RE: Honda Civic Type R - more details

[Guvernator]

sinbad666 said:

Guvernator said:

Have to agree with some other posters, a 7k rpm limit is pretty disappointing for a Type R. It needs another 1000rpm and that power delivery needs to be top end heavy and not the usual diesel-alike delivery of almost every other 2 litre turborcharged car available today, otherwise it's not a Type R as far as I'm concerned.

Ferrari, M3, M5, M6, Porsche, renault sport have all gone turbo instead of high revving NA. Yet there still selling in large numbers. Honda have been making turbo cars for decades, there F1 engine is a 1.6 turbo, and it would be stupid not to use that investment in tech to put on there road cars.

Well done for missing my point completely. I wasn't complaining that it's gone turbocharged as that was almost inevitable. What I am complaining about is that they keep saying "it will still feel like a Type R" and yet it looks like it's already down 1000rpm and I suspect the power delivery will be your typical turbocharged slugs of low down torque and no power at the top end delivery which again isn't what a Type R is about.

I really hope Honda prove me wrong and actually have the balls to produce a turbocharged engine with exciting power delivery (yes it can be done) but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect this will feel like a Golf in a chavvy frock.

[sinbad666]

Apologies for missing your point.

Let's hope your right.

Looking at the clocks there's no reason the +R button can't raise the power/Rev limit given that the Rev limit is illuminated on the clocks if you look closely.

Edited by sinbad666 on Wednesday 11th February 11:42

[SuperchargedVR6]

StottyEvo said:

Calza said:

Very disappointed at the 7k redline, Get another 1k on that please!

I agree with this. Part of Honda's identity is high revving engines!

It must have a hell of a lot of power for a 167mph top speed though.

Nothing a big turbo and remap can't fix, unless the valvetrain has a mechanical limit. If they're using a weeny cotton reel sized snail like VAG do (for midrange torque) then it will just choke at 7K+.

340hp will get you well past 160mph if the aero and gearing are there. My Edition 30 GTI will do it (remapped and delimited).

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Wednesday 11th February 11:48

[greggy50]

StottyEvo said:

I agree with this. Part of Honda's identity is high revving engines!

It must have a hell of a lot of power for a 167mph top speed though.

Golf R is claimed to do 168mph de-limited according to VW so I would guess in the 300 - 320 range myself

[Guvernator]

Perhaps but I suspect the rev limit will be stuck at 7000rpm as high revs are crap for emissions and we all know how important they are these days. 7000rpm is still better than most turbocharged engines though so I am really hoping that Honda map\tune this engine to use all of those revs and not just the first 4000-5000 like most turbocharged cars these days.

I'm not sure who decreed that all turbocharged cars should drive like diesels, sure I know this easy low-mid end power has it's fans but a little choice would be great. I hate the fact that without even getting into a modern turbo car, I can guess how it will drive in terms of power delivery and when I do drive them I am proven right within 10 seconds of setting off.

Edited by Guvernator on Wednesday 11th February 11:55

[Oz83]

PunterCam said:

Too big, heavy, and old fashioned.

I've owned these "mid-sized" fast hatchbacks for 10 years now - the r26 and the breadvan type r were fantastic, because they were neutral, unassuming fun cars. But now there's nothing on the market that doesn't shout "wker". It's not the driver I'm talking about, it's the cars... They look like the car equivalent of a prick.

Look how fast I am, look at my 19" alloy wheels (on a fking hatch?!), look at my 2, 4, 6 exhausts with no noise coming out of them... It's boring. And then there's the real stter: they're not any fun. Mazda 3 MPS, original golf r, and an astra vxr - my last three cars. They're all st. Very fast, but not once did I feel an ounce of movement - they just gripped and went, wet or dry. To feel anything resembling excitement I had to be doing well over 100 on an A or B road, and even then it was more nervous fear of being caught...

The fiesta sized club is where to put your money these days if you want some fun, and aren't just buying to look like a man. I'm more interested in a potential new rs twingo tbh.

And 167mph. All that does is cost more in tyres... So it will be limited to 155mph. Guaranteed.

This man speaks the truth!

greggy50 said:

Also new meganne due in 18 months (ish) and it will no doubt move the goal posts on from this anyway in terms of performance etc if you want fwd thrills...

Like the Clio RS did?

[greggy50]

Oz83 said:

Like the Clio RS did?

After the sales flop that the Clio has been I would be amazed if they fk up the new meganne to be honest

The 275 Trophy proves they have still got it and that came after the new Clio. To be honest tried a clio and is really only the gearbox that kills the car if it had been fitted with a manual I would have preferred it to the Fiesta ST I can't see them making the same mistake again!

[Doodlebug87]

I haven't seen much so far that excites me about this iteration - but it is growing on me I must admit. The rev limit is disappointing, but Honda would be mental to deliver all of the poke in the midrange as that really isn't what a Type R is about, it needs to pull all the way to the limiter otherwise it will just be another boring, lazy turbo on the market with nothing to differentiate from the competition. Honda know what they are doing and they know that they will lose the hardcore following if they screw it up, so I wouldn't put it past them to come up with the goods. Still think they should have gone down the supercharger route, the way the Rotrex delivers power in my FN2 is perfect - boost increases intrinsically with rev's, meaning it still drives like a Type R should, but on steroids....

[SuperchargedVR6]

Guvernator said:

Perhaps but I suspect the rev limit will be stuck at 7000rpm as high revs are crap for emissions and we all know how important they are these days. 7000rpm is still better than most turbocharged engines though so I am really hoping that Honda map\tune this engine to use all of those revs and not just the first 4000-5000 like most turbocharged cars these days.

I'm not sure who decreed that all turbocharged cars should drive like diesels, sure I know this easy low-mid end power has it's fans but a little choice would be great. I hate the fact that without even getting into a modern turbo car, I can guess how it will drive in terms of power delivery and when I do drive them I am proven right within 10 seconds of setting off.

Edited by Guvernator on Wednesday 11th February 11:55

Yep, the Golf R makes 40lbft more torque at 1800rpm than the old Golf R32 made at 2800rpm! It's all about making (very) rapid progress ridiculously easy for the masses. Depending on how Honda map it, it will definitely still feel 'peaky' compared to a VAG turbo engine, but the party will end 1000rpm sooner.

[W124]

This is Honda. They've bet the farm on this car. It will be a. wildly expensive and b. insanely brilliant. There is no way they are not going to beat the Leon/RS - they HAVE to. To get it up to near on 170MPH they will be looking at much more power than they are letting on. They'll probably lose money on the ones they sell - close on 40k I reckon. They won't care though. This is about corporate prestige. If you've ever driven the last shape Mugen Civic R, and I have, you'll understand. Different kettle of fish this.

[alexpa]

Terminator X said:

You just know this will be good! 7k rev limit a tad disappointing though given that we used to own a DC2 and DC5 ITR

TX.

Edit - rear detail left out from pics? They must keep that "devil" rear end!

Had a DC2 also. UK car with stock JDM ECU settings = 9000 rpm cut off.

Seriously Honda need (we need!) a new Integra Type R, more DC2 than DC5 though please. Why not with a reverse of the new NSX drivetrain- gas to the front wheels, electric motors at the back..

[renaultgeek]

anyone else think it's too fast?

[sinbad666]

renaultgeek said:

anyone else think it's too fast?

No.

It's just keeping up with the competition.

If your talking about its top speed Anything over 120mph is too fast in reality. Which would rule out a standard diesel mondeo and pretty much most cars with an engine over 1.6 litres

[StottyEvo]

greggy50 said:

StottyEvo said:

I agree with this. Part of Honda's identity is high revving engines!

It must have a hell of a lot of power for a 167mph top speed though.

Golf R is claimed to do 168mph de-limited according to VW so I would guess in the 300 - 320 range myself

I'd agree, I just expected 260-290 absolute tops for this car!

[eg6-b18c6]

I think one exciting thing about this car is how much tuning porential the engine will have. Honda engines always seem to be very well/over engineered (500 bhp stock block k20's/ highest stock block f20c I recall seeing was 626 at the wheels IIRC) so a remap/maybe some injectors and a turbo should see some very quick cars I would imagine.

Just need a few people to start crashing them so I can get an engine for an old EF/EG, and build a reliable, efficient 400bhp/ton monster daily driver

[eg6-b18c6]

I think one exciting thing about this car is how much tuning porential the engine will have. Honda engines always seem to be very well/over engineered (500 bhp stock block k20's/ highest stock block f20c I recall seeing was 626 at the wheels IIRC) so a remap/maybe some injectors and a turbo should see some very quick cars I would imagine.

Just need a few people to start crashing them so I can get an engine for an old EF/EG, and build a reliable, efficient 400bhp/ton monster daily driver

[SaqibCTR]

Will be interesting to see the final spec. Mechanical diff? Kerb weight? Torsion beam? Etc.

It doesn't need lots of power to be fast and fun; lightweight cars is what Type R is about.

[greggy50]

StottyEvo said:

I'd agree, I just expected 260-290 absolute tops for this car!

I suspect Honda had that in mind initially and have probably had to add more power on throughout its development just to keep up.

Hot hatches have moved in a lot last 3/4 years I remember 220/230hp used to be big power now 300+ is becoming the norm and they won't want to be seen as falling behind especially given all the claims about it being the quickest car on the ring etc...

[filski666]

Article said:

"exceptional high speed stability and high levels of downforce" as contributory factors in a pretty damned impressive top speed figure of 167mph

If it is creating lots of downforce, that will REDUCE the top speed, not contribute to an inexpressively high one!

[sinbad666]

filski666 said:

If it is creating lots of downforce, that will REDUCE the top speed, not contribute to an inexpressively high one!

Agreed, I think pistonheads have made a mistake there as the honda wording says "aerodynamic performance". Basically high downforce low drag