RE: Honda Civic Type R: Driven
Discussion
Happyjap said:
This car is like Pregnant woman on roller skates going down a steep hill, fast yes, but so ungainly and like watching your grandmother shower, very unpleasant to look at without the aid of beer!
robm3 said:
With a gestation period this long I do believe Honda have missed an opportunity with the motor.
They could have added electric/hybrid tech to the package ala the current crop of supercars and created a real 'top trump' amongst rivals.
Honda always had a unique USP, such as vtec and so could have created the first turbo & hybrid hot hatch. Especially as it would be trickle down tech from the upcoming NSX.
It's enthusiasts that buy R-Types (when new) and they/we would have appreciated the technology and maybe forgiven its sin of pig ugliness.
I like the idea of it too, but it'd be prohibitively expensive, surely?They could have added electric/hybrid tech to the package ala the current crop of supercars and created a real 'top trump' amongst rivals.
Honda always had a unique USP, such as vtec and so could have created the first turbo & hybrid hot hatch. Especially as it would be trickle down tech from the upcoming NSX.
It's enthusiasts that buy R-Types (when new) and they/we would have appreciated the technology and maybe forgiven its sin of pig ugliness.
Edited by Axionknight on Saturday 6th June 21:28
Axionknight said:
I like the idea of it too, but it'd be prohibitively expensive, surely?
Expensive, and really, really expensive if the car needs to stay light. Don't think that would have been an option at the price point. Personally, the styling is to "loud" for me. But I'm a boring old fart. And people also bought equally ghastly Evos and Scoobys. It's not for me but man is it great that Honda have the balls to release something as determined looking. They should be applauded and I even half believe them the stuff they stick on the car is half functional (in contrast to the silly fake aero going on e.g. at BMW).
Would be cool if there was a "Type-S" in the pipeline. Something positioned against a regular GTI, without the aero but with the trick chassis bits and the engine in say a 240 PS state of tune.
This doesn't sit right with me;
'Honda has reversed the VTEC - bear with us - so that the high-lift exhaust cam is in operation at low revs, allowing exhaust pressure to be built up and ensure the turbo is responsive at higher revs with the less aggressive cam. The changeover is entirely variable also. So there's no thrilling 'just kicked in' episode but in its place is a fantastically responsive forced induction engine.'
The engine is not 'VTEC' then, even if Honda choose to call it that. VTEC at low revs- an oxymoron surely? Objectively 'better' performance yes, but 'better' for drivers seeking something resembling the classic VTEC experience- absolutely not.
Essentially, Honda have caved in and gone the turbo route because they want (feel pressured) to 'compete' in the modern hot hatch horsepower figure/ 'Ring time race.
Understandable, because there is undoubtedly extensive research that indicates adhering to their traditional screaming NA FWD formula won't sell/ compete with the current crop of hot hatches. I'm sure that modern emissions/ efficiency restrictions etc also make a traditional VTEC unfeasible.
I do however wish that they'd 'done a Mazda' and stayed true to the original DNA of the car, as with the new MX5. I'm well aware that the pressures are quite different in the segment the Civic Type-R lives in (what is there really to worry the MX5?), but it just isnt a true descendant of the EK9/ EP3 etc.
Perhaps a highly-strung, FWD Type-R would have gathered some of the same kind of admiration that the new MX5 has? Or maybe everyone would have said they're unwilling/ simply failing to compete with eg. modern hot Focuses (Focii?). We'll never know.
I also wonder what the target demographic (read; age) of Hondas' buyer for this car is? I suspect many people over 30 will find the styling a tad vulgar, form following function or not. I recognise that new cars often look a bit 'challenging' on launch, but I struggle to believe that this will ever look anything other than 'fussy'. Having said that, was there ever a truly good-looking Civic Type-R? I don't think so, but then this has historically been due to the Type-R not looking much different to the non-R models lower down the range. This one doesn't look good because they appear to have gone to the opposite extreme and made it look rather 'gauche', shall we say... no one will mistake it for a 'Sport', I suppose.
All of this comes from a life-long fan of quick Hondas, so I can't imagine it stealing many sales from existing fast Ford/ VW etc buyers.
Honda have now failed to reach me twice in fairly quick succession (highly skeptical on the new NSXs' chances of success). A real shame, as historically they have made some of the great affordable drivers' cars. There is little in the pipeline from Honda to give me hope either.
The saving grace may be the apparently very good manual box/ shift. Had this had paddles, I'd have written it off completely (a small sliver of Type-R DNA to cling to for an automotive Luddite like myself perhaps).
'Honda has reversed the VTEC - bear with us - so that the high-lift exhaust cam is in operation at low revs, allowing exhaust pressure to be built up and ensure the turbo is responsive at higher revs with the less aggressive cam. The changeover is entirely variable also. So there's no thrilling 'just kicked in' episode but in its place is a fantastically responsive forced induction engine.'
The engine is not 'VTEC' then, even if Honda choose to call it that. VTEC at low revs- an oxymoron surely? Objectively 'better' performance yes, but 'better' for drivers seeking something resembling the classic VTEC experience- absolutely not.
Essentially, Honda have caved in and gone the turbo route because they want (feel pressured) to 'compete' in the modern hot hatch horsepower figure/ 'Ring time race.
Understandable, because there is undoubtedly extensive research that indicates adhering to their traditional screaming NA FWD formula won't sell/ compete with the current crop of hot hatches. I'm sure that modern emissions/ efficiency restrictions etc also make a traditional VTEC unfeasible.
I do however wish that they'd 'done a Mazda' and stayed true to the original DNA of the car, as with the new MX5. I'm well aware that the pressures are quite different in the segment the Civic Type-R lives in (what is there really to worry the MX5?), but it just isnt a true descendant of the EK9/ EP3 etc.
Perhaps a highly-strung, FWD Type-R would have gathered some of the same kind of admiration that the new MX5 has? Or maybe everyone would have said they're unwilling/ simply failing to compete with eg. modern hot Focuses (Focii?). We'll never know.
I also wonder what the target demographic (read; age) of Hondas' buyer for this car is? I suspect many people over 30 will find the styling a tad vulgar, form following function or not. I recognise that new cars often look a bit 'challenging' on launch, but I struggle to believe that this will ever look anything other than 'fussy'. Having said that, was there ever a truly good-looking Civic Type-R? I don't think so, but then this has historically been due to the Type-R not looking much different to the non-R models lower down the range. This one doesn't look good because they appear to have gone to the opposite extreme and made it look rather 'gauche', shall we say... no one will mistake it for a 'Sport', I suppose.
All of this comes from a life-long fan of quick Hondas, so I can't imagine it stealing many sales from existing fast Ford/ VW etc buyers.
Honda have now failed to reach me twice in fairly quick succession (highly skeptical on the new NSXs' chances of success). A real shame, as historically they have made some of the great affordable drivers' cars. There is little in the pipeline from Honda to give me hope either.
The saving grace may be the apparently very good manual box/ shift. Had this had paddles, I'd have written it off completely (a small sliver of Type-R DNA to cling to for an automotive Luddite like myself perhaps).
Edited by daveofedinburgh on Sunday 7th June 02:54
Ali_T said:
With minimal fettling, my Giulietta drives superbly well. Bilstein B12 kit, Alfisti sourced drop link replacements and decent geometry was all it took. If only Alfa had put a bit more effort in themselves!
Dont s'pose you have a Readers Rides thread on it? I'd be interested to see/read about it, always liked the look of them. Edited by Ali_T on Thursday 4th June 18:17
Most of the comments in response to this article are very negative. Some of them are quite relevant, i.e. cars like this are far too capable to deliver fun at sane speeds on the road. However in the main, a bit of an over-reaction considering no one on here has driven one yet....all the driving reviews I have read so far have been very positive, which I think we should take heart from, given that Honda hasn't produced a decent drivers car for some years now...
Happyjap said:
This car is like Pregnant woman on roller skates going down a steep hill, fast yes, but so ungainly and like watching your grandmother shower, very unpleasant to look at without the aid of beer!
LMFAO!!!Looks like my want for a Japanese performance car is still on hold. Mazda, build a new RX and make it devastatingly pretty. I'll buy it without a test drive, that's how much I want another rotary.
Ali_T said:
Happyjap said:
This car is like Pregnant woman on roller skates going down a steep hill, fast yes, but so ungainly and like watching your grandmother shower, very unpleasant to look at without the aid of beer!
LMFAO!!!Looks like my want for a Japanese performance car is still on hold. Mazda, build a new RX and make it devastatingly pretty. I'll buy it without a test drive, that's how much I want another rotary.
Axionknight said:
Happyjap said:
This car is like Pregnant woman on roller skates going down a steep hill, fast yes, but so ungainly and like watching your grandmother shower, very unpleasant to look at without the aid of beer!
robm3 said:
With a gestation period this long I do believe Honda have missed an opportunity with the motor.
They could have added electric/hybrid tech to the package ala the current crop of supercars and created a real 'top trump' amongst rivals.
Honda always had a unique USP, such as vtec and so could have created the first turbo & hybrid hot hatch. Especially as it would be trickle down tech from the upcoming NSX.
It's enthusiasts that buy R-Types (when new) and they/we would have appreciated the technology and maybe forgiven its sin of pig ugliness.
I like the idea of it too, but it'd be prohibitively expensive, surely?They could have added electric/hybrid tech to the package ala the current crop of supercars and created a real 'top trump' amongst rivals.
Honda always had a unique USP, such as vtec and so could have created the first turbo & hybrid hot hatch. Especially as it would be trickle down tech from the upcoming NSX.
It's enthusiasts that buy R-Types (when new) and they/we would have appreciated the technology and maybe forgiven its sin of pig ugliness.
Edited by Axionknight on Saturday 6th June 21:28
This is a bit disappointing as surely all this has been done before with the focus RS. I mean, big power turbo motor, clever electronics, bugged arches, silly size wheels......and 1point 4 f
king tonnes! 1.4 tonnes. Ffs Honda, why did no one at the design brief, or steering group meetings never say, "I know, let's make it not 1.4 fking tonnes".
Why are all these super hatches so flipping heavy?
Imagine the thing at less than a tonne in weight, like hot hatches used to be? It mY be unrealistic, but surely you could get it to 1100kg or so?
Apart from a jdm feel to it, what does this do that other cars already about for the last 5 years don't?
Much like their F1 offering, this is surely old hat, pointless and potentially redundant before turning a wheel?
king tonnes! 1.4 tonnes. Ffs Honda, why did no one at the design brief, or steering group meetings never say, "I know, let's make it not 1.4 fking tonnes". Why are all these super hatches so flipping heavy?
Imagine the thing at less than a tonne in weight, like hot hatches used to be? It mY be unrealistic, but surely you could get it to 1100kg or so?
Apart from a jdm feel to it, what does this do that other cars already about for the last 5 years don't?
Much like their F1 offering, this is surely old hat, pointless and potentially redundant before turning a wheel?
s3fella said:
Imagine the thing at less than a tonne in weight, like hot hatches used to be? It mY be unrealistic, but surely you could get it to 1100kg or so?
Those days are long one thanks to Eu pedestrian safety regulations. If the Alfa 4C, with a stripped out carbon tub, can barely get under 1000kg, no hatch stands a chance. Why they can't introduce an EU Pedestrian Safety Regulation Amendment that states "don't step in the bloody road without looking you halfwit" is beyond me.
TameRacingDriver said:
People keep saying the ride on the fn2 is too hard and the car bounces but this isn't my experience (yes it is firm but not ridiculous), unless it's got some after market suspension I don't know about... It's not as supple as say my old phase 1 172, but about on par with something like a puma.
Couldn't disagree more. I've had two Pumas (a standard and an FRP - which was pretty darn hard riding), and a Clio 182 Cup, and the FN2 is by far and away the worst riding out of all. There is zero compliance in the suspension - on a crap road it skips and bounces all over the place. Even on a smooth motorway it won't stop jiggling. It's unacceptable.RacingBlue said:
Couldn't disagree more. I've had two Pumas (a standard and an FRP - which was pretty darn hard riding), and a Clio 182 Cup, and the FN2 is by far and away the worst riding out of all. There is zero compliance in the suspension - on a crap road it skips and bounces all over the place. Even on a smooth motorway it won't stop jiggling. It's unacceptable.
Thought Clarkson was using his normal hyperbole, and it wasn't that bad. 
I like the Civic Type S interior, driving position, seats, stereo, gearbox, etc. Road noise, rear visibility and clutch are worse than average, but ride is ok on standard car.Edited by iloveboost on Monday 8th June 10:28
RacingBlue said:
Couldn't disagree more. I've had two Pumas (a standard and an FRP - which was pretty darn hard riding), and a Clio 182 Cup, and the FN2 is by far and away the worst riding out of all. There is zero compliance in the suspension - on a crap road it skips and bounces all over the place. Even on a smooth motorway it won't stop jiggling. It's unacceptable.
I don't think its that bad, sure its no limousine but at least when you throw it into a corner it just grips and goes, and doesn't flop onto its door handles. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff