RE: New Civic Type R details

[Rustiebin]

Perhaps it will have a road going version of their new 1.6 Turbo engine for F1. Mildly detuned to 600bhp. But knowing Honda of late i doubt it will be anything decent. Which is hard to say for a previous Honda Accord Type R owner.

[otolith]

sinbad666 said:

Is that common sense I smell lol

Dunno, nobody picked up my mental arithmetic failure!

[Bladedancer]

RIP K20.

Thanks EU! I hope green idiots are happy now.

[Bladedancer]

Rustiebin said:

Perhaps it will have a road going version of their new 1.6 Turbo engine for F1. Mildly detuned to 600bhp.

And you'd have to do a rebuild every 1000 miles or so.

[CAMELZED]

Any chance of using English. I am sick of having to use the Urban Dictionary for terms like "the skinny" (explain the etymology please) and the (quiz like) american habit of abbreviating everything like "T and Cs.
We are not all teenagers in a "hood".
I am sure any Honda type R will be worth the wait and will be technologically brilliant.

[CraigyMc]

Bladedancer said:

Rustiebin said:

Perhaps it will have a road going version of their new 1.6 Turbo engine for F1. Mildly detuned to 600bhp.

And you'd have to do a rebuild every 1000 miles or so.

Not so. In 2014 each car only gets 5 engines for the whole season, and each of those engines will have to run for at least 4000km.

Renault has already been talking to LMP1 teams about supplying them since the distances just became sensible (you need just over 5000km for an LPM1 engine at Le Mans).

C

[hawox]

honda civic without v-tech is like mick jegger without keith richards.
i've driven the '93 civic, it was orrible with a stupid rear trunk, orrible interiors and not even that funny to drive but best engine ever fitted to a compact car. i've owned the 98 civic and it wasn't perfect either slow steereing, too low suspension but again fantastic engine. the "van" civic maybe the best one but really really ugly. also the old version wasn't exactly a beauty to my eyes, nobody fell in love with the handling, the futuristic interiors are ridiculous.
seriously i can't see where are they going.

[CraigyMc]

hawox said:

honda civic without v-tech .....

AAargh

This post brought to you by the letters I, Q and the number 78.



Sent from my vtech

[Imafreeman]

CraigyMc said:

AAargh

This post brought to you by the letters I, Q and the number 78.



Sent from my vtech

snigger
not just me making a typo then

[Mastodon2]

hawox said:

honda civic without v-tech is like mick jegger without keith richards.
i've driven the '93 civic, it was orrible with a stupid rear trunk, orrible interiors and not even that funny to drive but best engine ever fitted to a compact car. i've owned the 98 civic and it wasn't perfect either slow steereing, too low suspension but again fantastic engine. the "van" civic maybe the best one but really really ugly. also the old version wasn't exactly a beauty to my eyes, nobody fell in love with the handling, the futuristic interiors are ridiculous.
seriously i can't see where are they going.

V-what? Mick who?

[richtea78]

hawox said:

honda civic without v-tech is like mick jegger without keith richards.
i've driven the '93 civic, it was orrible with a stupid rear trunk, orrible interiors and not even that funny to drive but best engine ever fitted to a compact car. i've owned the 98 civic and it wasn't perfect either slow steereing, too low suspension but again fantastic engine. the "van" civic maybe the best one but really really ugly. also the old version wasn't exactly a beauty to my eyes, nobody fell in love with the handling, the futuristic interiors are ridiculous.
seriously i can't see where are they going.

Maybe you could move the h to orrible?

Incoming blame Dyslexia

[RocketRabbit]

Alfa159Ti said:

Thats fine in theory, but clearly in real world driving

I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.

Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'

I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :

[Mr Whippy]

RocketRabbit said:

Alfa159Ti said:

Thats fine in theory, but clearly in real world driving

I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.

Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'

I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :

You don't even need to write a big article.

Just ignore torque, look at power. Tadaaa!

An S2000 has 240bhp so it's about as fast as other cars with 240bhp and similar weight.

I guess that is why power is the headline figure

Dave

[Durzel]

Rustiebin said:

Perhaps it will have a road going version of their new 1.6 Turbo engine for F1. Mildly detuned to 600bhp. But knowing Honda of late i doubt it will be anything decent. Which is hard to say for a previous Honda Accord Type R owner.

That would be fantastic but I'm not sure the market would be receptive to a £100k+ Honda hatchback

I also agree that on past form there is a danger it will be very lukewarm, but I'm still trying to be optimistic. I don't like the "evolution" of the car from the EP3 to the FN2, so Honda will have to work hard to get back my trust

This new one will need at least 250-260BHP to compete I think, preferably turbo or supercharged (i.e. taking some cues from F1)

[Kozy]

CraigyMc said:

hawox said:

honda civic without v-tech .....

AAargh

[Andy ap]

The sandpit saga continues. Wheres harry hill when you need him? (err....) turbo vs na, who will win? Theres only one way to find out! Fiiiight!!!! .....Oh wait we allready are.

[Ali_T]

Bladedancer said:

RIP K20.

Thanks EU! I hope green idiots are happy now.

It was a decent engine, but not as good as the F20C, B16A or B18C IMHO.

[Ali_T]

RocketRabbit said:

I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.

Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'

I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :

Same argument people used against rotaries for years. Most people fail to realise the very simple fact that power, which makes cars go, is directly proportional to BOTH torque AND rpm. Hence a high torque diesel makes such lousy bhp figures compared to the same engine in petrol form. Diesels require high torque because they can't rev.

Edited by Ali_T on Saturday 27th July 11:30

[NoelWatson]

NGK210 said:

C'mon folks, turbo engines aren't that bad, we already have an AMG 2.0-litre four that delivers 360bhp and 332lb-ft, with 161g/km and an NEDC combined of 40mpg - the future actually looks bright, surely?

I would question how much the engine will cost to run once out of warranty, and whether it suffers from carbon build up that causes efficiency/power loss.

[NoelWatson]

Mr Whippy said:

RocketRabbit said:

Alfa159Ti said:

Thats fine in theory, but clearly in real world driving

I love this real world driving thing. When I had my S2000, in the real world no less, I could triple the torque to the rear wheels in under a second by manipulating a lever in my left hand. This i'd go straight to the car's power band, thus i'd accelerate nice and quickly.

Never did I think 'Hmm, 4th gear at 45mph and I need to overtake - engine could do with a bit more torque because changing gear on one of the best manual boxes ever is such a chore....'

I wrote this article several years ago after getting annoyed at the 'Top Gear Torques' brigade :

You don't even need to write a big article.

Just ignore torque, look at power. Tadaaa!

An S2000 has 240bhp so it's about as fast as other cars with 240bhp and similar weight.

I guess that is why power is the headline figure

Dave

Depends on shape of the power curve and gearing.