will be very impressed if a 1.6 is what drives out of the factory.

[750turbo]

dasherdiablo1 said:

Does this mean that the last Type R should hould it value better now seeing as ther will not be a replacement for two years (based on the theory that the 2015 Model Year may be available in September 2014?

<Rubs Hands>

<Looks at Mileage>

[Durzel]

It'll be for naught if they continue their recent tradition of cost-cutting at the expense of overall driveability...

Case in point Torsion beam suspension in the new Civic vs the McPherson independent struts in the preceding model.

[Regiment]

Will1602 said:

A car better suited to British roads and a car that is quick around the 'ring? As we are led to believe, you can have one or the other, not both.

My 250 Cup didn't have any problems at all on the gunnery range that was my street and was definitely a much nicer place to sit and enjoy the good ol' British roads than the Focus ST, Civic Type S, the Corsa SXI and my current Clio .

[Darren61]

paranoid airbag said:

Turbo just spooled up, yo?

Martyn, care to share the car you own?

[sinbad666]

Honda have been making turbos for decades and I there engines are some of the best. I think they'll do a great job of making something that is fast and economical. Using modern cutting edge technology as Honda typically do I doubt there'll be much lag as someone mentioned. Although superchargers are good a turbo offers better economy and seems to be the "in thing". I expect it to weigh circa 1300kgs with somewhere between 220 and 250bhp will give a decent package, not so sure about Ring lap times though.

[Mastodon2]

[quote=MrTappets]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. quote]

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.

Glad to see Honda making a comeback, but it is worrisome it's taking so long for the car to get here. I'm sure it will be a corker when it gets here, but it's probably not going to show it's face until the current Civic gets a facelift, then we'll see the Type R.

[StottyZr]

This reminds me, whatever happened to the CRZ Mugen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-rvMzcpbsU

If I could get a deposit down for a house and my finances sorted I'd be looking at placing a deposit on one of these (providing they actually make it) The only problem in my eyes is the 6500rpm redline. It seems the new Civic has the right idea, 8500rpm and turbocharged is my idea of heaven.

If you watch the review, disregard the guys whinging at the end. "My back hurts, I've got a headache from the noise, I have to concentrait too much because the steerings heavy." Shut up you aged boring fkwit.

More of this please Honda

[xRIEx]

Buzz word said:

Just a feeling. The highest specific output engine I know of is the fq400 which was a special edition and had a service interval of 5k miles which i think suggests it was quite tightly wound. At that specific output a 1.6 could make 240hp.

The FQ400 was 200bhp/l, a 1.6 at the same specific output would make 320bhp. Have I missed/misunderstood something?

[RobCrezz]

Buzz word said:

RobCrezz said:

Buzz word said:

I think this will change a lot from how this article suggests it will develop. I can't see 1.6 boosted to thosed power levels lasting. The new ST is a 2.0 Megane, astra, golf all are too. The astra has some serious grunt to it. The rest of the crop will need a suburb chassis to buy that advantage back. My guess is that 1.6 will get stroked to a 1.8 minimum to give it better bottom end torque and make it last a bit longer by dialling the revs back from the race engine. I don't think a 1.6 producing 260 odd hp will be drivable and robust enough. Just my guess though.

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.

Just a feeling. The highest specific output engine I know of is the fq400 which was a special edition and had a service interval of 5k miles which i think suggests it was quite tightly wound. At that specific output a 1.6 could make 240hp. My guess is it will need a shade more power especially to beat the 276hp astra and have a target of a 15k service interval. 1.6 making that power, no problem. Doing it for 100k miles with acceptable reliability, consumables and drivability i'm not so sure. Everyone else is running 2.0's there has to be a reason for that. They do make remarkable engines which is why i think they can do better and i'm calling 1.8. Just a guess though on my part. No more, no less. I will be very impressed if a 1.6 is what drives out of the factory.

All evos of that era had 4500mile service intervals (oil changes basically), nothing special to do with the evo 8 Fq400 (it simply had up rated pistons and rods internally). The evo X FQ 400 has no internal changes and has 10000mile intervals.

[otolith]

Buzz word said:

Just a feeling. The highest specific output engine I know of is the fq400 which was a special edition and had a service interval of 5k miles which i think suggests it was quite tightly wound. At that specific output a 1.6 could make 240hp. My guess is it will need a shade more power especially to beat the 276hp astra and have a target of a 15k service interval. 1.6 making that power, no problem. Doing it for 100k miles with acceptable reliability, consumables and drivability i'm not so sure. Everyone else is running 2.0's there has to be a reason for that. They do make remarkable engines which is why i think they can do better and i'm calling 1.8. Just a guess though on my part. No more, no less. I will be very impressed if a 1.6 is what drives out of the factory.

Worth remembering that Honda were getting a reliable 185ps out of a naturally aspirated 1.6 in a production car 15 years ago.