RE: Honda Civic Type R
Discussion
vz-r_dave said:
Dave^ said:
vz-r_dave said:
One is a real type R the other one should have been badged a type S.
YAWN!I remember the DC2/EK9 fanboys saying the same about the EP3....
Dave^ said:
vz-r_dave said:
Dave^ said:
vz-r_dave said:
One is a real type R the other one should have been badged a type S.
YAWN!I remember the DC2/EK9 fanboys saying the same about the EP3....
Basically anything raw and built for a purpose.
This is ofcourse my opinion, the press will have you beliving that the EP3 and Golf are hot hatches but if you compare them to the likes of the ones I have listed they are far from it.
PaulTypeR said:
Dave^ said:
vz-r_dave said:
One is a real type R the other one should have been badged a type S.
YAWN!I remember the DC2/EK9 fanboys saying the same about the EP3....
That DOESN'T stop the cars from being GOOD - the JDM FD2 is supposed to be a blinder, yet has more toys than a DC2 owner can dream of and is notably heavier. The EP3, IMHO, was designed as a better compromise than the DC2, but (either because of the compromises or because of 'technology' and platform changes...) wasn't as good to drive as the DC2.
All that said, I firmly subscribe to the view that the "Type-R" badge in the UK is now a marketing device and no longer a statement of engineering...
Dave^ said:
....even tho they have (probably) the best engine and gearbox in terms of engineering....?
How do you define that? The engines aren't good in terms of fuel economy/emmissions per CC/BHP. In fact, they're very poor. The gearboxes of pretty much every high revving Honda have been a weak point, including the S2000/DC2/EP3.The chassis on the current model is purely compromised in terms of feel and ability. Even Toyota give the high powered Auris models wishbone suspension, whereas Honda have left their long standing association with the format for the current model.
The Type-R is now full of creature comforts and sound deadening. What is 'Type-R' about that?
It's now just another sh*tty badge denoting another sh*tty model.
10 Pence Short said:
Dave^ said:
....even tho they have (probably) the best engine and gearbox in terms of engineering....?
How do you define that? The engines aren't good in terms of fuel economy/emmissions per CC/BHP. In fact, they're very poor. The gearboxes of pretty much every high revving Honda have been a weak point, including the S2000/DC2/EP3.Ive owned our type r for 3 an half years now , covered just over 55000 miles in it and never once have i complained about the gearbox feeling inprecise or had it repaired.
One things for sure the more miles you do the more smiles you gain.
Id buy another tommorow if i were to change it.
One things for sure the more miles you do the more smiles you gain.
Id buy another tommorow if i were to change it.
SonicHedgeHog said:
10 Pence Short said:
Dave^ said:
....even tho they have (probably) the best engine and gearbox in terms of engineering....?
How do you define that? The engines aren't good in terms of fuel economy/emmissions per CC/BHP. In fact, they're very poor. The gearboxes of pretty much every high revving Honda have been a weak point, including the S2000/DC2/EP3.I used to own a mk2 CRX, a DC2 an EP3 an Accord Type-S, an Accord and so on. I used to socialise with the Hondaphiles and attend social events around the Honda scene. I guess that makes me a geek.
The fact is, Honda have not been as good at certain things as people pretend and the current cars are a pale pastiche of what Honda used to be about. The fact that they can't market a decent BHP hot hatch says a lot about their lack of foresight with regards to EU emmissions regs, for example.
The VAG 2.0 turbo engines are more powerful, more fuel efficient and produce far less emmissions. es, they are turbocharged, but that isn't the point I am making.
..........and the fact that all other manufacturers have resorted to added turbos.
Come on Dan, one minute you want them to make a car like they did before, high revving, fast fun light, next minute you want fuel economy which as you know is not the easiest thing when your ethos (Type R) is high revs.............
I'm not the biggest fan of the new generation tbh. Think they've lost the old type r spirit. but they aren't gonna get any more fuel efficient keeping the high rev engines.
Though as everyone's aware honda are leading in other forms of R&D for fuel types...;-)
Come on Dan, one minute you want them to make a car like they did before, high revving, fast fun light, next minute you want fuel economy which as you know is not the easiest thing when your ethos (Type R) is high revs.............
I'm not the biggest fan of the new generation tbh. Think they've lost the old type r spirit. but they aren't gonna get any more fuel efficient keeping the high rev engines.
Though as everyone's aware honda are leading in other forms of R&D for fuel types...;-)
Edited by dandemoraliser on Thursday 29th October 14:01
dandemoraliser said:
..........and the fact that all other manufacturers have resorted to added turbos.
Come on Dan, one minute you want them to make a car like they did before, high revving, fast fun light, next minute you want fuel economy which as you know is not the easiest thing when your ethos (Type R) is high revs.............
I'm not the biggest fan of the new generation tbh. Think they've lost the old type r spirit. but they aren't gonna get any more fuel efficient keeping the high rev engines.
Though as everyone's aware honda are leading in other forms of R&D for fuel types...;-)
My beef is with the emmission regs- they're far too skewed in favour of taxing CO2, which naturally puts Honda on the back foot.Come on Dan, one minute you want them to make a car like they did before, high revving, fast fun light, next minute you want fuel economy which as you know is not the easiest thing when your ethos (Type R) is high revs.............
I'm not the biggest fan of the new generation tbh. Think they've lost the old type r spirit. but they aren't gonna get any more fuel efficient keeping the high rev engines.
Though as everyone's aware honda are leading in other forms of R&D for fuel types...;-)
Edited by dandemoraliser on Thursday 29th October 14:01
The fact is, they could have easily reacted and produced the best of the current crop of turbo charged engines, keeping themselves at the forefront of performance.
Instead, they give us some marketing bullsh*t about how hot hatches don't need more than 200bhp, knowing full well it's the NA issue holding them back. Don't forget, the current Civic hasn't exactly been kept on a diet and parred down to keep 200bhp in that as good as 240 in something else, has it?
Is there anything about the K20 in the current CTR that makes you go 'wow'? Is there anything in the performance of that engine that makes your spine tingle in the same way a B16 did in 1988?
I would like Honda to have the regulated freedom to exploit the NA route. If that isn't available, I'd have at least expected them to have been at the forefront within the regulations. They are a millio miles from that.
It's interesting that your personal experiences are the polar opposite to mine. I wonder if the cars you have come into contact with might have had an unsympathtic owner because all the cars I have known have been bullet proof.
I know you don't want to drag this down the NA vs FI route, but I have driven a lot of the current crop of turbo-charged hot hatches and can't begin to explain how much I dislike turbos. It is tragic that we are focused on CO2 emmissions because my old CTR returned really good mpg figures. I would still take a NA car over a turbo even if it is a little slower. I think a lot of people would agree with me if they could just get past the 'mines bigger than yours' issue that ludicrously doesn't affect them 99% of the time.
I know you don't want to drag this down the NA vs FI route, but I have driven a lot of the current crop of turbo-charged hot hatches and can't begin to explain how much I dislike turbos. It is tragic that we are focused on CO2 emmissions because my old CTR returned really good mpg figures. I would still take a NA car over a turbo even if it is a little slower. I think a lot of people would agree with me if they could just get past the 'mines bigger than yours' issue that ludicrously doesn't affect them 99% of the time.
SonicHedgeHog said:
It's interesting that your personal experiences are the polar opposite to mine. I wonder if the cars you have come into contact with might have had an unsympathtic owner because all the cars I have known have been bullet proof.
I know you don't want to drag this down the NA vs FI route, but I have driven a lot of the current crop of turbo-charged hot hatches and can't begin to explain how much I dislike turbos. It is tragic that we are focused on CO2 emmissions because my old CTR returned really good mpg figures. I would still take a NA car over a turbo even if it is a little slower. I think a lot of people would agree with me if they could just get past the 'mines bigger than yours' issue that ludicrously doesn't affect them 99% of the time.
Don't get me wrong- I was hoping that NA would continue to be a possibility, but the EU have decided that isn't possible. If NA isn't an option, then I would have expected Honda to be at the front with their engines in whatever configuration that was. I know you don't want to drag this down the NA vs FI route, but I have driven a lot of the current crop of turbo-charged hot hatches and can't begin to explain how much I dislike turbos. It is tragic that we are focused on CO2 emmissions because my old CTR returned really good mpg figures. I would still take a NA car over a turbo even if it is a little slower. I think a lot of people would agree with me if they could just get past the 'mines bigger than yours' issue that ludicrously doesn't affect them 99% of the time.
As for my experience with Hondas, I did 125,000 miles in a '99 Accord from new, then 125,000 miles in an EP3 CTR from new, about 15,000 miles in a DC2 that had 34,000 miles on when I got it, 6000 miles in a 13 year old Mk2 CRX VT that had 59,000 miles on it, 140,000 miles in an Accord Type-S from new and another 40,000 miles or so in an Accord diesel.
The reliability of all the cars (except the EP3, which was a pig) was fantastic, if you compare them to other marques. The Accords were especially remarkable in that the only thing that went properly wrong in 3 high mileage Accords was the CD player in the Type-S. That cost £100 to fix out of warranty.
The CRX needing nothing, and I used that car as a track slag even though it was mint (I sold it a couple of years after I bought it for more than paid for it). The synchros were not great 3rd to 4th though and there were signs of wear. The radiators on them are also notoriously crap for damage and rusting and the one on mine had already been replaced. The design of the water drains from the sunroof meant eventually water f*cks the sunroof and rear wings whilst the struts on the rear tailgate die and the plastic covering the sills is usually hiding some serious rust. The bolster on the PVC seats tends to disintegrate. Not to mention the ABS sensors almost always give up the ghost and the dizzies are known for having issues, as well as the all-too-common Honda rear caliper seize. These are all design flaws, rather than age related wear.
The Integra had £1000 of work on it shortly after I bought it at 34,000 miles as the 3rd and 4th synchros needed replacing. Luckily this was under warranty. Not long after, another design fault reared its head and the aircon belt tensioner bolt failed, luckily at low speed and without interering with any of the valve running gear that would have meant game over for the engine. Honda supplied a new bolt and tensioner FOC on that one. Not forgetting the wonderful Champiosnhip White paint that turns a lovely shade of yellow over time.
