RE: Turbos For Next Civic Type R?
Discussion
Alex said:
10 Pence Short said:
To be fair, that's not to do with them- it's EU emission regulations driving the route to turbocharging.
Which is ridiculous. I average 32mpg from my DC2. I'd be amazed if any Focus ST/RS, Megane Sport or Golf GTi owner gets much better than that in the real world.The CO2 emissions on the DC2 will be through the roof compared to anything modern age. Nothing to do with comparing MPG.
Please Honda don't do it!
I know it's all about emissions and still making big horsepower. But I had an original Type R and the throttle response, adjustability on the power and linearity of power delivery knocks spots off my modern turbocharged hatch.
I think the key is lighter weight and let Ford and German manufacturers keep chasing crazy bhp figures and obese cars. Honda should stick to what they do best and keep the manic engines and racing heritage/purity of engineering alive and the reserves of the Type R cars; by all means introduce Turbo's but at least sub-brand it or use a different model name.
I know it's all about emissions and still making big horsepower. But I had an original Type R and the throttle response, adjustability on the power and linearity of power delivery knocks spots off my modern turbocharged hatch.
I think the key is lighter weight and let Ford and German manufacturers keep chasing crazy bhp figures and obese cars. Honda should stick to what they do best and keep the manic engines and racing heritage/purity of engineering alive and the reserves of the Type R cars; by all means introduce Turbo's but at least sub-brand it or use a different model name.
I don't believe this focus st being so much better rabble. The only reason people say this is because they love the turbo shove in something like the st, it gives you a good impression you are going really fast.
In real world conditions a driver in a ep3 ctr would be just as quick. The performance difference on the road is negligible. But If you really give it some in the bends and braking I think you'll find the ctr kicks ass due to it's 1200kg 'ish weight.
The problem with a vtec lump is generally the driver, if you jump from the st straight into a ctr it will feel flat in comparison, but give it half hour and learn in gear max speeds and get a quick shift going and you'll be having the time of your life.
I don't think you could ever get bored of revving the nuts of a vtec, these engines really are a fantastic piece of kit, sound brilliant and are more reliable than most other engines. A little more shove below 5k wouldn't go a miss but it's not really required.
In real world conditions a driver in a ep3 ctr would be just as quick. The performance difference on the road is negligible. But If you really give it some in the bends and braking I think you'll find the ctr kicks ass due to it's 1200kg 'ish weight.
The problem with a vtec lump is generally the driver, if you jump from the st straight into a ctr it will feel flat in comparison, but give it half hour and learn in gear max speeds and get a quick shift going and you'll be having the time of your life.
I don't think you could ever get bored of revving the nuts of a vtec, these engines really are a fantastic piece of kit, sound brilliant and are more reliable than most other engines. A little more shove below 5k wouldn't go a miss but it's not really required.
GroundEffect said:
Not much point in having an elaborate VTEC system on a turbo-charged engine as to get over the lack of valve over-lap you can just ramp up the boost and shove the fuel/air in there.
Disagree. Having variable valve timing can help bring the turbo on boost faster. And the more boost you add the less efficient the setup will become.10 Pence Short said:
The original 'EK9' Civic wasn't really that special and certainly not as well executed as the Integra of the same era. People seem to look on it with rose tinted spectacles as it's so rare over here.
What I can agree on is that the 'FN' shape Civic looked and acted w
k, and Honda have brought a new version that looks even wkier. Congratulations!
...harsh...fn2 doesn't look w**k and drives just fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whilst its not quite the "track" car as of old type r's, its a better everyday car and still has a fab growl and then vtec roar over 5500rpm..........gearchange is awesome as well.....What I can agree on is that the 'FN' shape Civic looked and acted w
k, and Honda have brought a new version that looks even wkier. Congratulations!fn2 is a good car... it needs more than a quick blast to grow on you...
davidcharles said:
...harsh...fn2 doesn't look w**k and drives just fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whilst its not quite the "track" car as of old type r's, its a better everyday car and still has a fab growl and then vtec roar over 5500rpm..........gearchange is awesome as well.....
fn2 is a good car... it needs more than a quick blast to grow on you...
I liked the FN2 I drove too, although I think there was very little to separate that generation of hot hatches - they were all pretty good.fn2 is a good car... it needs more than a quick blast to grow on you...
davidcharles said:
10 Pence Short said:
The original 'EK9' Civic wasn't really that special and certainly not as well executed as the Integra of the same era. People seem to look on it with rose tinted spectacles as it's so rare over here.
What I can agree on is that the 'FN' shape Civic looked and acted wk, and Honda have brought a new version that looks even wkier. Congratulations!
...harsh...fn2 doesn't look w**k and drives just fine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and whilst its not quite the "track" car as of old type r's, its a better everyday car and still has a fab growl and then vtec roar over 5500rpm..........gearchange is awesome as well.....What I can agree on is that the 'FN' shape Civic looked and acted w
k, and Honda have brought a new version that looks even wkier. Congratulations!fn2 is a good car... it needs more than a quick blast to grow on you...
Underpowered out of the box and doesn't have any magic or endearing qualities to redeem it?
10 Pence Short said:
??
The CO2 emissions on the DC2 will be through the roof compared to anything modern age. Nothing to do with comparing MPG.
Emissions and MPG are directly proportional. The CO2 emissions on the DC2 will be through the roof compared to anything modern age. Nothing to do with comparing MPG.
A modern car may perform better in the urban cycle due to better idle efficiency and start/stop etc., but a car that averages 32mpg is emitting less CO2 than one that averages 24mpg overall and there's no getting away from that.
My point was that the urban cycle is a ridiculous measure of real world emissions.
Edited by Alex on Wednesday 14th September 16:15
thewheelman said:
Easily the best Type R in terms of performance & light weight was the EK9, it may have only had 185bhp, but did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. That would still show up many modern hot hatchbacks. Honda have lost their way over the last 5 years or so when it comes to performance cars, i hope they get their mojo back.
Absolutely. In an era where the hot hatches are becoming more powerful and heavier at an alarming rate, Honda need to avoid playing into the European power-wars. Outright power has never been Honda's forte, they didn't need it for the NSX, the Integras or the Civics of the past. They need to revive what the Type R badge used to mean - stripped back, lean and focused on an exhilarating, tactile drive. As the Euro-hatches become bigger and stronger, so too must the electronic systems to reign them in become more intrusive. Ford are pitching the next RS as having 350-400bhp, which a couple of years ago was Evo or lower-Skyline GT-R territory. I dread to think what it will be like to drive, nowhere near as good as the Evos or Skylines I'll bet.Having owned a fairly powerful turbo hatch, it had some great things going for it, but you could ask me "would another 50bhp really improve this car?" and any day of the week I would have said no.
I totally understand why the hatches are going this way, but it's only to the benefit of the manufacturers, who will sell more to the casual driver who wants a pub-talk power figure and a status symbol. Honda need to target the enthusiast; less power, less weight, more feedback and more focus.
Mastodon2 said:
thewheelman said:
Easily the best Type R in terms of performance & light weight was the EK9, it may have only had 185bhp, but did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. That would still show up many modern hot hatchbacks. Honda have lost their way over the last 5 years or so when it comes to performance cars, i hope they get their mojo back.
Absolutely. In an era where the hot hatches are becoming more powerful and heavier at an alarming rate, Honda need to avoid playing into the European power-wars. Outright power has never been Honda's forte, they didn't need it for the NSX, the Integras or the Civics of the past. They need to revive what the Type R badge used to mean - stripped back, lean and focused on an exhilarating, tactile drive. As the Euro-hatches become bigger and stronger, so too must the electronic systems to reign them in become more intrusive. Ford are pitching the next RS as having 350-400bhp, which a couple of years ago was Evo or lower-Skyline GT-R territory. I dread to think what it will be like to drive, nowhere near as good as the Evos or Skylines I'll bet.When the EP3 came out it had 197hp compared to something like an Audi A3 turbo or Golf GTI which only had 150hp.
Similar story with the NSX, sure Honda only claimed 280PS, but so did all Jap car makers. But seriously, there's no way the latter NSX's were only making 276bhp. 320+hp as a minimum to be cracking those 10.6 sec 0-100mph times.
Logically if a 2.0 litre S2000 could make 240hp, it makes Honda's 3.2 V6 look pretty pants if in a more sporting car they could only provoke an extra 36bhp from a 1.2 litre displacement increase.
Fast Honda's have always been about power.
300bhp/ton said:
Mastodon2 said:
thewheelman said:
Easily the best Type R in terms of performance & light weight was the EK9, it may have only had 185bhp, but did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. That would still show up many modern hot hatchbacks. Honda have lost their way over the last 5 years or so when it comes to performance cars, i hope they get their mojo back.
Absolutely. In an era where the hot hatches are becoming more powerful and heavier at an alarming rate, Honda need to avoid playing into the European power-wars. Outright power has never been Honda's forte, they didn't need it for the NSX, the Integras or the Civics of the past. They need to revive what the Type R badge used to mean - stripped back, lean and focused on an exhilarating, tactile drive. As the Euro-hatches become bigger and stronger, so too must the electronic systems to reign them in become more intrusive. Ford are pitching the next RS as having 350-400bhp, which a couple of years ago was Evo or lower-Skyline GT-R territory. I dread to think what it will be like to drive, nowhere near as good as the Evos or Skylines I'll bet.When the EP3 came out it had 197hp compared to something like an Audi A3 turbo or Golf GTI which only had 150hp.
Similar story with the NSX, sure Honda only claimed 280PS, but so did all Jap car makers. But seriously, there's no way the latter NSX's were only making 276bhp. 320+hp as a minimum to be cracking those 10.6 sec 0-100mph times.
Logically if a 2.0 litre S2000 could make 240hp, it makes Honda's 3.2 V6 look pretty pants if in a more sporting car they could only provoke an extra 36bhp from a 1.2 litre displacement increase.
Fast Honda's have always been about power.
jimjim150 said:
I agree and the next 'Type R' needs to be quick if it is to step on the other european marques feet.
It's more than just the Euro models though, the American Ford hatches are pretty quick too, as are the American Vauxhall badged ones.The Japanese (partly American) Mazda's and the fully Japanese Subaru's and Impreza's aren't slow either.
That sort of only leaves the French, which recently none of theirs has been quick and of course the Germans in the form of VAG. Which aren't slow exactly, but are quite a bit more pricey than most of the competition and a lot more money for the really fast ones.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff