RE: Honda Civic Type R
Discussion
As a current Civic type R owner (and caterham) I find some of the views above interesting from what they haven't mentioned.
1 new car only 40KG heavier than the old, ditch the stereo/speakers and shelf -a dealer option aparently saves 40kg!
reduction in gearing is nominal apparently, the old car only does 20mph/1000revs, so what if its 18mph/1000 on the new one, at a ton you'll be doing 5555rpm not 5000, big deal.
the new car is more aerodynamic then the old - resistance increases with the square of speed - so the new cad will accelerate better at higher speeds and finally
the new one wares 225's not 205's so the extra weight will be more than offset bu the 10% extra grip.
Just my tuppence worth.
PS. I dont care what it looks like (though I think its OK) its the drive that matters, or has this site become more bling bling that petrolhead.
Leon
1 new car only 40KG heavier than the old, ditch the stereo/speakers and shelf -a dealer option aparently saves 40kg!
reduction in gearing is nominal apparently, the old car only does 20mph/1000revs, so what if its 18mph/1000 on the new one, at a ton you'll be doing 5555rpm not 5000, big deal.
the new car is more aerodynamic then the old - resistance increases with the square of speed - so the new cad will accelerate better at higher speeds and finally
the new one wares 225's not 205's so the extra weight will be more than offset bu the 10% extra grip.
Just my tuppence worth.
PS. I dont care what it looks like (though I think its OK) its the drive that matters, or has this site become more bling bling that petrolhead.
Leon
leonodell said:
1 new car only 40KG heavier than the old, ditch the stereo/speakers and shelf -a dealer option aparently saves 40kg!
And WHO is going to remove a parcel shelf (how noisy is the 350Z without one - boot acts as an echoic chamber) or the stereo? Even with the ITR (far more hardcore than this limp attempt), virtually ALL customers specified the optional stereo.
leonodell said:
reduction in gearing is nominal apparently, the old car only does 20mph/1000revs, so what if its 18mph/1000 on the new one, at a ton you'll be doing 5555rpm not 5000, big deal.
Gearing was already short and wearing at M-way speeds (compared to competition), this will only make it worse...and it will adversely affect fuel economy (as will the extra weight), especially if say 85mph is now in VTEC (they've dropped the VTEC cut-over, remember).
leonodell said:
the new car is more aerodynamic then the old - resistance increases with the square of speed - so the new cad will accelerate better at higher speeds and finally
the new one wares 225's not 205's so the extra weight will be more than offset bu the 10% extra grip.
the new one wares 225's not 205's so the extra weight will be more than offset bu the 10% extra grip.
And one will cancel the other out - rolling resistance from an extra 10% of contact (more as it appears 18"s are standard, so longer tyre footprint than 17"s) will offset any aero improvements.
And IMHO the old one had ENOUGH grip...they've done what most other manufacturers have done and confused (or deliberately substituted) grip for handling ability*.
* As an example...DC2 ITR wears 195/55 rubber. EP3 CTR wears 205/45 rubber with more modern tyres. CTR wheels/tyres will generate more grip than DC2 wheels/tyres. Yet on-track the ITR corners FASTER. Why? Because it's:-
- lighter
- lower c-o-g
- more sophisticated suspension set up (arms AND springs/dampers) which they TOOK TIME over.
...and the DC2 has a more compliant secondary ride as well.
Sadly, Honda really do appear to have made this on the cheap with the Marketing Dep't, not the Engineers, calling the shots. Honda is clearly no longer an engineering-led company.
havoc said:
Sadly, Honda really do appear to have made this on the cheap with the Marketing Dep't, not the Engineers, calling the shots. Honda is clearly no longer an engineering-led company.
Cheap is the word. So what exactly have they spent on the type-R??
Civic 06 platform [already developed]
Few changes to the bodywork [peanuts]
Tweak the suspension a bit [peanuts]
take existing K20A engine - re-map, tweak, re-calibrate, tweak, lighten flywheel (yep again?) [peanuts]
oh and add FBW throttle & VSA [already introduced on S2000, Accord, etc.] [peanuts]
have i missed anything?
and before you mention the ASBO, at least Ford have tried to shoe-horn a 5-cylinder Volvo engine into a Focus. that must have f*d up the handling a bit. if Honda attempted to drop the 190bhp 2.4 Accord lump in the Civic, i'd be slightly impressed; it wouldn't need a close ratio box either.
Right i'm going to get a 1-series. See what you have made me done now.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 31st January 11:40
Jizz Monkey said:
OR just get a diesel next time that's what tractors are for, lazy people.
Edited by Jizz Monkey on Tuesday 30th January 22:10
She tried the diesel actually, and the torque was OK to start with, but it won't rev any more so the party's over before it starts. Maybe if we stick the kid in the microwave he'll grow up faster and we can go back to having fun cars! I suppose I'd better just check that's OK with social services first.
davy9449 said:
mafioso said:
It's pretty horrible! Looks to big and high up! The dash is too complicated and digital. All you want from a driver's car is a wheel, three pedals and a stick! Non of this SAT NAV crap!! AND, it's FWD!!!
Well, you would say that driving a KA!!! possibly the worst car I have ever driven in the rain - on a par with my old Mk11 Fiesta!
Haha I was waiting for someone to say that! Remember my Ka is my first car and I'm not spending 25k plus on a car!! I'd rather have a 1-Series with a proper drivetrain if I had that much money!!
mafioso said:
Remember my Ka is my first car and I'm not spending 25k plus on a car!! I'd rather have a 1-Series with a proper drivetrain if I had that much money!!
Mafioso, there's a big difference between being able to spend £28k on a car (how much a 130i, decently-specced, will cost you) and £18k on a car (CTR GT). I would also argue that the 1-series is very poor value for money, and you'd be better off saving the £10k and getting a good hot-hatch (very little real-world performance difference).
I'm not going to defend this new CTR - I think it's a marketing abomination given what we all know Honda CAN do. But equally I think the 1-series is a marketing abomination aimed at people with more money than sense.
And I think that maybe you should research a bit more before posting comments like that...
I have clicked on the article, but I can't be bothered to read that review when there's a huge H in the background of the frontpage. I'd rather ask a Honda dealer for a brochure 
eta: the comments, however, make interesting reading. I shall not get a brochure from the dealer
eta: the comments, however, make interesting reading. I shall not get a brochure from the dealer
Edited by Bodo on Wednesday 31st January 14:24
fido - "oh and add FBW throttle & VSA [already introduced on S2000, Accord, etc.] [peanuts] "
The previous model Type-S which used a 160hp K20A engine was fitted with FBW throttle and VSA from late 2004 (I have a Sept.'05 example), so even less development needed for the latest Type-R Civic.
VSA is not just traction control, it is also stability control.
The previous model Type-S which used a 160hp K20A engine was fitted with FBW throttle and VSA from late 2004 (I have a Sept.'05 example), so even less development needed for the latest Type-R Civic.
VSA is not just traction control, it is also stability control.
it drives like!shame they could'nt have tweaked the engine to get a bit more power, seeing as the car's got heavier an the old type r engine, when shoved into a elise produces over 200hp an more torque to boot, an thats having been developed in the back of someone's shed so to speak, a company with honda's resouces surely 210bhp an 150lbft was'nt to much to ask from this latest revision to there engine
Polarbert said:
You'd at least think that PH could at least remain unbiast when conducting a reivew.
I think PH is unbiased when they conduct a review.
Spoiler
It's just that they publish reviews they've got from Honda's PR departmentBodo said:
Polarbert said:
You'd at least think that PH could at least remain unbiast when conducting a reivew.
I think PH is unbiased when they conduct a review.
Spoiler
It's just that they publish reviews they've got from Honda's PR department
"Honda is clearly no longer an engineering-led company. "
Whilst I agree in the context of this car, I don't think that's a fair way to view the whole company. I still admire them for doing a lot of things a different way and nto jsut doing what everyone else does.
I'd be interested to drive the 2.2 Ctd-i Civic. Having driven a CRV with the same motor, I can say that it wasn't that sluggish, and I imagine that boat weighed a bit more than the Civic.
Short gearing really used to irritate me with Hondas. I've never driven a Type-R, but even a standard 1.6 Sport thingy was wearing on a motorway. Why can't they make the 5th and 6th ratio progressively taller to give you some cruising gears, or am I missing some fundamental understanding of transmissions?
Ginger
Whilst I agree in the context of this car, I don't think that's a fair way to view the whole company. I still admire them for doing a lot of things a different way and nto jsut doing what everyone else does.
I'd be interested to drive the 2.2 Ctd-i Civic. Having driven a CRV with the same motor, I can say that it wasn't that sluggish, and I imagine that boat weighed a bit more than the Civic.
Short gearing really used to irritate me with Hondas. I've never driven a Type-R, but even a standard 1.6 Sport thingy was wearing on a motorway. Why can't they make the 5th and 6th ratio progressively taller to give you some cruising gears, or am I missing some fundamental understanding of transmissions?
Ginger
RDE said:
"Honda is clearly no longer an engineering-led company. "
Whilst I agree in the context of this car, I don't think that's a fair way to view the whole company. I still admire them for doing a lot of things a different way and nto jsut doing what everyone else does.
Whilst I agree in the context of this car, I don't think that's a fair way to view the whole company. I still admire them for doing a lot of things a different way and nto jsut doing what everyone else does.
I never said they didn't have capable and inventive engineers. I just said it was no longer LED by them. Honda was founded by someone who had petrol in his veins and oil under his fingernails, and since then that tradition had been upheld (metaphorically at least) for some time. Sadly recent events are shedding significant doubt on that.
I've no problem with the new design direction...since about 1999 (S2000), their design has been arguably the best from Japan (both previous and new Civics, current Accord, FR-V). But engineering seems to have suffered as a result (Jazz the last 'mainstream' car to have all-round double wishbone suspension - a long-time Honda feature; dumbing-down/taming of the 'Type-R' philosophy; ergonomics no longer the primary driver in the cabin (every Honda I've driven up to the EP3 had a very driver-focused and easy-to-use 'cockpit')
"not an engineer in based company"
Name me another manufacturer that produces an engine that revs to 8000rpm plus, the EP3 CTR doesn't soft cut to 8300rpm, and I dont believe this one does either, and now has service intervals of 12500 miles!
this is race engineering for the masses.
Yes the dc2 revs to over 9000 as does the s2000 but there use some very trick (in road car terms) materials and a lot of hans finishing that just isnt possible for a high volume model, I believe the ep3 ctr has sold approaching 30'000 units, that would be a lot of hand porting and there arent enough experts out there to do it.
with the new GT spec I expect them to sell even more, particularly at £18'500 although you can keep the auto everything and 'I can't park kit' as far as I am concerned.
If honda had taken the same approach with the new CTR it would have to cost circa £30'000est (integra dc2 in 1998 was £20'500 at 5% inlation over nine years 155.13%)
in my experience there areen't that many people willing to spend that kind of money on something as focused as the integra was - most of them seem to want 3 series beemers.
final thought, what was he dc2 geared to do per 1000rpm in top?
Name me another manufacturer that produces an engine that revs to 8000rpm plus, the EP3 CTR doesn't soft cut to 8300rpm, and I dont believe this one does either, and now has service intervals of 12500 miles!
this is race engineering for the masses.
Yes the dc2 revs to over 9000 as does the s2000 but there use some very trick (in road car terms) materials and a lot of hans finishing that just isnt possible for a high volume model, I believe the ep3 ctr has sold approaching 30'000 units, that would be a lot of hand porting and there arent enough experts out there to do it.
with the new GT spec I expect them to sell even more, particularly at £18'500 although you can keep the auto everything and 'I can't park kit' as far as I am concerned.
If honda had taken the same approach with the new CTR it would have to cost circa £30'000est (integra dc2 in 1998 was £20'500 at 5% inlation over nine years 155.13%)
in my experience there areen't that many people willing to spend that kind of money on something as focused as the integra was - most of them seem to want 3 series beemers.
final thought, what was he dc2 geared to do per 1000rpm in top?
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff