RE: 2015 Honda Civic Type R: the engineers talk
Discussion
doogz said:
It worked alright on the Golf, 205, 309, 106, 306, 911, 924, 944 and 968, which are pretty much all accepted as being great cars.
Seems to work on those fancy F1 cars too.
The pugs didnt have torsion beams.Seems to work on those fancy F1 cars too.
Ironically the Megane R26R is pretty much the same as a Civic anyway.
Whats also interesting (this may not actually be interesting) the Jazz has the same sort of torsion beam setup but on the EV version (Fit EV in the states) it has proper semi independant rear.
Prof Prolapse said:
TWPC said:
We have a huge variety of torque monsters already. Give us the opportunity to buy something that revs like a bike: more choice please.
I'm pretty sure Honda make several vehicles which rev like bikes.
Am I wrong in thinking that everyone's seen the success of the MkV Golf GTi and are all trying to emulate it rather than:
a) analyse WHY the Golf is successful (brand, image, perceived quality, IMHO -it's a decent steer but no more)
b) carve their own niche?
havoc said:
Prof Prolapse said:
TWPC said:
We have a huge variety of torque monsters already. Give us the opportunity to buy something that revs like a bike: more choice please.
I'm pretty sure Honda make several vehicles which rev like bikes.Am I wrong in thinking that everyone's seen the success of the MkV Golf GTi and are all trying to emulate it rather than:
a) analyse WHY the Golf is successful (brand, image, perceived quality, IMHO -it's a decent steer but no more)
b) carve their own niche?
Maybe the other companies have bought to much into that campaign.
Instead of 'It's not like a golf, thank god'
doogz said:
The MK1 did as far as I remember.
You may be getting confused between torsion bar and torsion beam. A torsion bar is simply a spring, as used on the Citroen and Pug hatchbacks for years. The actual suspension on these was a trailing arm, that pivoted on bearings mounted into a subframe. Each trailing arm is capable of fully independent movement (except for the action of the anti-roll bar if fitted).The torsion beam as used on the early Golf, Astras, late Civic etc. is a trailing arm system but with no subframe. The two trailing arms are permanently joined together by the torsion beam to constrain the motion of the trailing arms and the whole assembly is joined to the car with just two bushes. Normally coil springs are used in conjunction with torsion beams. If one wheel moves up in bump, it can only do so by twisting the torsion beam, so it's never a truly independent rear suspension system. It's the absolute cheapest possible rear suspension system.
Mr2Mike said:
The torsion beam as used on the early Golf, Astras, late Civic etc. is a trailing arm system but with no subframe. The two trailing arms are permanently joined together by the torsion beam to constrain the motion of the trailing arms and the whole assembly is joined to the car with just two bushes. Normally coil springs are used in conjunction with torsion beams. If one wheel moves up in bump, it can only do so by twisting the torsion beam, so it's never a truly independent rear suspension system. It's the absolute cheapest possible rear suspension system.
But to be fair, his point still stands. It has been used very effectively in the past in some cases. I think the Civic gets lumbered with it as it walked from the multi link to a torsion beam where as Golf GTis and hot hatch Renaults started there anyway. I guess this is the exposure the EP3 gave the TypeR brand due to the volume sold and its more mass market appeal. I cant recall the same hyperbole when the DC5 and EP3 dropped double wishbone front for McPherson strust.... again what the french hot hatches and Golf Gti have been using since day one.
JonnyVTEC said:
I cant recall the same hyperbole when the DC5 and EP3 dropped double wishbone front for McPherson strust.
There was quite a lot of moaning about this at the time, cheapening the Type R marque etc. Then again there was a lot of complaining that the EP3 was too soft and refined to be a true Type R; exactly the same arguments which were levelled against the FN2 really.I always thought it amazing (in a good way) that Honda stuck with the double wishbone system as long as they did on their small shopping cars and family saloons.
rossub said:
How do you know it will be low-revving? If Subaru were able to make the flat 4 turbo rev to 8k from the mid nineties onwards, perhaps Honda will do the same now?
Subaru did indeed achieve that, but that form of engine was not even a standard for STIs, where 6.5, 7 and 7.5Krpm redlines are also used depending on the spec of the engine. It can be done, and certainly Honda could do a low pressure turbo set up and give it an 8000rpm redline, god knows they've got the engineering know how, but with all the emphasis they seem to be putting on torque, a high redline will be irrelevant if they build all the shove into the 2000-4500rpm range. To me, it sounds reminiscent of a the Focus ST, big torquey shove low down but you are left feeling like you might as well change up by 5500rpm. Not my ideal power delivery, and certainly not what I'd want in anything called a Type R.jezhumphrey75 said:
couldnt they just make the enginer larger? so they could still have vtec and fit in with eu regs?
or supercharging vtec? surely thatd help with emissions
I think the high revs are why it's euro unfriendly - my FN2 owning friend says he pays the same tax as a Range Rover...or supercharging vtec? surely thatd help with emissions
rb5er said:
otolith said:
A fast ring time alone does not make me interested in a car.
Do you really think that a car that is very quick on the Ring is likely to be really boring on the road? You got many/any examples of this phenomena?
Of course this is very unlikely to suffer from that, though.
Mr2Mike said:
You may be getting confused between torsion bar and torsion beam. A torsion bar is simply a spring, as used on the Citroen and Pug hatchbacks for years. The actual suspension on these was a trailing arm, that pivoted on bearings mounted into a subframe. Each trailing arm is capable of fully independent movement (except for the action of the anti-roll bar if fitted).
The torsion beam as used on the early Golf, Astras, late Civic etc. is a trailing arm system but with no subframe. The two trailing arms are permanently joined together by the torsion beam to constrain the motion of the trailing arms and the whole assembly is joined to the car with just two bushes. Normally coil springs are used in conjunction with torsion beams. If one wheel moves up in bump, it can only do so by twisting the torsion beam, so it's never a truly independent rear suspension system. It's the absolute cheapest possible rear suspension system.
Astra GTC (all models inc. VXR AFAIK) have a form of watts linkage too. The torsion beam as used on the early Golf, Astras, late Civic etc. is a trailing arm system but with no subframe. The two trailing arms are permanently joined together by the torsion beam to constrain the motion of the trailing arms and the whole assembly is joined to the car with just two bushes. Normally coil springs are used in conjunction with torsion beams. If one wheel moves up in bump, it can only do so by twisting the torsion beam, so it's never a truly independent rear suspension system. It's the absolute cheapest possible rear suspension system.
The patent for the system that I read some time ago hinted that they were using more compliant bushes in the axle mounting, presumably for comfort ? The watts linkage is there to stop it all moving about too much. The actual beam is a different design from the previous astra.
I added a whiteline anti roll bar to the back of my astra H, which stiffen things up nicely
due to a steep ramp at the entrance to my road it will lift the nearside wheel off the ground enough to get my foot under it..GTC rear suspension:
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff