missed the mark. Honda has marketed an SI+ here this isn't a Type R. hopefully they follow Porsche and Chevy and do this right. 18's, Stoptechs, thinner glass, N/A motor (we know the motors are capable without being on the limit) Proper seats, championship white and nighthawk black, A/C and radio as options, proper suspension and all the other race bits that should be included. 35k??? LOL
supergoji wrote: N/A motor
Won't happen in a million years at this point. Plenty of cars have totally dumped N/A motors (IIRC, BMW doesn't make a single N/A motor anymore). Getting that amount of power out of the thing without boost would likely lead to a heavier car (and being FWD, that means more nose-heavy) and it would also lead to a car that burns more gas when used as a DD. And even at the same peak power numbers, it would have a narrower powerband and like be slower.
DrBoost wrote:Robbie wrote: Re: styling. Where are all the "form follows function" people? This shape apparently works, and now we are all getting artsy fartsyHere I am. Form follows function? There's about 4 square feet of plastic panels that have a honeycomb pattern, to mimic an air duct. Not sure of the function. Then there's the faux carbon fiber inside. To, uh, look lighter? Ther there's the spoiler of dubius merit. This is GM league stuff. Honda can actually build a heckuva power train. They can build a great chassis. They can put the two together. I'm just baffled they took this step. They don't need to rely on gimmicks to sell cars.
Blocking off air ducts reduces the coefficient of drag.
No response on faux carbon fiber interior panels, but they have to look like something. A little bit of paint on plastic is probably lighter (and cheaper) than a leather or wood or metal or fabric-covered panel, and probably looks better than bare plastic.
How do you know the spoiler is of dubious merit? (I'm not saying it is or isn't) maybe the Honda aerodynamics experts know something we don't?
I'll never own a smiley-faced Mazda or Pontiac Aztek because, while they perform just fine for the kinds of cars they are, their appearance seriously turns me off. Same with this CTR. Honda didn't have to go all 1990s-aftermarket-body-kit-dialed-to-11.
^^ I've gotta agree with you Jeff. Call me superficial, but I sort of care what a car looks like---- especially a premium / expensive car. I want to be able to look back over my shoulder when I park and think--- "damn straight that's mine!" and feel good about it.
I couldn't bear to drive a smiley-face Mazdaspeed 3, or this new Civic Type-R (or the Civic hatch for that matter) . They are just too overdone and hideous for my tastes. Now an Aztec or Juke I could probably bear--- as they are so ugly they are impossible to take seriously. (like a Gremlin or Pacer)
The CTR isn't trying to make fun of itself, it's serious---- sort of like guys with bad attitudes, wearing pants so low their underwear shows. They think they look cool---- the rest of the world thinks they look like idiots. I see the CTR like that......posing with a scowl on it's face because it's "mean".
But if you like the look---- go for it! I'm sure it performs wonderfully, will be reliable, and easy to live with. Styling is a personal thing. I can't blame folks that like the look, (although I don't understand it) and I sure can't blame those that don't. At least it isn't boring looking, I'll give them that.
Honda went for a while having nice looking cars, but they stepped back in time to go all old school Japanese styling with these. I'm sure it drives fantastic, but I think they've missed the mark on how it looks. At $40k with dealer markup, I think they will have trouble selling to the crowd that can afford them once the initial sales buzz wears off. Even when the markups fade, I would bet a closer to reality price would be mid $30's and up.
Eventually the shock and awe will wear off and the styling will look normal-ish.
I remember thinking the 92+ Honda styling language looked HORRIBLE when it came out...no angles, all curves. "Why are they trying to look all sporty? It's a honda. The 91 SI is the best looking Honda EVER." Then when the Integra and Celica went to 4 round headlights, I thought it was all over.
In white or black, it will be livable. I hope there is the opposite color scheme for the seats. All-black, or mainly black with red accents.
At least it has a body-color bar all the way across the front instead of Predatorface black. Or maybe Lexus trademarked the abortion of a styling cue?
The problem with Honda is that they sell cars to people that don't really care what a car looks like. Unfortunately, this car does not always fall into that camp. Racers still won't care to any degree, but for those looking for a nice, but fast street car in this category, I think it will matter. Just like Joe, I want to turn around a take in what I'm driving, unfortunately, that would require some sort of retinal transplant after the CTR! 
Joe Gearin wrote: ^^ I've gotta agree with you Jeff. Call me superficial, but I sort of care what a car looks like---- especially a premium / expensive car. I want to be able to look back over my shoulder when I park and think--- "damn straight that's mine!" and feel good about it. I couldn't bear to drive a smiley-face Mazdaspeed 3, or this new Civic Type-R (or the Civic hatch for that matter) . They are just too overdone and hideous for my tastes. Now an Aztec or Juke I could probably bear--- as they are so ugly they are impossible to take seriously. (like a Gremlin or Pacer) The CTR isn't trying to make fun of itself, it's serious---- sort of like guys with bad attitudes, wearing pants so low their underwear shows. They think they look cool---- the rest of the world thinks they look like idiots. I see the CTR like that......posing with a scowl on it's face because it's "mean". But if you like the look---- go for it! I'm sure it performs wonderfully, will be reliable, and easy to live with. Styling is a personal thing. I can't blame folks that like the look, (although I don't understand it) and I sure can't blame those that don't. At least it isn't boring looking, I'll give them that.
All of this (as I sit here staring out the window at my 40yo truck with 275's staring at me). Way too over done.
Seriously... at $40k, that's lightly used Z06 price range or Grand Sport. I found several that were under 10k miles. Considering it gets the (almost) same fuel economy as the type R I think I know which I'd go for.
Robbie wrote: Blocking off air ducts reduces the coefficient of drag.
Yes it does. That's why you see ducts blocked off at the salt flats. Typically they use duct tape or something that fits flush with the body, instead of recessed (drag inducing) panels with raised honeycomb texture (further reducing drag). I guarantee that if we see someone going after a land speed record in this car those panels will be flush and the goofy dolphin fins on the roof will be gone.
Robbie wrote: How do you know the spoiler is of dubious merit? (I'm not saying it is or isn't) maybe the Honda aerodynamics experts know something we don't?
I could be totally wrong here, but a spoiler that flexes that much seems of dubious nature. Maybe it's flexible on purpose, a-la the Italians with the prancing horse, but I doubt it.
So the wing flexes because it isn't a massive downforce producing rigid full tilt racecar wing. BFD. Does that mean it's non-functional? Most certainly not! There is also such a thing as aero balance and too much of a good thing. Note all of the STI's running around with aftermarket stiffening braces in their wing to prevent similar wing flex. Moreover, note that the CTR goes from a standard Civic that produces appreciable positive lift, to supposedly being the only car 'in its class' that produces negative net lift. So yeah, If say that's functional enough to get credit in my book.
Regarding the vents, yeah blocking vents improves aero... But those aren't vents that have been blocked off. They're faux, fake, phony, etc. Vents serve a function when open too. Those are merely styling elements made to reassemble vents. Period.
I love how a new Civic Type R release thread has de-evolved into a now defunct Viper ACR wing discussion.
Z06 for same money. No comments?
Bobzilla wrote: Z06 for same money. No comments?
(Insert new car versus used car counterpoint here? But that warranty, tho.)
In reply to Tyler H:
Track car isn't going to keep that warranty. I can guarantee you that. So then, the question is what tool are is better for the job? I found several sub 10k mile examples for sale.
Bobzilla wrote: Z06 for same money. No comments?
So... CTR = V8 Miata swap from flying Miata?
My problem with the 'vette and the v8 Miata comparison to the CTR is their lack of 4 seats
In reply to Bobzilla:
What do you have in a track capable and family capable used car?
Saw my first one in the flesh on the road yesterday. It looks far less offensive in person. I thought I was going to hate it, but then upon seeing it, I dig it. It's no worse then an Evo9
Driven5 wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: What do you have in a track capable and family capable used car?
M3?
Bobzilla wrote: Z06 for same money. No comments?
Yeah, but they're not really the same customer base. Someone shopping for a new FWD performance sedan with a warranty and aggressive factory-backed financing isn't really cross shopping used RWD 2 seaters with no warranty and only bank financing.
Like, if I told you I wanted a nice steak, you wouldn't say "Yeah, but you could also have three Blu-Ray copies of The Accountant starring Ben Affleck."
racerdave600 wrote:Driven5 wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: What do you have in a track capable and family capable used car?M3?
New Camaro, Mustang, M3, CTS-V. At $30-40k there are a LOT better options than an over-styled FWD fan-boi car.
IMO, it's the FWD and styling that kills this car (and $35k). Had Honda pulled it's head out of the dark damp place they like to hide it and made this car with more power and their SH-AWD, it would have been well worth the money they are charging. But even Mazda has seen the futility of more than 300whp in a FWD platform.
In reply to Bobzilla:
How many buyers are realistically cross shopping 10 year old Caddies and Beemers against brand new Civic Type R's? Or 2+2's against proper 4-doors? People looking at one are probably doing so for reasons that will most commonly exclude them from looking at the other...With a possible few exceptions, most of who would at the very least fit in well around here. Ultimately, your comments simply reinforce this notion. Each is generally appealing to completely separate demographics, even if both are more than capable of holding their own at the track...And since it's all purely subjective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with either.
JG Pasterjak wrote: Like, if I told you I wanted a nice steak, you wouldn't say "Yeah, but you could also have three Blu-Ray copies of The Accountant starring Ben Affleck."
So steak or a mediocre movie? Which one is the steak?
In reply to Driven5:
So I give you options and you still find a way to poo poo them. Nice. Also, we're talking 3 and 4 year old bimmers and caddies but whatever helps you justify your choice. I don't care. But I can tell you that if you're looking for a performance oriented vehicle for $40k this isn't going to cut it. It's slower, gets similar fuel economy and has looks only a blind man could love and the worst thing is it's FWD only. There's only so much the front tires can accomplish.
EDIT: And for the true family man, the SS is still available in this price range too. yum
You'll need to log in to post.
