RE: Honda Civic Type R generations: EP3 vs. FN2 vs. FK

[Evolved]

Butter Face said:

Hang on, do you really own an M3 CSL? You know, a high revving NA with variable timing and peak power at 7900rpm that's been superseded by turbo'd engines?

But you don't like VTEC engines?

I don't like M3's anyway, a mapped 335d makes more power and more torque with less drama. Makes more sense to me

And as for choosing a diesel over the CSL engine, I'd hand in your pistonheads badge on the way out.

[Alpinestars]

Evolved said:

Used to and there's a world of difference between a 2ltr 4pot and a 3.2 6 pot

The DC2 and especially the Mugen 20 are as brilliant as the CSL.

[Butter Face]

Evolved said:

Butter Face said:

Hang on, do you really own an M3 CSL? You know, a high revving NA with variable timing and peak power at 7900rpm that's been superseded by turbo'd engines?

But you don't like VTEC engines?


I don't like M3's anyway, a mapped 335d makes more power and more torque with less drama. Makes more sense to me

Used to and there's a world of difference between a 2ltr 4pot and a 3.2 6 pot

The comparison is the same. Why have a high revving NA 3.2 petrol when you could have had the diesel 3 litre turbo that could make more power and more torque? Because the high revving is part of what makes that car fun, the same with Honda VTEC engines. Great handling + high revs = fun. No?

[Evolved]

Butter Face said:

The comparison is the same. Why have a high revving NA 3.2 petrol when you could have had the diesel 3 litre turbo that could make more power and more torque? Because the high revving is part of what makes that car fun, the same with Honda VTEC engines. Great handling + high revs = fun. No?

Please stop comparing the S54 to the oil burner or I'll have to put you on block

My argument is, the VTEC 2ltr lumps were always gutless things! I've driven plenty of them back in the day, the 2 litre turbo lumps of the same vintage were always much more fun. My username will give away my preferred choice

[Evolved]

Alpinestars said:

The DC2 and especially the Mugen 20 are as brilliant as the CSL.

Brilliant yes no denying but gutless all the same, NA cars need capacity to give the smiles I like out of a car. It's only my preference and arguing until we are blue in the face won't change that

[Butter Face]

Evolved said:

Butter Face said:

The comparison is the same. Why have a high revving NA 3.2 petrol when you could have had the diesel 3 litre turbo that could make more power and more torque? Because the high revving is part of what makes that car fun, the same with Honda VTEC engines. Great handling + high revs = fun. No?

Please stop comparing the S54 to the oil burner or I'll have to put you on block

My argument is, the VTEC 2ltr lumps were always gutless things! I've driven plenty of them back in the day, the 2 litre turbo lumps of the same vintage were always much more fun. My username will give away my preferred choice

You can't compare an Evo to any Honda though. It's different car altogether.

My point is that you said you prefer a turbo'd car that gives you thrills without the drama, my point was that the CSL is the antithesis of that and that a derv 3 series would have suited you more.

Anyway, I'd rather have an Evo too, but they're another level of cost/tuning etc.

[rich85uk]

MRobbins1987 said:

I think that the people who rate the fn2 in high regard probably have little experience of the really good hot hatches, yes it's got a big boot and plenty of mod cons but so does a Vauxhall Vectra, it misses the mark in driving terms unless you throw a lot of money in it's direction for modifications (Mugen for example) 205's, 106/ 306 rallye's, DC2's/EK9's, Clio Williams/172/182 cup's would all show the FN2 up in terms of driving experience.

The FN2 needs to be compared against its direct competition at the time, MK5 Golf Gti, Mazda 3 MPS, Astra VXR, Focus ST, Megane R26 and Clio 197/200. Apart from the smaller Clio the FN2 was the lightest by a reasonable amount and handled better than everything except the Clio and perhaps the Megane. It also felt different and slightly over engineered compared to everything else in its class and dare i say a tiny bit special.Gearbox,engine,seats,handling all add to this

Granted the ride is about as harsh as it gets, it comes last when it comes to the daily commute and it really should of had the LSD and 220bhp as standard but its still a good hot hatch that is something different to the competition, and its unfair to compare it to older more simple hot hatches such as the 205,106 etc

[MRobbins1987]

Vyse said:

That wasn't a fact that I was disputing. I was comparing the FN2 and EP3, not the FN2 and other hatches that handle better.

And my firt post wasn't aimed at you directly, but others have suggested it's a good car, I'm just suggesting that maybe they should have a go in a car with feel, that rides well, that's exciting to understand why it receives a lot of criticism. An lsd version of the fn2 probably is quicker than an ep3 around a track, it doesn't make it better.

[Evolved]

Butter Face said:

Evolved said:

Butter Face said:

The comparison is the same. Why have a high revving NA 3.2 petrol when you could have had the diesel 3 litre turbo that could make more power and more torque? Because the high revving is part of what makes that car fun, the same with Honda VTEC engines. Great handling + high revs = fun. No?

Please stop comparing the S54 to the oil burner or I'll have to put you on block

My argument is, the VTEC 2ltr lumps were always gutless things! I've driven plenty of them back in the day, the 2 litre turbo lumps of the same vintage were always much more fun. My username will give away my preferred choice

You can't compare an Evo to any Honda though. It's different car altogether.

My point is that you said you prefer a turbo'd car that gives you thrills without the drama, my point was that the CSL is the antithesis of that and that a derv 3 series would have suited you more.

Anyway, I'd rather have an Evo too, but they're another level of cost/tuning etc.

Why can't I compare an evo to a Honda? Where's the rules stating I can't I get it, you're a Honda fan, but I aren't so our preferences will differ. No love lost though, it's what keep things interesting.

[Alpinestars]

Evolved said:

Brilliant yes no denying but gutless all the same, NA cars need capacity to give the smiles I like out of a car. It's only my preference and arguing until we are blue in the face won't change that

I wouldn't argue against preference at all. It's all very subjective. But the CSL is a great car in it's own right, but some of the type r's are equally as good. Different, but just as satisfying.

[Butter Face]

Evolved said:

Butter Face said:

Evolved said:

Butter Face said:

The comparison is the same. Why have a high revving NA 3.2 petrol when you could have had the diesel 3 litre turbo that could make more power and more torque? Because the high revving is part of what makes that car fun, the same with Honda VTEC engines. Great handling + high revs = fun. No?

Please stop comparing the S54 to the oil burner or I'll have to put you on block

My argument is, the VTEC 2ltr lumps were always gutless things! I've driven plenty of them back in the day, the 2 litre turbo lumps of the same vintage were always much more fun. My username will give away my preferred choice

You can't compare an Evo to any Honda though. It's different car altogether.

My point is that you said you prefer a turbo'd car that gives you thrills without the drama, my point was that the CSL is the antithesis of that and that a derv 3 series would have suited you more.

Anyway, I'd rather have an Evo too, but they're another level of cost/tuning etc.

Why can't I compare an evo to a Honda? Where's the rules stating I can't I get it, you're a Honda fan, but I aren't so our preferences will differ. No love lost though, it's what keep things interesting.

It's a bit like saying 'yeah and CSL is a good car, but a veyron is better'

The Honda is a souped up hatchback, the Evo is a 4wd turbo'd rally car (for all intents and purposes)
The CSL is a lightweight RWD souped up saloon, the veyron is a 4wd turbo'd supercar.

But yeah. Each to their own and all that.

[Evolved]

Alpinestars said:

I wouldn't argue against preference at all. It's all very subjective. But the CSL is a great car in it's own right, but some of the type r's are equally as good. Different, but just as satisfying.

And I wouldn't dream of trying to change your opinion, I do understand why people like them, I had friends that had the Mugens and the Jordan's but they just failed to impress me is all.

[MyVTECGoesBwaaah]

Love my EP3 which I use as a daily driver (40-50 miles each day). Surprisingly easy to drive at low revs (<5k) but when the mood takes you it is a right laugh ringing it out all the way up to 8k.

Will probably be an FN2 for me next, once the EP3 starts causing me trouble. On 95k at the moment and no sign of that, could easily last another 50k at least I reckon.

[Evolved]

Butter Face said:

It's a bit like saying 'yeah and CSL is a good car, but a veyron is better'

The Honda is a souped up hatchback, the Evo is a 4wd turbo'd rally car (for all intents and purposes)
The CSL is a lightweight RWD souped up saloon, the veyron is a 4wd turbo'd supercar.

But yeah. Each to their own and all that.

Hmm we will have to agree to disagree there

The evo and the Hondas of the same vintage were not that far removed, sure one had a 4 wheel drive system and a turbo but they were still the same capacity and cylinder count and cost wise not to dissimilar either. You could argue that it's taken Honda this long to catch on, like a lot of other manufacturers tbh as they've only just started bolting the turbos on.

I've a feeling we will be disagreeing all night at this rate so I'll say goodnight as I've got an Episode of the Americans calling.

[Butter Face]

Enjoy


Ps, the blacklist is better. Just sayin'

[otolith]

The S54 makes me think of 150% of a K20A. In a good way.

[Mr2Mike]

Evolved said:

You could argue that it's taken Honda this long to catch on, like a lot of other manufacturers tbh as they've only just started bolting the turbos on.

You could, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree entirely. Honda had the engineering nous and financial backing to be able develop razor sharp and super reliable normally aspirated engines which were (and still are) a delight to use, when other manufacturers were resorting to the blunt instrument that is the turbocharger.

Tuning a normally aspirated engine will only go so far for a road car, and since a horsepower war is being waged where big numbers (both power and weight) appear to be the target above all else, they had little choice but to join in.

[Leejay-B]

Some of these vtec vs turbo issues surround the whole FK concept being the first turbo Type R.

The N/A vtec has gone. This is a shame for me as I'm a big vtec fan.

But Honda had to do this in the current market, and have given the FK another level of performance. I don't think Honda will worry that some die hard vtec fans may be put off, as I'm sure many more will be happy now it has big power and easier tuning potential.

I'm curious to know what the FK feels like to drive. I'm a bit unsure with the mad looks, and many people think worse than that. I think Honda should offer a toned down version like a Subaru Impreza spec D. Basically a de spoilered version with the same power. Opens up more potential sales.

If the FK isn't for you and you want an N/A engine still - - - GT86 classed by some owners as a 'rwd EP3'.

[Leejay-B]

Mr2Mike said:

You could, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree entirely. Honda had the engineering nous and financial backing to be able develop razor sharp and super reliable normally aspirated engines which were (and still are) a delight to use, when other manufacturers were resorting to the blunt instrument that is the turbocharger.

Tuning a normally aspirated engine will only go so far for a road car, and since a horsepower war is being waged where big numbers (both power and weight) appear to be the target above all else, they had little choice but to join in.

It's a shame they didn't chuck some N/A K20's in the CRZ to say goodbye to such a good engine.

[Meridius]

The 'EF9' Civic SiR is probably my favourite. I do like a nice EP3 though, shame I barely ever see a decent one anymore. The new Civics are far too spaceship looking.