RE: Honda Accord Euro R (CL7) | Spotted

[waltonoftsukuba]

Had a itr and atr ch1 Now I have a the cl7 r. Quality all rounder and easy 250bhp+. Smiles per gallon 😀

Edited by waltonoftsukuba on Monday 20th March 20:15

[Hippea]

waltonoftsukuba said:

Had a itr and atr cl1. Now I have a the cl7 r. Quality all rounder and easy 250bhp+

That intake is gorgeous, would be on my parts list. Lovely car btw

[JJJ.]

Nice car's those Accords, all the better it's a Euro R in championship white. The last one I saw for sale was just over £6k a year ago so this seems pricey.
As for the lack of torque, well it's not lacking any considering it's a N/A 2.0L with what's considered the best four pot mass produced engine ever, their bulletproof too.

I think a nice 2.4 manual with uprated suspension would possibly hit the sweet spot as a cheap daily driver.

Edited by JJJ. on Tuesday 21st March 18:08

[Silvanus]

IntriguedUser said:

Owned the 2.4 engine version, great car, smoothest 4 cyclinder I've owned.

I absolutely loved my 2.4 estate

[Super Sonic]

UncleGoat said:

I'd love one, always wanted one, Had a UK CL7 and now a CU2 Accord, I do wish I bought when they were at the sensible price of £6-8K not that long ago, £13k is just silly money now, and it's only going to go up unfortunately.

Edited by UncleGoat on Monday 20th March 14:28

A UK cl7? Is that a thing? I thought they wer JDM.

[Hippea]

horsemeatscandal said:

horsemeatscandal said:

This is lovely. I'd have it if I was in the market.

st. I sent a link to my girlfriend and she says she likes it and I should ring.

How much of a pain is owning an import? How easily would I source say, a headlight or a wing mirror? To what extent is there 'underbody protection' applied to this dealership's vehicles?

Have you bought it yet?

[nismo48]

Maccmike8 said:

The lack of torque makes day to day a bit of a pain.

+1

[PomBstard]

nismo48 said:

Maccmike8 said:

The lack of torque makes day to day a bit of a pain.

+1

I think it’ll be fine, even with 2 adults and a couple of kids in it. Sure, you might need a few more revs to make swift progress, but I doubt you’d really notice in the general urban trawl. Traffic just doesn’t accelerate that fast.

For comparison I’ve had a couple of Subarus with the NA 2.5 lump - about 165bhp and maybe the same in torque, produced somewhere around 4000rpm. Yes, a little more than this ATR and yes, a little lower in the rev range, but comparable. As family cars, with two kids, just was never a problem, and that’s without the extra 50bhp available once going strong.

I say, get that bought - looks great and really isn’t that expensive for what it is. Will be fine as a family car, and fun when you want it to be.

[Jaaack]

Super Sonic said:

A UK cl7? Is that a thing? I thought they wer JDM.

The CL7 chassis code is applied to all Accord saloons of this generation with the K20 engine - Type-R or not. A little confusing as things like EK9 are Type-R specific. CL9 is the K24 variant


I really fancy one of these, it'll probably never happen as there are just too many cars that I also really fancy KiwiCarLife on Youtube has some very convincing videos! He bought an abused one and returned it to standard, tidying it up in the process and it's turned out stunning. The sound is absolutely unbelievable and looking at his track videos it handles very well too!

I'm a serial ATR owner so I love the formula of a relatively light FWD saloon with a proper suspension setup, LSD and stonking great VTEC motor. Unfortunately ATRs are crap to own, these seem a lot less painful (K20 is inherently a better engine than the old H22, all the ones I've owned with high mileage have suffered crank walk, except one).

These CL7s still look sharp 20 years on. I think Japan had a second golden age in the 2000s where they were really producing some timeless designs - look at Altezzas, Integras, Legacys of the early to mid 2000s. They definitely don't look 20 years old! Even something like a 2004 Honda Odyssey (the JDM version at least) could easily be a 2015 if you didn't know.

[horsemeatscandal]

Hippea said:

Have you bought it yet?

Course I haven't, I'm a st bag. I've talked myself in and out of calling about 13 times.

[Karlsruhe]

I have one of these and have owned it for 4 years. I bought it as I wanted something different and more subtle than it's contemporaries. I too have had a CH1 ATR in the past and various flavours of Civic VTIs, as well as the more mundane VAG stuff and daily a Volvo. I treat this as my weekend/summer car not as a daily, although it can assume that role too competently.

Sounds very clichéd but under 5500 rpm it drives like a smooth 2.0 n/a petrol and doesn't need to be revved hard for normal use as the K20 is a very tractable engine- happy trundling around in 4th gear at 30 mph. Of course if you want to move at a quicker pace then yes it does involve revving higher but it really isn't a chore as the gearbox is sublime as well as the induction growl.

As already mentioned the chassis is very capable due to its composition and is planted and lively. Brakes are a weak point due to their single piston front calipers and it isn't a quiet motorway cruiser compared to modern cars but is comfortable due to its seats and the ride isn't too bad. If you are looking for straight line speed this won't be your cup of tea, but if you want something different, more "organic" in feel as opposed to the newer generation of cars and imo more interactive, it's worthy of consideration. To most people however it's a 20 year old overpriced boring Honda, which will get out dragged by turbo diesels and small petrol turbo hatchbacks probably and therein lies the appeal to me- it's very niche and those who know, know.

P.S- in terms of parts I don't think there will be much difficulty as alot is shared with UK spec cars, engine bits etc are interchangeable with DC5 etc. Granted different exhaust intake is used for more torque and undoubtedly there will be some other bespoke parts but it does have a larger international following so parts shouldn't be too much of an issue. I use Cox the Honda dealer and they have been great to deal with.

[braddo]

Loplop said:

The torque figure is low yes, but this isn't a car for getting a shift on 4 up like a 6 Cylinder diesel saloon is.

It's the car that allows you to pootle around town and sit at 70 on the motorway with the family in, but then when you get sent to the shops on Sunday morning to pick up some bread you take the long way round and give it an absolute thrashing.

Exactly. And it would feel like a normal car to drive for non-car people for whom 4000rpm is extreme.

The vast majority of the population drive cars slower than this so its not remotely unsuitable as a daily driver.

Cool car, i never knew they existed.

[UncleGoat]

Super Sonic said:

A UK cl7? Is that a thing? I thought they wer JDM.

As Jaaaack said, CL7 is the chassis code for the K20's, difference being we got the K20A6 "Economy" 150bhp engine, and JDM CL7's got the K20A 220bhp engines

[TwoStrokeNut]

A friend had one of these from new. It was ok, but hard work with all that weight.

It was swapped for another new Accord, but with a K24 around 200bhp. It suited the car much better and was kept for many years.

[TheJimi]

Maccmike8 said:

The lack of torque makes day to day a bit of a pain.

I've had cars with the following Honda VTEC engines:

B16a
H22a
K20a

In all three, you can pull cleanly from 30-40mph in the highest gear, without issue. The idea that VTEC engines, especially the full fat versions, are a pain to live with due to lack of torque, is utter nonsense. Unless your expectation is to be riding a vast wave of torque, then yes, that expectation will fall flat, and you'll find it a pain.

Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 21st March 13:27

[StuE39]

I can happily cruise around in 4th at 30 mph in mine (even 5th if the road is level). It actually pulls better at lower revs than my wife's diesel Tiguan as it doesn't require the turbo to wake up to actually do something.

If you have owned a K20A/Z you'll know.

[Maccmike8]

Hippea said:

Maccmike8 said:

The lack of torque makes day to day a bit of a pain.

Its a car that suits a purpose I think. If your daily commute is a 10-15mile B road blast its perfect, anything else I can see it being tiresome.

I do think the 'low torque' criticism of these Hondas is a bit unfair, they are no worse than any equally sized engine.

Having been there I feel my opinion is very valid.

[Vulcanproject]

Not sure I would call it 'fast' even for the time when it was new. You will be working that power unit very hard to make progress. By 2003 the market was awash with ST220s and VXRs and the like that were somewhat more torquey and muscular. This is certainly unique and no doubt bullet proof though.

The generation before Accord Type R is more fragile. Nicer looking. That 2.2 litre engine with 209bhp, more compact dimensions for UK roads. 80kg lighter than this. Torsen LSD. Only 5 speeds with the longer gearing they were also not exactly rocket ships. Still, you can find a nice one for a reasonable price. Maybe £6-7k gets something tidy. £9k for a really good one.

[_ppan]

Jon_S_Rally said:

I do like these, but they do strike me as something you'd have to really want to justify buying it.

As a daily car, I don't think you can ignore that, unless you want to stir the 'box, something with a turbo or more capacity is going to be way easier to live with.

I've been to the UK a few times and back then, say 6 years ago, people were driving pretty decent. Guess they are all racing drivers now? Back then I could easily shift at low gears to get along with my 1.6 B16A DOHC VTEC. There was no need to rev at all to keep up with regular traffic. Even making a fast pass or so wouldn't require me to rev further than 5000-6000 back then. Of course I would. I'd stretch it to the red line (when the engine was warm). Just because. Maximum fun.

These days, when I drive a 1.0 turbo VAG piece of junk I'm easiest fastest of all. But I'd be no match for any decent non-VTEC/VVC/whatever N/A 2.0.

Edited by _ppan on Wednesday 22 March 11:09

[_ppan]

PomBstard said:

I think it’ll be fine, even with 2 adults and a couple of kids in it. Sure, you might need a few more revs to make swift progress, but I doubt you’d really notice in the general urban trawl. Traffic just doesn’t accelerate that fast.

For comparison I’ve had a couple of Subarus with the NA 2.5 lump - about 165bhp and maybe the same in torque, produced somewhere around 4000rpm. Yes, a little more than this ATR and yes, a little lower in the rev range, but comparable. As family cars, with two kids, just was never a problem, and that’s without the extra 50bhp available once going strong.

In daily traffic we get along just fine in our 125hp 1.0 Ford Ecoboost Cmax. I just find it really weird that people seem to need 4000lbft of torque at 55rpm to get along in modern day traffic.

Karlsruhe said:

Sounds very clichéd but under 5500 rpm it drives like a smooth 2.0 n/a petrol and doesn't need to be revved hard for normal use as the K20 is a very tractable engine- happy trundling around in 4th gear at 30 mph. Of course if you want to move at a quicker pace then yes it does involve revving higher but it really isn't a chore as the gearbox is sublime as well as the induction growl.

Not a chore? Great understatement It's an absolute joy if you ask me. Obviously a matter of taste as I am not one for diesel-like 6000rpm red lines of many turbo engines. But the arguments for getting around daily traffic I personally find utter nonsense.