RE: Honda Civic Type R

[ferrisbueller]

Mr Whippy said:

ferrisbueller said:

Mr Whippy said:

In a way, I found the older Jordan Civic and my GTi6 'felt' faster because they built up a bit as you revved longer. The CTR (older shape) and ST170 on the other hand, with their wide flat torque outputs, feel less alive at the top-end because the push was pretty much the same back down at 2000rpm where you started off.

Dave

There is a stark contrast between performance of a CTR at 2000 rpm vs 6000rpm. Even with 3.2 litres vtec gives a definite dual personality. Conversely my 306GTi always felt more linear in delivery and did not have anything like the Jekyl and Hyde contrast of a vtec.

Last dyno I saw (of a guys CTR before he tuned it up lots (tunes them for a living afaik)) of a CTR showed it had ~ same toruqe at 2000rpm as it did at 6000rpm, then has a small 5-10lbft rise at about 6000>6500rpm, then it drops down to about 140lbft around 7500-8000rpm.

I think the contrast of delivery is more down to the steepness of the power curve and rate of change of acceleration over the rev range.

Also the expectation that the engine won't push as hard as it does right through the rev range as it does at peak power, makes linear output engines feel really top-end revvy, but infact they are just holding onto their torque better because of the VTEC.

I do realise the S2000 engine and the 3.2 V6 are much more characteristic though, with a real step from a low rpm cam to a high power cam, but the CTR just isn't that bad at all, infact I think as engines go it's a bloody great approach. Just people's perceptions paint it in a bad light as if it's revvy. Yes it's revvy, but it's also damn torquey just like the E46 M3's engine!

Dave

Agreed and the i-Vtec on the CTR does a better job of smoothing the transition between the cams; it is still noticeable though, through the change in noise as much as a kick in the back. The later CTR is smoother still but the change is still evident. However, non i-Vtec engines display a much more definitive change.

The only power curves I have for a vtec engine are from the sales brochure for the 2.2 vtec in the 1992 Prelude (For whatever reason the later generation Prelude and the NA1 and NA2 NSX brochures quote figures but don't show curves). Those curves show the broad flat curve afforded by vtec and the gains in power reaped courtesy of having the airflow optimised higher up the rev range on the 2nd cam.

The Prelude I had was a completely different animal depending where you were in the rev range but it was a good engine anywhere on the tacho (it was the quality of the Honda engine that left me cursing the Peugeot's subjective lack of it). The NSX is often panned for its paucity of torque; can't say I've ever noticed it - unless comparing it to a very large capacity NA or a strong TDi. However, C32B too is a very different animal in the final 3rd of the rev range. The multi faceted personality is part of the appeal.

[NoelWatson]

ferrisbueller said:

Mr Whippy said:

ferrisbueller said:

Mr Whippy said:

In a way, I found the older Jordan Civic and my GTi6 'felt' faster because they built up a bit as you revved longer. The CTR (older shape) and ST170 on the other hand, with their wide flat torque outputs, feel less alive at the top-end because the push was pretty much the same back down at 2000rpm where you started off.

Dave

There is a stark contrast between performance of a CTR at 2000 rpm vs 6000rpm. Even with 3.2 litres vtec gives a definite dual personality. Conversely my 306GTi always felt more linear in delivery and did not have anything like the Jekyl and Hyde contrast of a vtec.

Last dyno I saw (of a guys CTR before he tuned it up lots (tunes them for a living afaik)) of a CTR showed it had ~ same toruqe at 2000rpm as it did at 6000rpm, then has a small 5-10lbft rise at about 6000>6500rpm, then it drops down to about 140lbft around 7500-8000rpm.

I think the contrast of delivery is more down to the steepness of the power curve and rate of change of acceleration over the rev range.

Also the expectation that the engine won't push as hard as it does right through the rev range as it does at peak power, makes linear output engines feel really top-end revvy, but infact they are just holding onto their torque better because of the VTEC.

I do realise the S2000 engine and the 3.2 V6 are much more characteristic though, with a real step from a low rpm cam to a high power cam, but the CTR just isn't that bad at all, infact I think as engines go it's a bloody great approach. Just people's perceptions paint it in a bad light as if it's revvy. Yes it's revvy, but it's also damn torquey just like the E46 M3's engine!

Dave

Agreed and the i-Vtec on the CTR does a better job of smoothing the transition between the cams; it is still noticeable though, through the change in noise as much as a kick in the back. The later CTR is smoother still but the change is still evident. However, non i-Vtec engines display a much more definitive change.

The only power curves I have for a vtec engine are from the sales brochure for the 2.2 vtec in the 1992 Prelude (For whatever reason the later generation Prelude and the NA1 and NA2 NSX brochures quote figures but don't show curves). Those curves show the broad flat curve afforded by vtec and the gains in power reaped courtesy of having the airflow optimised higher up the rev range on the 2nd cam.

The Prelude I had was a completely different animal depending where you were in the rev range but it was a good engine anywhere on the tacho (it was the quality of the Honda engine that left me cursing the Peugeot's subjective lack of it). The NSX is often panned for its paucity of torque; can't say I've ever noticed it - unless comparing it to a very large capacity NA or a strong TDi. However, C32B too is a very different animal in the final 3rd of the rev range. The multi faceted personality is part of the appeal.

Put my NSX on the rolling road last week and the torque curve was extremely flat - you couldn't tell when the VTEC kicked in - peak torque was around 6300 rpm.

Edited to say - my car is a spitting image of yours - 2004 LBB

Edited by NoelWatson on Friday 16th November 10:43

[otolith]

Lots of dyno graphs here : http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29&List=C-L , including the EP3. Absolute power figures from RRI's machines seem to be between flywheel and rolling road figures; they include transmission losses, but don't have losses at the tyre/roller interface. Interesting for comparison purposes between RRI graphs, though.

Edited by otolith on Wednesday 28th November 16:40

[NoelWatson]

otolith said:

Lots of dyno graphs here : http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29&List=C-L , including the EP3. Absolute power figures from RRI's machines seem to be between flywheel and rolling road figures; they include transmission losses, but don't have losses at the tyre/roller interface. Interesting for comparison purposes between RRI graphs, though.

Edited by otolith on Wednesday 28th November 16:40

A few of us on NSXCB are going on this type of rolling road early next year so it will be interesting to see numbers

[Yugguy]

Well as I'm firmly in the camp of turbos having no business being anywhere near a hot hatch, which should be n/a, rev-hungry, with instant throttle response it sounds like I'd like a CTR.

Speed isn't everything, it's all to do with how you get there. In a big car I want low-down grunt, in a hot hatch I want to feel that cam change high up in the rev range and everything go ballistic.

[BassMunkee]

Yugguy said:

Well as I'm firmly in the camp of turbos having no business being anywhere near a hot hatch, which should be n/a, rev-hungry, with instant throttle response it sounds like I'd like a CTR.

Speed isn't everything, it's all to do with how you get there. In a big car I want low-down grunt, in a hot hatch I want to feel that cam change high up in the rev range and everything go ballistic.

And you'll get that feeling a lot more with an EP3 than an FN2.
Oh and just to interject - Fully Synth 0w30 FTW.

[matthews677]

i changed the oil in my type r the other day and looking in the manual it recommends 5w 40 as a general use oil in the hand book. others are mentioned for certain temps etc but 5w40 is the across the board oil.
would recommend getting one though as i think the car is fanastic! only problem i have is i want more power now which is why im looking at an evo 6.

anyway good luck on getting a car if your still looking. enjoy driving one if you already have one

[sean19]

I would LOVE to have an EP3, Im still not a major fan of the new Type R, especially the dash.

However, being 20 I have a while to wait I think!

[adnoh]

Almost everything which has been said about the new CTR is correct depending on what you are looking for from the car. I have owned both versions and the new one is an infinitely better car for what I want. It is more GT than hot hatch and that is fine by me. One area it is not as good as the old model IMHO is in build quality as there are far too many rattles after only 4000 miles. I am also having tyre problems with the YOKO Advan Sports 225/35x19, with what appears to be an open tread joint on the NSF. Has anyone else experienced this?