The '99 Accord was a peach and the only thing I can remember going wrong was the gear linkages somehow bending out of shape very early on. This was sorted in a day FOC under warranty. Only a few months into ownership the poor sod got rear ended by a confused man in a Montego Estate, leaving the car with literally no boot and overlapping doors. How it was repaired I don't know, but it went on to do another 210,000 miles that I know of with no significant problems. Except the all-too-common Honda rear caliper seize.
The EP3 was a bit of an exception, in that a combination of bad design, rushed production and cost cutting meant the car was not what it should have been in terms of reliability. From memory, I went through 4 alloy wheels, 3 steering racks, 4 power steering control units, an exhaust manifold, a buzzing plastic inlet manifold cover, rattles galore from deep within the dashboard which became a known problem with two badly fastened metal plates, out of spec rear suspension arms, an intermittant engine warning light pretending I needed a new CAT and no end of paint problems. In all it averaged more than 2 days a month in the garage having warranty repair work done.
The Accord Type-S enjoyed near faultless behaviour throughout, with the exception that the drive by wire throttle was very, very badly done (the prgramming meant the throttle went from 0% to 8% or so without anything in between, so progress in 1st gear stop-start traffic meant using the clutch to maintain smoothness). Aside from that, only the CD player broke and that's an Alpine product that was repaired by them for £100. Of course, the design of that unit meant that sending it away also included the heater control system, so I spent 2 weeks without any ventilation control or heating. In winter. Oh, and before I forget...the rear calipers began to seize.
Next came the 2.2 Diesel. This had a few miles on it when I got it and I did another 40,000 miles or so. It wasn't that nice to drive compared to the petrol, wasn't that frugal and bored me stiff. It did fail on me almost straight away, although this turned out to be a spanner monkey who'd inserted a fuel filter the wrong wy around, invoking poor fuel flow and engine management restricting the revs to about 2500rpm or so. Aside from that, nothing to report.
Honda are very good at some things, they used to be very good at some things, and they've gone backwards compared to other people at a few things. They are not now the industry leader in petrol or diesel car engines or drivetrains, in my opinion.
Sounds like you're quite a Honda man. From your post it would seem that the two gearbox problems occurred on cars you bought second hand which means the first two owners could have been less than sympathetic. Your EP3 must have been built on a Friday afternoon because I thrashed the pants off mine for 50,000 miles and it didn't miss a beat. On the whole it seems that you do a lot of miles and I think you have take that into account when talking about reliability. Unless we're talking about Mercs, Saabs and Volvos from yesteryear I don't think it's reasonable to do that many miles and not expect a few niggles.
For the sake of balance, I will admit that my ATR needed new drive shafts after 50,000 miles (under warranty), my EP3 did have an annoying rattle that I could never nail down and my current EP3 diesel (don't ask) does creak a bit. However, compare this to BMW's Vanos problems or Merc's shocking drop in build quality and it isn't really that bad. In fact, even Porsche has had some serious engine issues since it moved to water cooling.
I think we need some statistics before we can say whether Honda gearboxes are more or less reliable than any other. I will however, leave this topic on a concilliatory note - the 2.2 litre diesel is massively boring.
ATB
For the sake of balance, I will admit that my ATR needed new drive shafts after 50,000 miles (under warranty), my EP3 did have an annoying rattle that I could never nail down and my current EP3 diesel (don't ask) does creak a bit. However, compare this to BMW's Vanos problems or Merc's shocking drop in build quality and it isn't really that bad. In fact, even Porsche has had some serious engine issues since it moved to water cooling.
I think we need some statistics before we can say whether Honda gearboxes are more or less reliable than any other. I will however, leave this topic on a concilliatory note - the 2.2 litre diesel is massively boring.
ATB
Sonic,
Honda 'boxes AREN'T quite as robust as the rest of their cars are (or at least used to be - not owned a Honda newer than '03 (none older than '96, either, strangely)) - they're made to be light and compact, and typically that's enough as they don't have huge amounts of torque to deal with. The synchromesh, however, IS a known weakpoint, certainly on the Type-R's and S2000.
As for the rest - I'm now on Hondas #4 and 5, and typically do average miles, and I've (so far...) only had one problem that wasn't either wear-and-tear, my fault or a possible legacy of previous owners, and that was a recurring ECU light on the S2000 that never was fully nailed-down. That said, I've not owned cars with anywhere near as high miles as Dan's...
Honda 'boxes AREN'T quite as robust as the rest of their cars are (or at least used to be - not owned a Honda newer than '03 (none older than '96, either, strangely)) - they're made to be light and compact, and typically that's enough as they don't have huge amounts of torque to deal with. The synchromesh, however, IS a known weakpoint, certainly on the Type-R's and S2000.
As for the rest - I'm now on Hondas #4 and 5, and typically do average miles, and I've (so far...) only had one problem that wasn't either wear-and-tear, my fault or a possible legacy of previous owners, and that was a recurring ECU light on the S2000 that never was fully nailed-down. That said, I've not owned cars with anywhere near as high miles as Dan's...
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff