RE: Honda Accord Type R: PH Buying Guide

[D200]

Squirrelofwoe said:

Notanotherturbo said:

havoc said:

Incorrect - it FEELS slower because forced-induction provides a much greater rate-of-change-of-torque (which is what provides the 'kick in the back' feeling of acceleration) than natural aspiration.

In reality I'll wager the ATR has more acceleration than those (rather unreliable) TSI's throughout most of the comparative rev-ranges.

No it was slower the TSi was next to me on a dual carriageway at the time lol. I didn't own either but trust me the Type R was marginally slower, not loads but even with the vtec screaming it was still edging away. Engines with no torque need no weight and although the Accord isn't too podgy by todays standards its barely got 100ft/lb per ton at the front wheels. Reliability though I'm sure is much better - but scant consolation.

Unless something was wrong with the ATR. Aren't those Golf GTs rated at 8.9 seconds 0-60, which is a decent bit slower than even the most conservative of times quoted for the Accord.

Assuming it wasn't from a standing start (being on a dual carriageway), could it be that the ATR was in the wrong gear?

It just seems odd to me that a heavier golf, with around 150bhp, would be quicker than a properly driven, lighter Accord Type R with around 210bhp.

Would the difference in torque really make that much difference? Genuinely interested

In the two years I had mine I never found it lacking in torque- just instances where I found myself in the wrong gear. In fact it was one of the aspects that I preferred about it over the DC2 I'd had previously, it was much more drivable outside of Vtec.

Agreed.

It must have had a 'bad one' as I had a standard one [very well maintained] and it was slightly faster than a standard mk5 Golf GTi and also faster than a standard bug eye UK Impreza WRX as I raced them. Unless both of them were bad ones but they were fresher than my car at the time. Obviously you have to rev the death out of them and change up an EXACTLY the correct rpm for max accel [100 rpm too high or too low and it stalls progress]. But I liked that about it, when you got to know the sound of engine you could change up exactly the right RPM without looking at rev counter.

Brilliant handling car. I had an E36 M3 at the time also and the Accord Type R was far better handing in my opinion, better steering and the ride was amazing and the LSD was great amazing grip. Great car, much underrated.

Someone mentioned the Civic being better or having a better engine? I would have to disagree 100% having owned both. The Accords 2.2 engine in these was much better than a Civic Type R. Plus the steering on the Accord is so much better.

I had mine 10 years ago, then it was hard to get a good one never mind now. It would very hard to get a good well maintained one now - ideally one that was serviced regularly with decent oil. One that wasn't ruined by lowering, or fitting c r a p y air filter and loud systems that ruin them. Then all you hear is a drone of exhaust or air box and you can’t hear the engine.

[Bispal]

D200 said:

Agreed.

It must have had a 'bad one' as I had a standard one [very well maintained] and it was slightly faster than a standard mk5 Golf GTi and also faster than a standard bug eye UK Impreza WRX as I raced them. Unless both of them were bad ones but they were fresher than my car at the time. Obviously you have to rev the death out of them and change up an EXACTLY the correct rpm for max accel [100 rpm too high or too low and it stalls progress]. But I liked that about it, when you got to know the sound of engine you could change up exactly the right RPM without looking at rev counter.

Brilliant handling car. I had an E36 M3 at the time also and the Accord Type R was far better handing in my opinion, better steering and the ride was amazing and the LSD was great amazing grip. Great car, much underrated.

Someone mentioned the Civic being better or having a better engine? I would have to disagree 100% having owned both. The Accords 2.2 engine in these was much better than a Civic Type R. Plus the steering on the Accord is so much better.

I had mine 10 years ago, then it was hard to get a good one never mind now. It would very hard to get a good well maintained one now - ideally one that was serviced regularly with decent oil. One that wasn't ruined by lowering, or fitting c r a p y air filter and loud systems that ruin them. Then all you hear is a drone of exhaust or air box and you can’t hear the engine.

As above, these cars are dreadful on aftermarket exhausts, you can't hear the glorious engine and they just drone. Unfortunately you can't get the standard exhaust and the aftermarket ones ruin the character of the car! For the record the car is quick, I have had many cars including cars that can sprint from 0-60 in sub 3 seconds and the Type R still felt quick enough driven back to back with these. There is enough pull on the Vtec at the top of the rev ranges to be genuinely exciting.

Edited by Bispal on Tuesday 7th March 08:12

[Squirrelofwoe]

Bispal said:

D200 said:

I had mine 10 years ago, then it was hard to get a good one never mind now. It would very hard to get a good well maintained one now - ideally one that was serviced regularly with decent oil. One that wasn't ruined by lowering, or fitting crappy air filter and loud systems that ruin them. Then all you hear is a drone of exhaust or air box and you can’t hear the engine.

As above, these cars are dreadful on aftermarket exhausts, you can't hear the glorious engine and they just drone. Unfortunately you can't get the standard exhaust and the aftermarket ones ruin the character of the car! For the record the car is quick, I have had many cars including cars that can sprint from 0-60 in sub 3 seconds and the Type R still felt quick enough driven back to back with these. There is enough pull on the Vtec at the top of the rev ranges to be genuinely exciting

I guess it's horses for courses regarding the exhaust/intake - mine had a Typhoon intake and Mongoose cat-back exhaust and sounded glorious to my ears (front & back)! I drove a standard one and found the noise a little underwhelming personally. But then I now have a V8 TVR so I've always preferred a bit of noise

That said, they were the only mods mine had- I personally wouldn't want one with modded suspension or anything like that.

Mine had managed just over 142,000 miles by the time I sold it. I obsessively had the oil changed every 3k miles / 6 months, with a bigger service every 12 months and the engine just lapped up the mileage. Higher miles does put some people off, but if there is evidence of regular servicing it can be a way of grabbing a relative bargain (I brought my full service history example for sub-£2k in 2013 on 116,000 miles and sold it for sub-£2k in 2015 on 142,000 miles - and mine had escaped the dreaded bulk-head rust).

[s m]

ShuthanVtec said:

323ti said:

"the Type R soon gained a reputation for being the hardest charging sport saloon you could buy this side of £25,000"

Did it? IIRC everyone who was "in the know" about affordable performance cars at that time were queuing up to buy Impreza Turbo's.
I know I was... The torque and the traction made the Subaru charge a lot harder than this Honda. Or pretty much anything at that time that wasn't silly money. Better soundtrack as well.

The Impreza is turbo which yes, it is a little faster, but for everything else, the ATR triumphed it. It is there in black and white from the reviewers back in 1998 and it isn't any mickey mouse magazine either. I think you also need to hear a H22A7 at full chat, its glorious.

As always, depends on the reviewer and type of test
The Impreza was THE bargain performance saloon of the late 90s though so also won its fair share of group tests
Quite light for a 4wd car as well




Certainly the Accord got the nod in the EVO review against a host of V6 saloons and was only narrowly edged out by the TT ( pre changes type ) in the CAR 99 Annual Handling Test ( non Supercar section )

[ShuthanVtec]

As said above, they have discontinued certain bits of the OEM exhaust system, they have all of it except one rear box, which is a shame hence people have aftermarket systems, nothing overly loud is needed but a subtle look with some noise at high RPM is fine.

As for the tests, I don't remember reviews where the Imprezza took it, it certainly had the higher performance figures due to the turbo nature but everything else, Accord had it from the handling, quality, steering feel, interior and drive. but fast forward over 20 years, both are considered great performance saloons, but I would always choose the ATR.

[s m]

ShuthanVtec said:

As for the tests, I don't remember reviews where the Imprezza took it, it certainly had the higher performance figures due to the turbo nature but everything else, Accord had it from the handling, quality, steering feel, interior and drive. but fast forward over 20 years, both are considered great performance saloons, but I would always choose the ATR.

I have to admit, apart from the test above and the one in CAR magazine around the same time, I was struggling to think of many Impreza/Accord head to head articles. Sometimes they'd get them both as part of a whole group of assorted cars on one of the big magazine 'Handling Events'.

Usual comparisons were ST24/ST200 Mondeo, Vectra V6 GSi and Alfa 156 V6 where it was pretty much the pick of the bunch

[ShuthanVtec]

Oh the Mondeo's, 156's and Vectra's had no chance in that era, the ATR and Imprezza were the two main rivals going head to head but they are both great high performance japanese saloons. I am just not a huge fan of the Imprezza to be honest but can appreciate its abilities. The ATR was the performance saloon that caught my eye from the start, a BTCC racer for the road

[s m]

ShuthanVtec said:

Oh the Mondeo's, 156's and Vectra's had no chance in that era, the ATR and Imprezza were the two main rivals going head to head but they are both great high performance japanese saloons. I am just not a huge fan of the Imprezza to be honest but can appreciate its abilities. The ATR was the performance saloon that caught my eye from the start, a BTCC racer for the road

Here's the other Accord Type R/Impreza Turbo comparison I remember - this time the Accord just edges it for the reviewer on the handling/chassis behaviour

[fivepointnine]

Since the Accord is generally regarded as the best sports saloon of the era, why is it worth the least? An Impreza will be worth roughly 2x the value and even the Mondeo ST220 is worth almost £1k more on average.

[s m]

fivepointnine said:

Since the Accord is generally regarded as the best sports saloon of the era, why is it worth the least? An Impreza will be worth roughly 2x the value and even the Mondeo ST220 is worth almost £1k more on average.

I guess it depends on the review and the qualities you want in a second hand sports saloon

In this review for example they decided the ST220 was a better all-rounder



Some people prefer a bigger 6-cylinder to a rev hungry 4 pot

[culpz]

I do like these and they're a nice change to the usual EP3 Type Rs and something a bit different.

My issue with looking at these fast Hondas is finding a decent one. It's a serious struggle to find any cared-for examples of either which don't have tacky mods and/or an extensive/decent service history with paperwork and etc.

[ShuthanVtec]

s m said:

Here's the other Accord Type R/Impreza Turbo comparison I remember - this time the Accord just edges it for the reviewer on the handling/chassis behaviour

Thats the magazine I have in hard copy, The thing is when things come to the twists, the Accord Type-R will have the Impreza despite its turbo power. Handling is a must in any performance car IMO, but yes it depends on the reviewer at the time too on which he prefers.

Edited by ShuthanVtec on Wednesday 8th March 18:46

[ShuthanVtec]

fivepointnine said:

Since the Accord is generally regarded as the best sports saloon of the era, why is it worth the least? An Impreza will be worth roughly 2x the value and even the Mondeo ST220 is worth almost £1k more on average.

Really? Mondeo ST220 worth 1K more? I can find MANY examples for around £2000 and those are good ones, a good Accord Type-R will set you back 2.5-3k easily.

It is the underrated Type-R and an underrated car in general, many don't know about them to this day and all these articles let people know these exist and how good they are. Let them get rarer and more well known, and they will push up in value nicely. There are already many requests for ATR's since the sudden surge in articles/blogs/reviews.

[fivepointnine]

culpz said:

I do like these and they're a nice change to the usual EP3 Type Rs and something a bit different.

My issue with looking at these fast Hondas is finding a decent one. It's a serious struggle to find any cared-for examples of either which don't have tacky mods and/or an extensive/decent service history with paperwork and etc.

I think you will struggle to find one without a rusty bulkhead over all else. They can look mint on the outside and have big holes in the bulkhead and chassis legs (ask me how I know )

[RossP]

Nice one parked across the way from my office today

[Craig.]

The Accord type R (ATR)
Was one of the best saloons Honda built back in the day.

Edited by Craig. on Wednesday 6th September 20:30

[Kozy]

I don't really really understand the 'lack of torque' comments.

I have an ATR and a 530D, despite having half the torque the ATR pulls better from low RPM and feels faster at all times.