RE: Honda Civic Type R

RE: Honda Civic Type R

Author
Discussion

ferrisbueller

21,319 posts

159 months

Thursday 15th November 2007
quotequote all
PJ S said:
@ Pentoman - not knowing your model or make, or age even, but I'd be concerned about running 15w unless your owner's manual specifically calls for it.
Just a quick question; Are you qualified to be offering blind advice to people on such matters?

PJ S said:
In older cars, heavier weight oil is used or suggested as a fix for worn oil seals, so there's less chance for oil blow-by and depositing on the upper cylinder wall or along the intake valve pathway, which can lead to fouling of the throttle body.
Could you explain that again? Don't follow. Do you mean leakage past the valve stem seal?

PJ S said:
I'd have thought a good 5-10w would've been more in keeping with a high revving twincam engine,
Is it not possible for a 15w to have the same lubrication properties as a 5 or 10w at operating temp, depending on its constituents? Synth/semi-synth etc etc. Is CG/CH/CI not also as important. Interestingly my Honda dealer uses a 0/30w fully synth whereas a previous one used a 10w/30 semi.
It's not a black and white subject.

PJ S said:
but as always, read your owners manual to be safer than sorrier.
I think that answers question 1.




Edited by ferrisbueller on Thursday 15th November 13:46

PJ S

10,777 posts

159 months

Thursday 15th November 2007
quotequote all
ferris, my point about running 15w is unless it's called for by the owners manual or acting as a cure for some worn seals, it's a bit thick when cold to be offering lubrication at start up.
I've no idea how many cold starts the member does, nor how much stop-starting traffic he sits in, but if he's using 15w for no other reason than that's what he thinks he needs, then he should look at a thinner oil to help with cold starts and improvements in economy - so long as the oil meets the API or ACEA requirements his car needs.
Like I said, older classic cars often run a heavier weight oil due to the seals being worn, helping to minimise oil being burnt.

As for the other point you were unclear about - http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/faq/EnginePerformanceS... explains it pretty well.

Anyway, we're WAAAAAY off topic with this, so let's not ruin this thread any more than it may already have.



Edited by PJ S on Thursday 15th November 21:24

Mr Whippy

21,490 posts

173 months

Thursday 15th November 2007
quotequote all
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

ferrisbueller

21,319 posts

159 months

Friday 16th November 2007
quotequote all
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

11,710 posts

174 months

Friday 16th November 2007
quotequote all
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

Advertisement

otolith

35,418 posts

136 months

Wednesday 28th November 2007
quotequote all
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

11,710 posts

174 months

Wednesday 28th November 2007
quotequote all
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

10,728 posts

167 months

Thursday 29th November 2007
quotequote all
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

295 posts

142 months

Thursday 20th December 2007
quotequote all
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

43 posts

128 months

Thursday 20th December 2007
quotequote all
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

672 posts

132 months

Wednesday 2nd January 2008
quotequote all
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! frown

adnoh

1 posts

124 months

Wednesday 9th April 2008
quotequote all
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?