RE: Honda Civic Type R - more details
Discussion
HorneyMX5 said:
standard car, at the wheels.
Untitled by Nicholas R Horne, on Flickr
That's a nice torque level across the rev range. It drives like any other NA 2.0, like a Zetec Focus etc, below vtec and then gives you the oomph and noise when you wind it up.
Interior plastics are not up to VAG levels, but then neither was the price of the car. To be honest squeezing dash plastics doesn't float my boat, I prefer squeezing boobs and bums for tactile joy. In my car I prefer it drives well and the regaular contact areas are spot on. The FN2 has great seats, a cracking shift and really nice feeling steering wheel. THe fact the air vents aren't damped really doesn't matter, I think I've adjusted them 2 or 3 times in the 30K miles I've done in it in the last 15 months.
152hp at the wheels seems really low, almost the same as a Clio 182. Here's a standard EP3 Civic Type R tested by a manufacturer of hub dynos:Untitled by Nicholas R Horne, on FlickrThat's a nice torque level across the rev range. It drives like any other NA 2.0, like a Zetec Focus etc, below vtec and then gives you the oomph and noise when you wind it up.
Interior plastics are not up to VAG levels, but then neither was the price of the car. To be honest squeezing dash plastics doesn't float my boat, I prefer squeezing boobs and bums for tactile joy. In my car I prefer it drives well and the regaular contact areas are spot on. The FN2 has great seats, a cracking shift and really nice feeling steering wheel. THe fact the air vents aren't damped really doesn't matter, I think I've adjusted them 2 or 3 times in the 30K miles I've done in it in the last 15 months.
http://rototest-research.eu/popup/performancegraph...
181hp at the wheels! I know it doesn't really matter, but that's a big difference.
iloveboost said:
152hp at the wheels seems really low, almost the same as a Clio 182. Here's a standard EP3 Civic Type R tested by a manufacturer of hub dynos:
http://rototest-research.eu/popup/performancegraph...
181hp at the wheels! I know it doesn't really matter, but that's a big difference.
Skuzzle's rollers read very much on the low side. I was more interested in seeing the curves. It was a rolling road day I was helping run and I threw civic on at the end for a laugh. It was running on saisnburys standard fuel as well. http://rototest-research.eu/popup/performancegraph...
181hp at the wheels! I know it doesn't really matter, but that's a big difference.
Calza said:
alexpa said:
If the output starts with a 4, this will go to the top of just about everyone's hot hatch wish list.
With FWD?That would be a nightmare surely?
Yes 400 to the front wheel's only could be a handful. It's gotta have a lsd and of course pointless if traction control is robbing it most of the time.
Well let's see..
Personally I'm wanting a Teg. Not civic. 1100kg, 330hp, done.
iloveboost said:
HorneyMX5 said:
standard car, at the wheels.
Untitled by Nicholas R Horne, on Flickr
That's a nice torque level across the rev range. It drives like any other NA 2.0, like a Zetec Focus etc, below vtec and then gives you the oomph and noise when you wind it up.
Interior plastics are not up to VAG levels, but then neither was the price of the car. To be honest squeezing dash plastics doesn't float my boat, I prefer squeezing boobs and bums for tactile joy. In my car I prefer it drives well and the regaular contact areas are spot on. The FN2 has great seats, a cracking shift and really nice feeling steering wheel. THe fact the air vents aren't damped really doesn't matter, I think I've adjusted them 2 or 3 times in the 30K miles I've done in it in the last 15 months.
152hp at the wheels seems really low, almost the same as a Clio 182. Here's a standard EP3 Civic Type R tested by a manufacturer of hub dynos:Untitled by Nicholas R Horne, on FlickrThat's a nice torque level across the rev range. It drives like any other NA 2.0, like a Zetec Focus etc, below vtec and then gives you the oomph and noise when you wind it up.
Interior plastics are not up to VAG levels, but then neither was the price of the car. To be honest squeezing dash plastics doesn't float my boat, I prefer squeezing boobs and bums for tactile joy. In my car I prefer it drives well and the regaular contact areas are spot on. The FN2 has great seats, a cracking shift and really nice feeling steering wheel. THe fact the air vents aren't damped really doesn't matter, I think I've adjusted them 2 or 3 times in the 30K miles I've done in it in the last 15 months.
http://rototest-research.eu/popup/performancegraph...
181hp at the wheels! I know it doesn't really matter, but that's a big difference.
Dagnut said:
Honda are the one company you would expect to get it right. They had so much time with this car. They call it a "Vtec turbo" but it only does 7000rpm..whats the point?
What they've done is listen to their marketing people and gone down the same route as the competitors, giving the big wallop of torque to keep the TDI generation happy.
Have you seen some information that nobody else has? There are no powertrain specs available beyond it being a 2.0l turbo. Yet apparently everyone in this thread has come to the conclusion that it will be crap.What they've done is listen to their marketing people and gone down the same route as the competitors, giving the big wallop of torque to keep the TDI generation happy.
To reiterate an earlier point, there has never been a bad engine in a Type-R badged car. Not once. 7000 rpm is hardly lowly given that most of the competitors are making peak power 5500-6250 rpm.
For the people who are suggesting that low RPM boost threshold and high RPM power are not mutually exclusive, I suggest you research how a turbocharger works... You can have low end torque (as in 2000 rpm and 90% of peak torque is available) or lots of power. Large turbos blow the low end torque but are great for top end power. The likes of the Skyline/Supra etc are bad examples as they are large capacity multi-turbo engines, the latter with a complex sequential setup.
Also, twin scroll turbine housings and manifolds do not magically make a turbocharged engine incredible. All it means is that the turbine wheel is fed more efficiently at low exhaust flows but they suffer at high exhaust flows! They are not a magic bullet.
Escort Si-130 said:
You and your typical dry washed out time expired Clarkson Halfords jokes. How many times are you going to recycle them on almost every thread you reply. Same with your typical chav comments. I bet you are of that type.
Perhaps you work at Halfords and own a Corsa VXR, so I may have hit a raw nerve. Anyway, I haven't ever made a reference to either Halfords or Chavs on this site, so perhaps you are mistaken.GTEYE said:
It looks like it could be rather "Halfords tacky" from some of the styling details revealed.
Will certainly appeal to the target market that would perhaps buy a Corsa VXR, but I doubt they would be in the market for what sounds like a £30k motor.
To be honest, it looks like a car that would be rather embarrassing to be seen in. Some of the earlier Type R Civics put the emphasis on the engineering rather than being overtly ostentatious, and better for it. IMHO obviously.
Oh, and isn't top speed irrelevant really, outside of Top Trumps anyway?
Will certainly appeal to the target market that would perhaps buy a Corsa VXR, but I doubt they would be in the market for what sounds like a £30k motor.
To be honest, it looks like a car that would be rather embarrassing to be seen in. Some of the earlier Type R Civics put the emphasis on the engineering rather than being overtly ostentatious, and better for it. IMHO obviously.
Oh, and isn't top speed irrelevant really, outside of Top Trumps anyway?
The point was IMHO the Civic looks rather over the top, and the market has generally moved away from vulgar bodykits, lairy spoilers and the rather Max Power type look that used to be popular. Even with the "Chavs" as you call them, your words not mine.
It might well appeal to some people, but I feel most people spending £30k don't tend to plaster their S3s/Golf R/M135s with huge spoilers etc. But I'm sure you know better.
Edited by GTEYE on Thursday 12th February 16:16
zeppelin101 said:
Have you seen some information that nobody else has? There are no powertrain specs available beyond it being a 2.0l turbo. Yet apparently everyone in this thread has come to the conclusion that it will be crap.
To reiterate an earlier point, there has never been a bad engine in a Type-R badged car. Not once. 7000 rpm is hardly lowly given that most of the competitors are making peak power 5500-6250 rpm.
For the people who are suggesting that low RPM boost threshold and high RPM power are not mutually exclusive, I suggest you research how a turbocharger works... You can have low end torque (as in 2000 rpm and 90% of peak torque is available) or lots of power. Large turbos blow the low end torque but are great for top end power. The likes of the Skyline/Supra etc are bad examples as they are large capacity multi-turbo engines, the latter with a complex sequential setup.
Also, twin scroll turbine housings and manifolds do not magically make a turbocharged engine incredible. All it means is that the turbine wheel is fed more efficiently at low exhaust flows but they suffer at high exhaust flows! They are not a magic bullet.
I didn't say it was crap did I?To reiterate an earlier point, there has never been a bad engine in a Type-R badged car. Not once. 7000 rpm is hardly lowly given that most of the competitors are making peak power 5500-6250 rpm.
For the people who are suggesting that low RPM boost threshold and high RPM power are not mutually exclusive, I suggest you research how a turbocharger works... You can have low end torque (as in 2000 rpm and 90% of peak torque is available) or lots of power. Large turbos blow the low end torque but are great for top end power. The likes of the Skyline/Supra etc are bad examples as they are large capacity multi-turbo engines, the latter with a complex sequential setup.
Also, twin scroll turbine housings and manifolds do not magically make a turbocharged engine incredible. All it means is that the turbine wheel is fed more efficiently at low exhaust flows but they suffer at high exhaust flows! They are not a magic bullet.
7000rpm is the rev limit not where its making peak power? I know how a turbo work thanks.
I also didn't suggest twin scrolls where a magic solution either.. merely that I was expecting Honda to implement a better solution, with a high rev limit
GTEYE said:
The point was IMHO the Civic looks rather over the top, and the market has generally moved away from vulgar bodykits, lairy spoilers and the rather Max Power type look that used to be popular. Even with the "Chavs" as you call them, your words not mine.
It might well appeal to some people, but I feel most people spending £30k don't tend to plaster their S3s/Golf R/M135s with huge spoilers etc. But I'm sure you know better.
And yet people have posted that they would like a choice and something different from the norm.It might well appeal to some people, but I feel most people spending £30k don't tend to plaster their S3s/Golf R/M135s with huge spoilers etc. But I'm sure you know better.
Good point SS7 - no confirmation on quantity of turbos installed as yet. Twin turbo 4 cylinders are not common thou as you know, perhaps Variable Vane as used in the GT2? Might be pricey thou as petrol engines and VGT don't mix well. Maybe Honda have found a supplier of a turbo can handle VGT temps and be cost effective?
German hot hatches don't have lairy styling - Ford ones and Honda ones, it would seem, do. So what? Maybe not everyone wants that buttoned down accountant's express aesthetic. Maybe they don't want it to be mistaken for an optioned up diesel.
Not my cup of tea, but then neither are the German options.
Not my cup of tea, but then neither are the German options.
Dagnut said:
I didn't say it was crap did I?
7000rpm is the rev limit not where its making peak power? I know how a turbo work thanks.
I also didn't suggest twin scrolls where a magic solution either.. merely that I was expecting Honda to implement a better solution, with a high rev limit
The highly negative nature of your posts on the car in question would suggest you think it will be brilliant then? Er...7000rpm is the rev limit not where its making peak power? I know how a turbo work thanks.
I also didn't suggest twin scrolls where a magic solution either.. merely that I was expecting Honda to implement a better solution, with a high rev limit
The "better solution" is not cost effective at this price point yet.
Axionknight said:
macky17 said:
FN2 has the most God-awful, unforgiving ride of any car I've ever driven. Great engine and gearbox though. Handling not as bad as they say.
The 19 inch optional alloys ruin the ride totally - a friend has one that had them on and he's swapped 'em out for some 18s and the ride is far far better. Firm but acceptable IMO.When I tried a CTR (FN2) on 18 inchers I thought they'd forgotten the suspension! Bloody awesome gearbox and that engine...
I couldn't live with that ride though.I'm hoping this CTR will ride better enough to make it viable. That's not to say that it should be soft, but it would need decent damping to get around the Nurburgring quickly or else Renaultsport wouldn't have opted for Ohlins. I felt that insufficient compliance in an FN2 limited the control and precision with which I could drive on a bumpy B Road road. The purists may say that Type R's shouldn't have suspension
but how this CTR is damped and suspended will determine its worth for B Road fun as much as the engine character.I really want them to get this right, and with a couple of days off work possibly coming up I'm bloody tempted to fly to Geneva for a look...
No, I can't afford a new one. Please God let them depreciate like a beige Yugo... but I doubt they will.
SR06 said:
It had more cheap plastic than an own-brand HIFI. A torqueless rattling turd of a creation.
Compared to what? Which paragon of the hot hatch class are you comparing it to? The Golf GTi?The FN2 was not a bad car. It wasn't exactly a blinder by Honda but it was not a bad car. People seem to forget that it was nearly as good to drive as the EP3, and has a flashier interior and a lower VTEC engagement to take some of the 'spirit' out of it. It's fair to say that it was not the evolution that the Civic Type R needed, but it was damn near close to being as good as the car that came before it.
Baryonyx said:
SR06 said:
It had more cheap plastic than an own-brand HIFI. A torqueless rattling turd of a creation.
Compared to what? Which paragon of the hot hatch class are you comparing it to? The Golf GTi?came be
The FN2 was not a bad car. It wasn't exactly a blinder by Honda but it was not a bad car.
dinkel said:
I'm surprised the R comes with a turboed 2 litre.
The Ariel Atom has this setup: 365-bhp turbocharged Honda K24Z7 i-VTEC.
Isn't the Atom Supercharged? Or have they moved on from that? I thought they manufactured the boosted Atom's with Rotrex's.... Or was that the K20 Atom's?The Ariel Atom has this setup: 365-bhp turbocharged Honda K24Z7 i-VTEC.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff