RE: Honda Civic Type R - more details
Discussion
Derek Chevalier said:
No it wouldn't.
They book at 5.9 to 60 and a top end of 163My friends dad has one and I have seen it pull an indicated 165 before we ran out of room on the speedo and to my knowledge it is a standard car apart from the factory re-call as many of them where not making anywhere near 300hp initially...
As mentioned VW claim the Golf R will pull 168 de-limited with 296hp as well which seems perfectly realistic to me hence why I said 167 is nothing particularly special and now more of a normal for these new 300hp ish super hatches of course 3/4 years ago that figure would be unbelievable it is just in terms of straight line speed things have moved on dramatically in a short space of time.
Edited by greggy50 on Wednesday 11th February 16:25
Derek Chevalier said:
Honda have already made a car with <300bhp that would do >165.
Hence i said, if there is there are very few.....greggy50 said:
They book at 5.9 to 60 and a top end of 163
My friends dad has one and I have seen it pull an indicated 165 before we ran out of room on the speedo and to my knowledge it is a standard car apart from the factory re-call as many of them where not making anywhere near 300hp initially...
As mentioned VW claim the Golf R will pull 168 de-limited with 296hp as well which seems perfectly realistic to me hence why I said 167 is nothing particularly special and now more of a normal for these new 300hp ish super hatches of course 3/4 years ago that figure would be unbelievable it is just in terms of straight line speed things have moved on dramatically in a short space of time.
And if your friends dads clocks are out by 10% that would mean it was only doing 148.5mphMy friends dad has one and I have seen it pull an indicated 165 before we ran out of room on the speedo and to my knowledge it is a standard car apart from the factory re-call as many of them where not making anywhere near 300hp initially...
As mentioned VW claim the Golf R will pull 168 de-limited with 296hp as well which seems perfectly realistic to me hence why I said 167 is nothing particularly special and now more of a normal for these new 300hp ish super hatches of course 3/4 years ago that figure would be unbelievable it is just in terms of straight line speed things have moved on dramatically in a short space of time.
Edited by greggy50 on Wednesday 11th February 16:25
VW can claim what they want but unless its offical then you can take that with a pince of salt. Ford claimed your freidns dads RS had 300bhp for example...
The potentially interesting bit which seems to be getting missed is that an official 167mph can be impressive if they have managed to still acheive relatively high downforce. which is what they are telling us they have done.
Edited by sinbad666 on Wednesday 11th February 16:34
sinbad666 said:
And if your friends dads clocks are out by 10% that would mean it was only doing 148.5mph
VW can claim what they want but unless its offical then you can take that with a pince of salt. Ford claimed your freidns dads RS had 300bhp for example...
The potentially interesting bit which seems to be getting missed is that an official 167mph can be impressive if they have managed to still acheive relatively high downforce. which is what they are telling us they have done.
It was 154 on the GPS but the car still had more to give and we had 3 people in the car not that weight makes much difference to top speed. Also it is officially 163 so just as relevant as the "official" 167mph of this Honda to be honest...VW can claim what they want but unless its offical then you can take that with a pince of salt. Ford claimed your freidns dads RS had 300bhp for example...
The potentially interesting bit which seems to be getting missed is that an official 167mph can be impressive if they have managed to still acheive relatively high downforce. which is what they are telling us they have done.
Don't see how its hard to believe a Golf R would not considering the GTI PP with 230hp books at 155mph and has 70hp less than the R it seems quite a slippy shape and could see an extra 70hp taking it to that figure.
Agree on 300hp thing but Ford soon recalled and dealt with that not a fan of the RS to be honest at all quite heavy and a bit vulgar but having been in one on that run personally in no doubt given enough space it would be a GPS 160+ car myself.
greggy50 said:
Don't see how its hard to believe a Golf R would not considering the GTI PP with 230hp books at 155mph and has 70hp less than the R it seems quite a slippy shape and could see an extra 70hp taking it to that figure.
top speed if the aero stays the same is exponential. So for example if it takes 100bhp to reach 100mph, it might take 110bhp to reach 105mph, 130bhp to reach 110mph, 160bhp to reach 115mph. Its not just a case of adding 10bhp for every 10mph increase.In regards to the gti verses the R, the gti may have less drag. Slimmer tyres, slimmer profile etc. and vice versa the R may have more drag.
As I pointed out earlier too which you seem to be missing is that the 167mph is supposedly acheievd with high downforce, something which the R may not have as much of.
Edited by sinbad666 on Wednesday 11th February 16:50
sinbad666 said:
top speed if the aero stays the same is exponential. So for example if it takes 100bhp to reach 100mph, it might take 110bhp to reach 105mph, 130bhp to reach 110mph, 160bhp to reach 115mph. Its not just a case of adding 10bhp for every 10mph increase.
In regards to the gti verses the R, the gti may have less drag. Slimmer tyres, slimmer profile etc.
I know that...In regards to the gti verses the R, the gti may have less drag. Slimmer tyres, slimmer profile etc.
GTI 220hp books at 152 with 230 it books at 155 so if you carried on that increase in theory with 300hp it should do 176mph if it was not for being exponential of course hence why to me the 168mph figure seems perfectly feasible.
As its suggesting 5.38hp per mph instead of 3.33hp per mph for the difference between the none and PP pack GTI.
The GTI and the R both run the same size wheels/tyres as standard.
greggy50 said:
I know that...
GTI 220hp books at 152 with 230 it books at 155 so if you carried on that increase in theory with 300hp it should do 176mph if it was not for being exponential of course hence why to me the 168mph figure seems perfectly feasible.
I never said it wasnt feasible. But there are not many cars that can achieve it sub 300bhp. As I said before its impressive given they are saying high levels of downforce. Its quite easy for something to go fast if its got low drag (motorbike for example) but to do high speed with high downforce thats the challenge. GTI 220hp books at 152 with 230 it books at 155 so if you carried on that increase in theory with 300hp it should do 176mph if it was not for being exponential of course hence why to me the 168mph figure seems perfectly feasible.
sinbad666 said:
I never said it wasnt feasible. But there are not many cars that can achieve it sub 300bhp. As I said before its impressive given they are saying high levels of downforce. Its quite easy for something to go fast if its got low drag (motorbike for example) but to do high speed with high downforce thats the challenge.
No figures in downforce just says "high downforce" until release figures it could mean f
k all...Same for power wont be surprised if this ends up over 300hp or they are very conservative with figure they state!
kambites said:
It'll be interesting to see how much downforce it actually generates. I'd be surprised if it's significant at UK road speeds.
Well, imagine a not a lot. They are claiming here that the good aero is minimal drag, hence the top speed bragging.Outside of supercars, road cars aren't low enough to benefit from any under body aero (splitter, flat floor, diffuser) so you're basically looking at a big wing or nout.
With people talking about the relative quality of the VW and the Ford, both could perhaps take a look at Honda with regards to quality, they seem pretty much indestructible, same with the motorbikes, where Suzukis seem to look a bit dog eared after a few years, the Hondas seem to weather better, certainly used to be the case.
It has to be in the same ball park price wise, if its much more expensive it wont stand a chance, especially being 2wd in a now 4wd marketplace.
It has to be in the same ball park price wise, if its much more expensive it wont stand a chance, especially being 2wd in a now 4wd marketplace.
hondansx said:
kambites said:
It'll be interesting to see how much downforce it actually generates. I'd be surprised if it's significant at UK road speeds.
Well, imagine a not a lot. They are claiming here that the good aero is minimal drag, hence the top speed bragging.Outside of supercars, road cars aren't low enough to benefit from any under body aero (splitter, flat floor, diffuser) so you're basically looking at a big wing or nout.
greggy50 said:
Derek Chevalier said:
No it wouldn't.
They book at 5.9 to 60 and a top end of 163My friends dad has one and I have seen it pull an indicated 165 before we ran out of room on the speedo and to my knowledge it is a standard car apart from the factory re-call as many of them where not making anywhere near 300hp initially...
As mentioned VW claim the Golf R will pull 168 de-limited with 296hp as well which seems perfectly realistic to me hence why I said 167 is nothing particularly special and now more of a normal for these new 300hp ish super hatches of course 3/4 years ago that figure would be unbelievable it is just in terms of straight line speed things have moved on dramatically in a short space of time.
Edited by greggy50 on Wednesday 11th February 16:25
I think redline is gonna be 7,600 or is it just the way the light is hitting the dials in the teaser pic, the R+ button must increase it slightly, but as stated over price is gonna be key?
What I still can't get my head around though, why is Honda doing this to a car that's been out since 2012, they'll never sell enough to make their money back on all the r&d unless it's been a test bed for something else too. The next Civic is meant to have an all new platform so I'm baffled as to why Honda chose this ugly mess to go extreme on??
What I still can't get my head around though, why is Honda doing this to a car that's been out since 2012, they'll never sell enough to make their money back on all the r&d unless it's been a test bed for something else too. The next Civic is meant to have an all new platform so I'm baffled as to why Honda chose this ugly mess to go extreme on??
Probably get cancelled before it even arrives for sale and the tech used for the next generation
It does seem very very late to build this car, it's like renault just bringing out the rs250 this Friday
It's gonna have to be absolutely unbelievable to not become a bit of a joke like the last civic type R that was slower than the previous before that type r oh and it looked like a beach ball with lights painted on it sorry but it did
Honda you are gonna get some stick if it isn't a revelation
It does seem very very late to build this car, it's like renault just bringing out the rs250 this Friday
It's gonna have to be absolutely unbelievable to not become a bit of a joke like the last civic type R that was slower than the previous before that type r oh and it looked like a beach ball with lights painted on it sorry but it did
Honda you are gonna get some stick if it isn't a revelation
Thunder18 said:
What I still can't get my head around though, why is Honda doing this to a car that's been out since 2012, they'll never sell enough to make their money back on all the r&d unless it's been a test bed for something else too. The next Civic is meant to have an all new platform so I'm baffled
The focus RS is using the platform from 2010...Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff