RE: Honda Civic Type R
Discussion
Doesn't the M5 V10 rev to over 8000rpm? What about the 4.2 in the RS4, 8250rpm? Fast versions of the Porsche 911? Ferrari F430? Toyota 1.8 VVTL?
For what it's worth, the marketing spec of the DC2 and the new CTR are totally different. The noise due to gear ratio of the DC2 is totally irrelavant, as they had no intention of selling to people who needed the car to be civilised. They had no intention of selling large numbers at all. The car was a showcase for providing a raw and accomplished driving experience from an everday Honda model, without it costing the earth.
Sadly the surprise success of the old CTR made Honda greedy, and as such the new CTR is born. Not to provide Hondas ultimate engineering from an everday package, but to provide ultimate marketing presence in a currently popular market segment. 'Type-R' will mean the same in a couple of years time as VW GTI did by 1996.
Just look at basic Type-R comparisons... 1996, Integra Type-R. Solution to traction and turn in? Fit a limited slip differential. 2007 Civic Type-R. Soultion to traction? Electronic VSA.
The supposed reply of the marketing guys at the recent launch when asked specifically about this made me cringe- "Why didn't we fit an LSD? Because we felt 99% of the owners wouldn't notice the diference". What kind of 'pure bred, racing philosophy' is this, if not one dreamt up solely for some spangly words on an overly glossy brochure?
For what it's worth, the marketing spec of the DC2 and the new CTR are totally different. The noise due to gear ratio of the DC2 is totally irrelavant, as they had no intention of selling to people who needed the car to be civilised. They had no intention of selling large numbers at all. The car was a showcase for providing a raw and accomplished driving experience from an everday Honda model, without it costing the earth.
Sadly the surprise success of the old CTR made Honda greedy, and as such the new CTR is born. Not to provide Hondas ultimate engineering from an everday package, but to provide ultimate marketing presence in a currently popular market segment. 'Type-R' will mean the same in a couple of years time as VW GTI did by 1996.
Just look at basic Type-R comparisons... 1996, Integra Type-R. Solution to traction and turn in? Fit a limited slip differential. 2007 Civic Type-R. Soultion to traction? Electronic VSA.
The supposed reply of the marketing guys at the recent launch when asked specifically about this made me cringe- "Why didn't we fit an LSD? Because we felt 99% of the owners wouldn't notice the diference". What kind of 'pure bred, racing philosophy' is this, if not one dreamt up solely for some spangly words on an overly glossy brochure?
leonodell said:
this is race engineering for the masses
Yeah, the engine.
What about the weight? Was that race engineered?
That exuberant fussy glorified dash, is that in the F1 cars or is it just gimmicky crap?
It's as much engineering as it is marketing and thats the issue, but now it's skewed towards being a marketing marvel rather than based primarily on it's engineering credentials.
The car had a brief on weight, it was more, and the engineers had to work around that. Now if the engineers had set the brief, and this car was a step **forward** it would have weighed less. Any engineer worth their pay cheque knows that is the easiest route to more performance all over!
It genuinely isn't that impressive any more from an engineering point of view. More a let down!
Dave
leonodell said:
"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?
Truly a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I said LED. LED! Twice!!!
And anyway:-
The B-series, K-series, and F-series engines were all designed in the 90's (when it probably was still engineering-led). No real advances in engine tech from Honda since then except a belated entry into common-rail diesels.
The B18C revs to 8,700 at the limiter. Only the early ones were hand-finished, limiting production. From about 1999 they made a machine that could polish the ports as well as a person.
F20C hits the limiter at 9,000, and is fully machine-built (in the way you mean, anyway). So you're MILES off the mark with those comments.
(I've owned both cars, FYI!)
As for inflation, please don't make figures up when you're arguing with an accountant. RPI has been rising by a LOT less than 5% p.a., and car prices have been rising even less than that.
So a £20,500 ITR in 1998 would equate now (off the top of my head) to no more than c.£23k...which would STILL be competitive...and a Civic VTi (which IMHO is what this is) (£16,500 IIRC...used to own one of them too!) would be about, ooh, £18,500!!! If you're really that bothered I'll dig the true RPI figures out and try and find some meaningful car-inflation figures.
mafioso said:
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!![/quote]
Ka is a superb handling car even in standard form, i had one for a year a while back due to free insurance and loved it, great first car, limits are low and easily exploitable, and the SportKa is even more fun too
As for the rest
1) did anyone do maths at all!? shorter gearing = more torque and therefore more power at the wheels, so it DOES offset the weight gain. It also means that it has as much torque at the wheels as most TDi's as they have super long gearing and torque limits in 1/2nd gears, so it not gutless, just drives different!
2) youll probably find AC is standard, climate is just fancy digital AC where you set the temp instead of hot/cold. And since the main complaint of everyone on the old EP3 was AC wasnt standard, and had a huge take up rate, would be surprised if it didnt have it, most £8k cars upwards do now
3) they have done some good stuff, stiffened the chassis as well as suspension, widened the track, these are all good changes and what they did to the other type R's too
4)LSD - look at the competition, there are only 2 others that are vaguely current (FRS and Megane 230) that have them, why should they bother too, if your that fussed get one fitted, will be £<1k
5)Weight - 40gk is less than average weight gain for the competitors, FST is about 150-200kg heavier than the FRS, 197 is about 150kg more than 182 etc etc. Its due to crash regs and size, its bigger and stronger but lighter, thats good to me
stop bloody web analysing cars and drive it, tis what i intend to do
retail price index. - HAhahahahahahahahah.
And Teflon Tonys' bunch of croneys are all clean living well adjusted individuals who will all answer a direct question with a straight answer.
that said I agree that this is more of a VTi than an 'R', if you are all that bothered about the dumbing down get lobbying Honda.
I wouldnt' mind betting for a back road blat it'll be better than the golf gti, pity about the lsd though
And Teflon Tonys' bunch of croneys are all clean living well adjusted individuals who will all answer a direct question with a straight answer.
that said I agree that this is more of a VTi than an 'R', if you are all that bothered about the dumbing down get lobbying Honda.
I wouldnt' mind betting for a back road blat it'll be better than the golf gti, pity about the lsd though
leonodell said:
retail price index. - HAhahahahahahahahah.
And Teflon Tonys' bunch of croneys are all clean living well adjusted individuals who will all answer a direct question with a straight answer.
And Teflon Tonys' bunch of croneys are all clean living well adjusted individuals who will all answer a direct question with a straight answer.
You really don't comprehend how the world works, do you? Or probably what inflation actually means?* And some half-arsed comments about the current leadership which you've cut-and-pasted from The Pie & Piston won't convince anyone. Just admit you were wrong and move on, do us all a favour.
Oh...and I'm not convinced it'll be as good as the MkV GTi...it's got inferior rear suspension (quite the opposite of the case with the last few models by each manufacturer), and the Golf GTi has been near-universally praised. I'll wait and see, thanks very much...
* If you compare car prices against typical earnings, you'll find that the opportunity cost of cars has actually been FALLING for some time...hence why more people now drive around in flash cars (that and the cost of and availability of borrowing).
leonodell said:
final thought, what was he dc2 geared to do per 1000rpm in top?
18-odd mph/1000rpm? ... yep, and cruising round the M25 at 6000pm [with high-lift cams switched on] gets a bit tiring after a while. one redeeming virtue of the ITR was the 9k rpm - it meant that you weren't changing gears as often as you would in the new Civic - and that's what the reviewers have picked up on - closer ratios but with the SAME redline. this also contradicts the 'taming down' philosophy of the new type-R. i can't see your average Rep wanting to change gear four times just to get to the national speed limit - this neither makes it a good type-R or type-S, so what's the point?
to be fair most of these negative comments are from people who have owned/driven the last two type-Rs. believe me i really wanted to get another type-R, but will be saving the dosh for an imported DC5 ITR, >1yr old BMW 130 or 350Z.
eddy_hyde said:
1) did anyone do maths at all!? shorter gearing = more torque and therefore more power at the wheels, so it DOES offset the weight gain.
Go plot power at wheels vs road speed from 0-150mph for every gear, for both old and new Civic Type R's...
Yes it's got more power at the wheels at any instantaneous point you care to choose for making an example of, but the peak useable power over the range of gears (from say 50-100mph) is the same. All your doing is making gears last a shorter time, so although 1st is faster off the line, it ends sooner, so into 2nd where it's slower. So 1st gets you 40mph and 197bhp divvied out, but the new gearbox gets you 35mph and 197bhp. The new car is in 2nd when doing 40mph, and has less power (example) at the wheels.
Overall it balances to power alone, as long as the gearing is sufficient to keep it in the power band anyway. Only 1st gear is the one that will show any real gain, but the old 1st was good enough **for a light car**
It's got LESS power to weight. It WILL accelerate MORE SLOWLY!
It's a heavy piece of crap really, I'd be buying the old one if I wanted a "Type R" experience. If I wanted a fast less hardcore hatch I'd go for the Golf.
This new car is competing on a level with the Focus, Golf, Astra and other FI engined cars, not the stripped out racer with high revving engine anymore. The high revving engine just doesn't mix with weight, and a gearbox IS NOT the way around that!
Shorten gears if you don't need the top speed, but shortening them to make up for crappy power to weight is not gonna save you, and will only make it appeal less to those the car is marketed at even more.
Ie, old one too hardcore, too stripped out, not enough toys, so they add toys and make the gearbox MORE hardcore? It's contradictory, and contradiction in engineering is often a sign of compromise, especially with this type of run of the mill car!
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 1st February 12:22
leonodell said:
who cruises round the M25, at 108mph? the current ctr - i have one, it will do over a ton in 4th, and you still have two gears left!
[cough] i do not wish to say anything incriminating, but the at night-time it gets awfully quiet on the M25/M3... the current CTR is okay at 100mph (in rpm terms) but the tyre-roar makes the radio almost inaudible. yep you can do almost a ton in 4th, but i try not to go anywhere near the fuelling cut-off point!
Edited by fido on Thursday 1st February 13:15
leonodell said:
"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!
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!
As you can see there are various manufacturers that have managed it. Audi, BMW, Ferrari, Toyota etc Even things such as a K-series and a Focus ST170 get close, amongst others. Honda is more consistently successful at doing it and doing it for the masses. However, it is easier to get a small engine to spin than some of the bigger examples quoted. Oh and the prev gen Civic had a cut-out at 8600rpm and service intervals of 12,500 so no movement there.
leonodell said:
this is race engineering for the masses.
Can't really disagree with that. I really do like Hondas for the engineering and approach and how they 'spread the word'. Problem is they are moving away from that
leonodell said:
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.
I would be more than surprised if it does. Lets face reality here - Honda has compromised it's engineering integrity to some degree and has tried to cover up some of it's failings by doing things such as shortening the gearing (which was already too short in 5th/6th), doing a lot of selective marketing to try to whoop up excitement and claiming to be looking to target a different market (sorry but very few people who want a Golf GTI/ST or S3/130M/R32 want a buzz box with rancid red carpets, they want an all rounder or some damn good compensation if it isn't).
The motoring press have in the main realised this and don't think the new model is 'owt special. Only Car (whose opinion matters less and less as the ship slowly goes down with few hands on board) have come out and suggested it's a champion. Many owners of the last CTR realised this even earlier and have now looked elsewhere (such as myself who has just changed and would have been in the market had the signs been good). Just as an example, at the small garage I got the new motor from, they'd had 7/8 CTRs traded in recently - gross that up across the country and that is a hell of a lot of repeat business to lose.
If Honda thinks it can afford to ignore that level of business so be it. However, a lot of us are just a bit miffed that a company with a hell of a lot of recent heritage is chucking it away by spending it's cash on Asimo and not giving us something in line with it's suggested talents.
Edited by D1MAC on Thursday 1st February 13:32
8000rpm plus.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
Edited by leonodell on Thursday 1st February 14:45
leonodell said:
8000rpm plus.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
Edited by leonodell on Thursday 1st February 14:45
I'm not disputing the engine.
Once upon a time the engines got a home worthy of the engineering the engine posessed, now the engines get stuck in flabby cheap chassis hoping that people will still buy it on the back of an emotive badge!
Dave
leonodell said:
8000rpm plus.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
sure the M5 , RS4 , 997 gt3 etc. rev but at what price. 60k, 50k and 80k respectively, hardly a like for like comparison.
if there are enough of you who want a £40k civic that revs to 9'000rpm a good engine tuner and the 20k you have left will give you that. or supercharge it if you cant be bothered to change gear.
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
You are also looking at £10-12k for an engine of this sort of spec depending on ancilliarys.
again! Leon, you are doing nothing except proving how little you know.
K20's can be 'tuned' for comparative peanuts - well under £1k will see you with some hot cams, another £1k will see you with a programmable ECU and some r-road time to set it up perfectly.
Rover K-series engines hitting close to 8k are more plentiful than you'd believe, and longer lasting. And only the mega stuff (e.g. R500 K-series, CSR260 Ford lump) cost over £10k. Even the S2000 engine isn't THAT expensive.
Oh as for other engines...Toyota make a pretty decent VVTiL which tops 8k, Mazda do this little known thing called a 'wankel' engine, Scooby lumps will scroll round well past 7k, as will Evos. Honda are no longer unique - they invented VTEC (which has been imitated and improved on by others), but there are plenty of manufacturers around who can create revvy engines.
And, quite frankly, where the redline is is largely irrelevant. The Clio 2.0 engine is in many ways as impressive as the K20A, revs quite freely to the sunny side of 7k, and sounds pretty nice to boot.
Normally I'd be happy to welcome someone new to the forum, but FFS take your foot OUT of your mouth before posting again...there's a lot of knowledge about Hondas around here (and I'm not one of the experts)!
leonodell said:
Rover K Series engined that rev to 9000rpm need a major refresh every 10'000 to 12'000 road miles, bearings and valve springs in parlicular, even when dry sumped. this goes down to 3000miles with regular track work.
the rover K-series (as bods on the Rover forums will probably tell you) was initial designed as a 3/4-cylinder 1-1.4 lightweight engine, over 15 years ago (£250m R&D is a figure i've heard quoted - peanuts to Honda imo). expanding it to 1.8litres (again on a budget) meant stretching the existing design to the limits i.e. thinner engine walls separated by damp liners, piston stroke of >89.3mm (ITR engine is 89mm), no counter-balancers etc. - no surprise really that it needs regular servicing.
Not really a fair comparison with the Honda K-series, and as for cost, the DC5 Integra has a K20A engine with 220PS - so they could have used this for no extra cost.
Edited by fido on Thursday 1st February 16:01
leonodell said:
fido said:
[quote=leonodell]
Not really a fair comparison with the Honda K-series, and as for cost, the DC5 Integra has a K20A engine with 220PS - so they could have used this for no extra cost.
Not really a fair comparison with the Honda K-series, and as for cost, the DC5 Integra has a K20A engine with 220PS - so they could have used this for no extra cost.
Edited by fido on Thursday 1st February 16:01
and no impact on Integra sales?
But when you buy the Integra your not just buying the engine are you. It's the whole car and it's setup.
Just because they would share the same exact engine, the Teggy would still be THE lighter more focussed car while the Civic was the blobby lets-pretend Type R... and anyone even considering the Teg would know the difference and still buy it!
Dave
leonodell said:
fido said:
Not really a fair comparison with the Honda K-series, and as for cost, the DC5 Integra has a K20A engine with 220PS - so they could have used this for no extra cost.
Edited by fido on Thursday 1st February 16:01
and no impact on Integra sales?
Not in the UK as they didn't sell the DC5 in the UK and I've not seen any plans for a replacement, UK OR Japan! So that's an irrelevant comment. FFS Leon, think about what you're posting!
Oh...Fido, 220PS was on 100RON fuel. UK fuel would probably be more like 210, give-or-take. And Japan has laxer emissions regs (which as Dan's said are the key driver behind what power you can get from an engine in the UK), so it would probably be strangled back to 200PS to comply with Euro-IV or V or whatever we're at now.
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff