Thanks for the write-up. I want one.
By now you’ve surely read the multitude of reviews of the New Honda Civic Type R that landed around the web at 12:01 a.m. this past Wednesday. That’s the moment the media embargo lifted and auto journalists were allowed to flood the info-sphere with driving impressions and specs on the first Type R-badged car in the U.S. since the legendary Acura Integra Type R–which arrived here more than 20 years ago. The new Civic Type R is also the first Honda-badged Type R vehicle ever officially sold in the U.S.
Heck, the moment that Honda lifted that embargo, you may have even joined us for our live broadcast with driving impressions. Like the rest of the writers at the Montreal-based media preview, we were eager to tell folks about the Honda’s new hot hatch.
The difference is, when it comes to the Civic Type R, so many of them missed the point entirely.
Let’s start with a little of what the Type R is: It’s a 306-horsepower, four-door-plus-a-hatchback Civic that got around the Nurburgring faster than any other production front-wheel-drive car in recorded history. Far from being a Civic with a body kit, the Type R uses a 2.0-liter intercooler turbocharged and direct-injected engine that is from an entirely different engine family than is used in the rest of the Civic lineup.
While the body preparation is not as radical as the Integra Type R–which employed tricks such as reinforced body shell and thinner glass–the Civic Type R does employ specific additional use of body adhesives to increase chassis stiffness over regular Civic hatchbacks. The car also receives equipment that increases the user experience without unnecessarily increasing mass.
So many of the reviews we’ve read, though, disparage the Civic Type R for what it isn’t. They moan and bellyache about the lack of features like heated power seats, which they feel should be present in a “premium” automobile. Or they’ll point out the lack of a sunroof, or the fact that the rear seat is only a two-place unit with a molded divider instead of a heavier three-place bench.
I hope these people are never again allowed to wear an SA-rated helmet in anger.
With the exception of the styling–which I’ll address in a minute–the Civic Type R is a largely unimpeachable high-performance front-drive automobile. Specs and market positioning encourage a direct comparison to the Focus RS and Golf R, and despite the Civic’s lack of AWD, it compares more than favorably.
First, the lack of AWD also means the lack of several hundred pounds of mechanical equipment. The Civic Type weighs in at a touch more than 3100 pounds dripping wet with all mats, cargo covers and tools in place. That’s a few hundred pounds less than its market competitors, and we like that math.
Second, the ergonomics and human factors of the Civic Type are exceptional–especially in comparison to the downright ill-fitting interior of the Focus. The Civic is easy to enter or exit–even with a helmet on–and the interior is airy and reminiscent of Hondas of yore, back in days before side-impact crash standards raised window and dash heights to claustrophobic levels.
The seats are as close to perfect for a wide variety of body types as any we’ve seen. Why do you need power adjustment if they work fine without being adjusted?
Yes, the styling is–to put it mildly–controversial. There’s a lot going on visually both inside and especially outside the Civic Type R. Anyone raised on a steady diet of Macross anime will instantly recognize the creases, angles, points, protrusions, scallops and edged swoops of the Civicic’s many, many (many) visual complications.
I'm not saying that’s an entirely bad thing, mind you. I’ll reassure you that it looks better–and better proportioned–in the flesh than it does in photos, but there’s still a LOT of information for your eyes to take in. All that detailing is, however, largely functional. Splitters, ducts, foils and channels direct air to where it can do the most good (or at least do the least bad), and were designed primarily by the performance department and not the marketing department. (We’re sure the marketing department didn’t complain much, though.)
But for those of you who discount the car for being “too ugly,” we kindly request you get over yourself, let go of your clutched pearls, and join us on track. The Civic Type R is sheer delight to destroy apexes with, and one of the easiest cars to jump into and go fast we’ve ever driven.
Three preset modes are available from the stability and traction control selector switch. Comfort and Sport are fairly self explanatory: Comfort is comfortable, while Sport firms the dampers, provides more steering resistance and a slightly more aggressive throttle actuation curve.
The most track-focused mode, which Honda calls +R, disables or seriously diminishes the electronic nannies, firms the chassis and steering even further, and provides extremely aggressive and impeccably timed throttle blips for the automatic rev-matching on downshifts of the six-speed manual.
In +R mode, computer stability intervention in nearly transparent on track. In an autocross situation, where weight must be occasionally transferred in more dramatic and unnatural fashion, there’s still perceptible intervention, but Honda does provide for an “all-off” configuration as well.
On a faster road course, we’d probably opt for the +R mode and see lap times just as fast or faster as with everything off. It’s a system that works with the driver, not against him or her.
Chassis-wise, the Type R impresses, especially in transitions. Like all front-drive cars, understeer is as available as you’re willing to make it by throttle application, but it’s benign and can be used to easily and precisely adjust the line of the car during cornering without undue penalty on momentum.
In fast transitions, the Civic Type R really shines, though. With the tendency for modern cars to get more and more top-heavy as additional structure and safety gear are added above the belt-line, so many cars suffer from nervous moments as they pass through the neutral point from hard cornering in one direction to hard cornering in the other. The chassis want a moment to stabilize as it passes through that neutral point, lest all that high-placed mass develop some momentum and just force the car offline as cornering loads build.
That’s not so with the Civic Type R. It changes direction willingly and aggressively–maybe like no front-drive car in decades. Were someone to evoke the CRX as a frame of reference, we would not say they were entirely without a point.
There’s also a conspicuous lack of torque steer–due in no small part to Honda’s dual-link front suspension design that places the kingpin angle directly inline with the center of the front tires. It’s a clever design that produces some solid geometry and excellent performance.
Questions and connivery still about, however. First, because of high demand, dealers are slapping the first batch of 2017 Civic Type Rs with some heavy stick-it-to-you premiums. Yeah we understand capitalism and all, but come on, guys. A $10,000 premium on an $33,900 seems excessive. (By the way, we’re told that each Honda dealer in the U.S. has been promised at least one of the 3000 or so 2017 models that will be brought into the U.S. from the plant in the U.K.)
Second, for our crowd, much of the Civic Type R’s appeal will be made or broken by where it ends up on the competitive spectrum. For SCCA autocross–which seems like the natural habitat of such a creature–we’re guessing it will follow its market competitors the Focus RS and Golf R into the B Street class, where it will battle the aforementioned hot hatches as well as the Honda S2000, BMW 1 Series M and non-Z06 C5 Corvette. Examples of all of these cars have won major events this year, so maybe the Civic will add even more competitive diversity to an already varied class.
In an autocross venue, the Civic Type R does have a couple inherent advantages it may be able to maximize. It’s one of the lightest cars in that field–especially compared to its hot-hatch competitors, and tall, 20-inch-diameter wheels and a not-overly short gear set combine for a 64 mph top speed in second gear. That means a minimal amount of worry about ever having to upshift to third, and the assorted on-course complications that come with such an action.
For general track enthusiasts, though, the Civic Type R will be a willing and fun partner. Split-folding rear seats and a hatch mean exceptional cargo capacity–easily enough for a set of track wheels and tire and tools–and the big 13.8-inch front rotors with four-piston Brembo calipers look like they should mean exceptional brake performance. We saw no signs of fade during repeated journalist lapping sessions, and if car writers can’t kill something, it may very well not be killable.
So we beg our colleagues to judge the Civic Type R on its merits, not some perceived lack of equipment that the car has no business needing or wanting. You don’t fault a shark for not having wings, because it’s already awesome at sharking, which is the whole point of being a shark. But, yeah, if you want to whine about the lack of seat heaters, go for it. You can tell us all about it if you can catch us by the next corner.
Is the Civic Type R a tenth of a second quicker or slower than the Focus RS? Does one pull a hundredth of a g more than the other?
Honestly, I don’t care. Here’s the biggest surprise here: For all of the performance offered by the Civic Type R, the car is totally, totally usable as a daily driver. And this is coming from a guy who has daily driven Civics on race-valved shocks.
Twenty years ago we got our first taste of the Type R, and I totally fell for it. In fact, I tried to buy our press car. I was told that I couldn’t so, soon after, we bought a new Civic Si instead. It was the more practical daily driver, anyway.
So fast forward to a totally new incarnation of the Type R. I’ve been a Civic Si fan all these years and really like the new car. How would the Type R compare? Yes, it’s faster, And, yes, it’s more extreme looking. But holy cow does the Type R still make a fine daily driver. The suspension is crisp and competent, but it doesn’t beat you up.
My ’86 Civic Si wore 60-series tires from the factory. The Type R rides on 30-series tires. The Type R’s ride is amazing subtle. True, Florida roads are better than other state’s, but it’s an impressively smooth ride.
So I’m looking at the specs right now. The Type R’s 2.0-liter turbo engines makes 306 horsepower at 6500 rpm and 295 lb.-ft. of torque from 2500 to 4500 rpm.
For a comparison I pulled an old issue of Car and Driver. It features a comparison between the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo. Both are powered by turbocharged 3.0-liter V6 engines. The Z makes 300 horsepower at 6400 rpm and 283 lb.-ft. at 3600; the Stealth produces 300 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 307 lb.-ft. of torque at 2500 rpm.
Yay, technology. The Type R isn’t peaky or pesky. It just makes turbo-six power. All the time. Oh, and it doesn’t torque steer, either.
We’ve already track-tested the Type Ro, so I’m looking at this one as a daily driver. Whether or not it works comes down to two easy questions: Can you handle the extreme looks of the Type R as well as the $10,000 price premium?
Thanks for the write-up. I want one.
Sounds like a genuinely great enthusiast car. Any word whether the CTR will have the R-Comp tires used for its record breaking Nurburgring run available as a factory option, or will it be getting an asterisk next to that achievement?
It's funny because back when the ITR was new a lot of people bought them (and were unfortunately sold by uneducated salesmen) because they thought most expensive = best integra. That is quite far from the truth, as it was the loudest and most brash and led to a lot of trade-ins, returns and slow sales due to the Spartan/harsh nature of the car. Which is ironically the reason the car is so sought after now. That is what I think of when I see the complaints about the lack of heated seats in this Type-R.
That being said, it is quite fugly in my opinion. I always think "Quality and class never scream for your attention, they whisper" and the design language on this car is much too aggressive albeit quite functional as I understand (the drag coefficient is impressively low). And I do miss the natural aspiration as well (having never driven any of the turbo Hondas). Hondas have never been about being absolutely the fastest but moreso about the total experience. I bought my new FA5 (8th gen) over the WRX despite it being slower because it was a more engaging drive. I liked the VTEC kick, the tiny 2000rpm power band and playfull chassis that could be coaxed to oversteer by trailbraking unlike the plowing WRX. That is what I will miss the most. The simplicity and total joy of handling a scalpel rather than working a sledgehammer.
rwdsport wrote: It's funny because back when the ITR was new a lot of people bought them (and were unfortunately sold by uneducated salesmen) because they thought most expensive = best integra. That is quite far from the truth, as it was the loudest and most brash and led to a lot of trade-ins, returns and slow sales due to the Spartan/harsh nature of the car. Which is ironically the reason the car is so sought after now. That is what I think of when I see the complaints about the lack of heated seats in this Type-R. That being said, it is quite fugly in my opinion. I always think "Quality and class never scream for your attention, they whisper" and the design language on this car is much too aggressive albeit quite functional as I understand (the drag coefficient is impressively low). And I do miss the natural aspiration as well (having never driven any of the turbo Hondas). Hondas have never been about being absolutely the fastest but moreso about the total experience. I bought my new FA5 (8th gen) over the WRX despite it being slower because it was a more engaging drive. I liked the VTEC kick, the tiny 2000rpm power band and playfull chassis that could be coaxed to oversteer by trailbraking unlike the plowing WRX. That is what I will miss the most. The simplicity and total joy of handling a scalpel rather than working a sledgehammer.
It's more of a throwback than you're giving it credit for. I mean, there's never going to be another Integra Type R (Or Mustang Cobra R, or M3 CSL, or so many other decontented wonders), but for 2017, it's well done. Civilized enough you can live with it, edgy enough you know it's not screwing around.
I'll agree a little on the power curve. I didn't get into it much because of space limitations, but the torque curve is flat. Dare I say, too flat. On one hand, it doesn't penalize you for small mistakes in cornering speed since there's almost always plenty of torque on demand. On the other hand, it doesn't reward you as dramatically for getting it right.
Still someone asked me on the live show if I'd pick a CTR or a Focus RS if you were handing me the keys. I'd take the Civic in a heartbeat, just on superior ergonomics and usability alone. I wold love to get one out on a big, grippy, imperfect track like Sebring. I think it would surprise a lot of people in "fast" cars.
As to the tires, the Nurburgring record wasn't exactly on R-comps (they were Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s), but they were stickier than the US-spec OEM rubber. A set of Hoosiers probably drops another 15-18 seconds. The US-spec Contis probably lose 8-10 seconds the other direction.
PS: Yes, that derp face in the lead photo is being made by internet sensation Doug Demuro.
"I wold love to get one out on a big, grippy, imperfect track like Sebring. I think it would surprise a lot of people in "fast" cars."
And that is exactly why people Love older Honda's. Sounds like a return to form.
I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20
It's just too ugly. I understand tht it has great performance numbers, but it's so overstyled it makes the C7 look good. I mean, if Sandra Burnhardt was a good cook, you still wouldn't be seen with her.
Why are there square yards of honey-comb plastic on the bumpers? That ugly spoiler flexes like Arnold did in the '80s. It's just ugly. Then there's the performance deficit against its competitors. Yes, a deficit.
Now who's wearing pearls ;)
Yep, pretty busy and over styled but I like it a lot. It's on my short list.
I think this car looks better, now that I understand the designers were going for the "pediatric brain tumor" look.
drdisque wrote: I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20
Conceptually agree.
But...
Those tall wheels and the gearing combine for a 64mph second gear. That's going to be a big plus on an autocross course.
DrBoost wrote: Then there's the performance deficit against its competitors.
There is? I haven't seen a reliable, same day/same track/same tire comparison yet. I don't think we have enough data to assume any performance deficit between the CTR and its market competitors yet. Don't confuse specs with performance. If we just went by specs, Miata's would suck.
I, for one, am sold on it. Is it a bit over the top in the styling department (italics for sarcastic effect,)? Absolutely! That being said, if it drives half as well as all of the reviewer that I actually trust say it does, it has to be a hoot to drive. As I assume most of the GRM faithful are, I am much more about the experience of the car than raw numbers. Give me something that puts a grin on my face every time I get behind the wheel and it can look like a mack truck on the outside.
If you want an idea of that, in addition to JG's review, watch Jason's review on the Engineering Explained YouTube channel. He's a hard core super-nerd when it comes to technology, but has a pretty decent baseline, as he owns a S2000 and used to have a 2014 Sti. Just seeing the grin on his face through out the whole 20 minute video told me what I needed to know.
I can't blame Honda for all of that black honeycomb in the bumpers. That stuff is everywhere and, like it or not, it's the new norm, especially when it comes to sporty cars. I don't know why I went to the Hyundai site first, but this is kind of funny.
Elantra Value:
Elantra Sport:
I agree that there's a lot of stuff on the Civic Type R, but I can't totally damn Honda in this case. Personally, I'd do a white (tradition) or black one.
Good call David. Black plastic honeycomb cladding definitely is this season's trend, it seems.
Make mine either white, or the dark gray.
-Ben
MoCounselor wrote: If you want an idea of that, in addition to JG's review, watch Jason's review on the Engineering Explained YouTube channel.
Yeah, nice guy. Talked to him about coming on the live show sometime. Literally just a dude making videos in his living room that hit it big. Genuine article.
Just thinking a little more about this, and that negative space isn't too new. It is interesting how it's used, though.
1998 Honda Civic:
1999 Civic Si
We had one of those Si coupes, too. The function of those black "scoops" in the bumper? Style. My wife still misses that car.
Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop on internet "journalists" but I'm watching the prior-mentioned Mr. Demuro's review of the Si and I have to say that I don't get it. This guy is a "internet sensation?" He just seems annoying and opinionated with little to no basis on his opinions.
Very cool. I'll be watching for that one!
JG Pasterjak wrote:MoCounselor wrote: If you want an idea of that, in addition to JG's review, watch Jason's review on the Engineering Explained YouTube channel.Yeah, nice guy. Talked to him about coming on the live show sometime. Literally just a dude making videos in his living room that hit it big. Genuine article.
JG Pasterjak wrote:DrBoost wrote: Then there's the performance deficit against its competitors.There is? I haven't seen a reliable, same day/same track/same tire comparison yet. I don't think we have enough data to assume any performance deficit between the CTR and its market competitors yet. Don't confuse specs with performance. If we just went by specs, Miata's would suck.
True. It will be interesting to see same day, same track numbers.
I wonder why they made it so ugly. If the spoiler worked (it can't with that much flex) and if the HUGE plastic platters did something, I might be able to excuse some of the terrible look.
But it appears they got criticized because the Japanese can't engineer personality or soul in thier products, this is how they interpreted the idea "we'll do the Civic that Chevy would sell".
I prefer clean, purposeful lines, there are a few designers that can do that.
MoCounselor wrote: Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop on internet "journalists" but I'm watching the prior-mentioned Mr. Demuro's review of the Si and I have to say that I don't get it. This guy is a "internet sensation?" He just seems annoying and opinionated with little to no basis on his opinions.
Are you saying you want the internet to get things right? Why should it start now?
DrBoost wrote: If the spoiler worked (it can't with that much flex)
Sure it can. Watch how much the wings of a commercial airliner flex the next time you're in a window seat. Heck, watch how much the wings of Indy cars move at low speeds. With actual aero load on a spoiler there's also typically much less wiggle than there is when you slam a trunk and there's zero aero load on the piece.
But, yeah, it lends to a perception of lack of quality. And I'm completely willing to admit that the car is heavily, heavily styled. Ther'a really a lot going on there. I can't see a bit of it from the driver's seat, though, and I've got no one left to impress anyway. I wear Crocs for God's sake. I've given up worrying about styling in favor of function years ago.
JG Pasterjak wrote:drdisque wrote: I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20Conceptually agree. But... Those tall wheels and the gearing combine for a 64mph second gear. That's going to be a big plus on an autocross course.
And hey, there's a lot of decent tires available in 235/35/19 and 245/35/19 so you just have to drop over a grand on a new set of wheels to run decent tires. Of course, the OEM wheels are probably worth something to somebody if you don't want them anymore.
The other issue is potholes - a 30 profile tire is pretty crazy for a rustbelt citizen like me on an otherwise fairly civilized car.
drdisque wrote:JG Pasterjak wrote:And hey, there's a lot of decent tires available in 235/35/19 and 245/35/19 so you just have to drop over a grand on a new set of wheels to run decent tires. Of course, the OEM wheels are probably worth something to somebody if you don't want them anymore. The other issue is potholes - a 30 profile tire is pretty crazy for a rustbelt citizen like me on an otherwise fairly civilized car.drdisque wrote: I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20Conceptually agree. But... Those tall wheels and the gearing combine for a 64mph second gear. That's going to be a big plus on an autocross course.
RE71Rs come in 20s (checked on my phone during the press briefing 
But, yeah, I hear you on potholes. We're a little spoiled in the southeast where it never freezes and the roads are fairly good. In Michigan those would not be ideal sidewalls.
I think I like how it looks. The new Civic is actually nice in person and, well, a Type R Honda is supposed to have a big wing right?
JG Pasterjak wrote:drdisque wrote: I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20Conceptually agree. But... Those tall tires and the gearing combine for a 64mph second gear. That's going to be a big plus on an autocross course.
FTFY...Although I don't think there is any argument that the tires are too tall, just the wheels.
DrBoost wrote: If the spoiler worked (it can't with that much flex)...
It wouldn't flex if it wasn't doing anything.
Driven5 wrote:DrBoost wrote: If the spoiler worked (it can't with that much flex)...It wouldn't flex if it wasn't doing anything.
I get what you're saying, but as aero load starts to build, the spoiler will just flex instead of staying rigid and transferring the force. Take torque sticks for example. My 600 ft. lb. impact is imparting 600+ pounds of twist, but 510 is being absorbed by the stick. I've never seen a proper spoiler flex like that. I've even pushed on some and never got deflexion. I'm also no aero-engineer, just going on anecdotal evidence.
But I'm in the minority here. There are enough fanbois that will see "TypeR" on the back and scoop 'em up.
That being said, I'm always glad to see the performance bar raised. It benefits all car enthusiasts. Who knows. maybe FCA will pull it's head out of the sand and build an SRT hatch. Been waiting on that since the introduction of the Dart.
DrBoost wrote:Driven5 wrote:I get what you're saying, but as aero load starts to build, the spoiler will just flex instead of staying rigid and transferring the force. Take torque sticks for example. My 600 ft. lb. impact is imparting 600+ pounds of twist, but 510 is being absorbed by the stick. I've never seen a proper spoiler flex like that. I've even pushed on some and never got deflexion. I'm also no aero-engineer, just going on anecdotal evidence.DrBoost wrote: If the spoiler worked (it can't with that much flex)...It wouldn't flex if it wasn't doing anything.
The force is still pushing on the wing. You can't use the torque stick analogy because an impact gun works with impacts, and the torque stick is a spring that bounces back after every impact. If you used a breaker bar on a torque stick, you can go beyond their rated torque limit. (Try it with a torque wrench for extra fun)
This is also why torque sticks are pretty inaccurate, even before they wear out or break in use.
Suggesting that the force on the wing is lost because the wing is flexing is like saying the force on tires is lost because the suspension is compressing. Static loads, not dynamic!
Telling people to get over themselves because they point out the sheer needless use of idiot styling is just not on. The fact is this car could look so much better without all the needless GMesque whoopdeedoos and geegaws. And anything that has "R" appended to it needs to be a track focused monster with anything not related to performance shoved in the bin. Regardless of performance, and frankly, 306 hp shoving 3100 lbs through the front wheels is not that spectacular, this thing is hideous and its not something a lot of people would want to be seen in.
Are we not allowed to talk pricing in the real world yet? Local dealership was 20K over sticker for one right now.
In reply to wearymicrobe:
They probably saw just how much the first one sold for, and figured telling customers they're "only" charging 1/10 of that in markup will make it seem like a bargain.
I could swear a dark blue one went down my road this afternoon, too fast for a great look, but that rear end is pretty recognizable.
HapDL wrote: frankly, 306 hp shoving 3100 lbs through the front wheels is not that spectacular
The fact that humans have become jaded enough to current performance levels to write this sentence tells me it's a great time to be alive.
JG Pasterjak wrote:HapDL wrote: frankly, 306 hp shoving 3100 lbs through the front wheels is not that spectacularThe fact that humans have become jaded enough to current performance levels to write this sentence tells me it's a great time to be alive.
I still remember the Holy E36 M3 Moment that Da Boss had when we were road tuning a car that could NOT hook up on asphalt at any speed, and accelerated to felony speeds on concrete in absurdly short times (making me involuntarily giggle every time he crushed carpet with the accelerator pedal), and I looked at the injector duty cycles, did a little bit of head-math, and pointed out that it was only slightly more power than you could buy, right then, at any Ford dealership, with a clean bill of emissions health and a 100k mile warranty and impeccable daily driving manners.
Granted, a DOHC 5.4l has an easier time making power than a 4.3l pushrod engine, but the fact that the GT500 existed at all is remarkable.
JG Pasterjak wrote:HapDL wrote: frankly, 306 hp shoving 3100 lbs through the front wheels is not that spectacularThe fact that humans have become jaded enough to current performance levels to write this sentence tells me it's a great time to be alive.
No kidding. Remember when Japanese supercars were limited to 278hp (or there abouts) because more that that was absurd? This is a Civic. With 306hp from the factory.
mazdeuce wrote: No kidding. Remember when Japanese supercars were limited to 278hp (or there abouts) because more that that was absurd? This is a Civic. With 306hp from the factory.
I believe they still do have the 276hp gentleman's agreement... for cars built in Japan. (I remember the twin turbo Supra made 320hp in the US and 276hp in Japan and it was the same dang car)
Kind of like the agreement the German automakers who aren't Porsche or AMG have regarding 250km/h speeds. Which, apparently, is why Chrysler 300s were popular among Mercedes execs, since they could hit 170mph.
can someone explain to me what "dual-link front suspension" is?
In reply to sleepyhead:
JG had a really good picture and explanation during the live stream that night. I'm not sure where the video is to watch again and grab it though, possibly on the GRM Facebook page?
I could take a stab at an explanation for the "floppy spoiler"... although, I didn't see that in the article... so is it flexing side-to-side, or is the 'back' (i.e. trailing edge) able to twist... i.e. flopping down?
sleepyhead wrote: can someone explain to me what "dual-link front suspension" is?
I am assuming that it is a strut based suspension with dual ball joints, as was the fad in the late 90s and 00s. Good to see that Honda is finally catching up. They always were massively conservative with design, sticking with carburetors until 1990-ish and distributors even longer.
RevRico wrote: In reply to sleepyhead: JG had a really good picture and explanation during the live stream that night. I'm not sure where the video is to watch again and grab it though, possibly on the GRM Facebook page?
found it on there (the 'special edition' GRM live video), thanks!
sleepyhead wrote: can someone explain to me what "dual-link front suspension" is?
Type R on the left. Regular Civic on the right.
Note: Honda frowns on journalists bringing jacks and tire guns to press launches, so i wasn't able together a wheel off and take a closer look. One of the "make or break" factors for this car IMO will be if there's any additional camber available up front. If there is, it'll be a hell of a good tuning tool.
Initial reaction is that it's a kingpin setup like a G20, but there's no upper control arm.
Looking for images of Ford's RevoKnuckle and the goofy arrangement on the Regal GS.
Buick:
Ford:
(GIS for Revo Knuckle got a smaller version of the Buick suspension as one of the first hits)
After owning a 5-speed 2011 Accord Sedan for 6 years and 152,000 miles I was impressed with Honda. This car is not in my cards since I need a truck for work. This is a dream car for me - just like having a 370Z for work - it will never happen.
Still - I drove that Accord like Mario every day and I made that four cylinder sing - After owning a Honda I am a fan. I just need to figure out how to work on getting an older Civic Si into my garage.
But but but wait! Torque steer has nothing to do with unequal length cv shafts?!? Holy crap, Honda is stomping out internet myths once again.
Datsun310Guy wrote: After owning a 5-speed 2011 Accord Sedan for 6 years and 152,000 miles I was impressed with Honda. This car is not in my cards since I need a truck for work. This is a dream car for me - just like having a 370Z for work - it will never happen. Still - I drove that Accord like Mario every day and I made that four cylinder sing - After owning a Honda I am a fan. I just need to figure out how to work on getting an older Civic Si into my garage.
It's funny, kinda the opposite here. My first Honda is our current Odyssey DD. It seems every week I'm finding out another way that Honda was short-sighted and only academic in it's ability to build cars. Our next minivan purchase will find us in a FCA dealership, passing right by the Honda store.
But again, I'm glad it exists even if it's horrifically overstyled. Competition is always good for the breed.
so, I watched the Demuro vid, and saw the "spoiler flexing"... and {meh}
that hatch has to be pretty heavy, and (if you watch frame-by-frame) you can see that hatch's actually lifting off the gasket, which is part of the flexing. (i.e. heavy hatch with lightweight wing, means a lot of energy transferred into the wing, multiple times). Most big wings are mounted on trunks, which have a lot less inertia to them... and I was pushing on an ACR wing at OneLap (much to the owner's shagrin), and wasn't all that impressed with the upright's side-to-side strength.
And, yes, that is something to think about
Also, I think I'm seeing that the wing is rotating a little bit, which is what I suspected. I have a feeling that they've tailored the uprights to let the wing rotate "nose up" to kill the angle as speed increases. There's at least probably 3 explanations for this:
1) Mileage (reducing that AoA, reduces lift, which reduces drag, which reduces people suing them for "I'm not getting the highway miles reported on the door card" because they were doing 75mph)
2) Manufacturer Understeer (cars that understeer are 'safer')
3) Consistent Downforce ('dumping' the angle as speed builds, would mean that instead of downforce increasing as speed builds, the same downforce is available all the time... which is easier for "the general public" to be confident in how many lateral g's they can pull)
All of this is a bit of idle speculation... with only one video to go on... so, grain of salt and all. Although if I'm right about the last one... it raises the question of if the same rear wing was on the Nurburgring lap record car. I could see that going either way (let it dump angle 'cause the 'Ring has a lot of high speed stuff; or custom 'stiffer wing' for the 'Ring so there's more downforce).
Paging Stafford1500...
How much of an effect does wing deflection and vibration have on performance?
Here's the issue. There's only one rear-wheel drive small sedan (4-doors) that can be tracked as stock or near stock. The BMW 3-series (not a small car anymore).
The other options are all-wheel drive or front wheel drive. And they are:
WRX/STI A3/S3/A4 GTI Focus ST/RS Fiesta ST (too small) Civic Si/Type-R
What makes me sad is that only the (huge) BMW 3-series is rear wheel drive. Yes, I own a GTI and I like it, but I only own it so I can check it off my bucket list. I won't go front-wheel drive on my next car.
sleepyhead wrote: And, yes, that is something to think about
Wow. That really shows, in a different way, how much downFORCE properly done spoilers actually produce.
I wonder what that was like to be driving when that happened. I wonder what the driver felt.
So this is where Honda's engineers have been instead of working on the F1 engine....
Well, the styling is, shall we say, polarizing, and the performance seems spot on with its competitors. One thing for certain is that this car is generating a lot of buzz for Honda that they haven't had in quite a while.
I loved my 4-gen Civic because it was so fun to drive, and that was when it was in base DX trim. Even with no power, the chassis, steering, brakes and shifter were engaging and rewarding. I have long wondered what a great Honda chassis would be like with more power, sounds like it finally happened. As soon as they come out with body kits to make it a more serious looking car and not a cartoon, I will check them out. Until then I will stick with my understated Fiesta ST.
This is the first I've heard that the 7:45 Nurburgring Type R lap time was performed on R Compound tires. That explains a lot.
Re: styling.
Where are all the "form follows function" people? This shape apparently works, and now we are all getting artsy fartsy about an engineering exercise?
I personally would love to own one. But i just bought a new house and I am about to plunk down for a new garage. Should probably let the credit card cool off before it melts.
In reply to JG Pasterjak:
So I'm guessing you sampled the car at the ICAR circuit? Did you guys get to drive it around the area a bit? There are truly horrible roads around there and I'm woundering how the ride was.
smokindav wrote: Here's the issue. There's only one rear-wheel drive small sedan (4-doors) that can be tracked as stock or near stock. The BMW 3-series (not a small car anymore). The other options are all-wheel drive or front wheel drive. And they are: WRX/STI A3/S3/A4 GTI Focus ST/RS Fiesta ST (too small) Civic Si/Type-R What makes me sad is that only the (huge) BMW 3-series is rear wheel drive. Yes, I own a GTI and I like it, but I only own it so I can check it off my bucket list. I won't go front-wheel drive on my next car.
If you consider a new 3-series "trackable" from the factory, then so is the Cadillac ATS, which is also a RWD sedan offered with 3 pedals.
fanfoy wrote: In reply to JG Pasterjak: So I'm guessing you sampled the car at the ICAR circuit? Did you guys get to drive it around the area a bit? There are truly horrible roads around there and I'm woundering how the ride was.
Yeah, we did the road drive from ICAR up to Montcalm, which is about 60 miles NW of the track. Roads were not great. Ride was fine, and everything was quiet and didn't rattle or bang over the rough stuff. Unless you lived somewhere where all the roads were dirt, I can't see ride comfort being an issue.
sleepyhead wrote: and I was pushing on an ACR wing at OneLap (much to the owner's shagrin), and wasn't all that impressed with the upright's side-to-side strength.
Huh.
I have never seen a ACR wing deflect ever on the track or in real life.
JG Pasterjak wrote:drdisque wrote: I'd be more enthused if it was wearing smaller wheels. There's no reason it needs 20" wheels with the ridiculous tire size 245/30R20Conceptually agree. But... Those tall wheels and the gearing combine for a 64mph second gear. That's going to be a big plus on an autocross course.
Out of straight curiosity; does the CTR have any type of throttle/fuel mapping/boost mapping logic which prevents super knock if you mat the throttle at a low RPM? Or does Honda give any assurances about the bottom end of the motor?
I know these things have an absurd markup right now but when they get around to the second or third owner I suspect you're going to see a lot of the same issues arise as with other with other hot turbocharged direct injection cars.
Also super interested in what the prospect of a turbo swap is in one of these (I know I know no impact wrenches or engine hoists on manufacturer demo day). Looking at the pictures of the motor it looks like it would be a pain to modify.
I'm willing to bet that ~300hp is about exactly as much power as this chassis can functionally put to the ground. If you added power, would it translate into better laptimes or just better dyno slips and freeway pulls?
Tyler H wrote: I'm willing to bet that ~300hp is about exactly as much power as this chassis can functionally put to the ground. If you added power, would it translate into better laptimes or just better dyno slips and freeway pulls?
I think that probably depends to a relatively large degree on what you are planning on lapping with it. Even if it ended up being of limited benefit in your local parking lot, I bet it would at least readily accept plenty more power at 'fast' tracks like Road America, Willow Springs, etc.
jstein77 wrote: This is the first I've heard that the 7:45 Nurburgring Type R lap time was performed on R Compound tires. That explains a lot.
I dont think it was wearing R compound tires ... as far as I have read they where road legal tires.
In reply to Slippery:
I think that depends somewhat on how you choose to define "R Comp" and "road legal". The simple fact seems to be that the FWD Production car 'lap record' was set on (substantially faster) tires than are actually available on the car being produced.
wearymicrobe wrote:sleepyhead wrote: and I was pushing on an ACR wing at OneLap (much to the owner's shagrin), and wasn't all that impressed with the upright's side-to-side strength.Huh.
Maybe I should say "lateral deflection" under hand loads (I.e. pushing on the end plates)... mainly because of the Porsche photo above. That case was almost certainly an outlier, and possibly that failure was caused by a crosswind contribution... something I don't think many people think about. Did the Dodge engineers? Probably.
Is the ACR wing strong enough? Some evidence seems to indicates so. Is the CTR's? I'd wager the same statement applies.
But, then my background is more theoretical, or is a different application... and was more aero than structural. So I'm still getting up to snuff on the racing side of things.
Thanks for the pic, though, always like seeing people with confidence in the numbers!
jstein77 wrote: This is the first I've heard that the 7:45 Nurburgring Type R lap time was performed on R Compound tires. That explains a lot.
They were 180tw Michelin Pilot Sport Cups. So not quite R-comps, but a solid track day tire.
so, to take this discussion in another direction (away from me getting labled 'the forums grump anal aero idiot')... for $40k would you rather have a CTR or a modded and 6spd manual lsd swapped TSX wagon?
CTR
Robbie wrote: Re: styling. Where are all the "form follows function" people? This shape apparently works, and now we are all getting artsy fartsy
Here 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.
Agree with Dr. Boost. Exactly how much rear downforce does an FWD car need?
jstein77 wrote: Agree with Dr. Boost. Exactly how much rear downforce does an FWD car need?
It can actually be a good bit as a guy I know learned with his autocross CRX (which ended up with a giant wing). You make the suspension a bit tail happy so the car will rotate well at lower speeds and use aero to tame it at higher speeds so it's not unstable (gradually becomes less tail happy as speed increases).
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
In reply to Bobzilla:
How about this article showing the CTR making a lot of rwd and AWD cars look like chumps.
Robbie wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: https://www.google.com/amp/www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/gmp6778/suv-hatchback-sedan-nurburgring-lap/ How about this article showing the CTR making a lot of rwd and AWD cars look like chumps.
Good for them. Still an ugly, over-done, $40k fwd econo-car.
Driven5 wrote: 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.
The problem here is the price vs. styling as I see it. Most people shopping this price category will probably overlook the CTR. Look at the sales of 86's and BRZs. At around $28 to $32k, they are still having a tough time getting the customer base that wants them, mostly due to them not having the coin to purchase one new. At $35 to $40k, people with that type of money to spend typically want a far different car. It may be by far the best Civic ever, but they've styled and priced it in a way to make it an iffy sales proposition.
I hope the guys at Honda don't sit back and say, "gee, we built this fantastic car and nobody wanted it. There must not be a market. Let's go back to adding cup holders and forget performance."
I don't think anyone here would say the FiST or FoST don't look decent, imagine those with the CTR performance and reliability.
Of course I say all this, but I do understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In reply to grumpzilla:
I'm not saying you're wrong since it's just your opinion.
But I do find it funny that the Hyundai guy has so much Honda hate.
Econobox and FWD clearly don't bother you so much, so this dislike is based on looks and (misquoted, I think) price alone?
I agree with you BTW, that I'm not in the market for one at 40k, (or 35k 
), but I still love the idea of the lightweight supersedan fighter coming from Honda.
Ninja edit: supersedan not supercar.
In reply to Robbie:
Exactly! 
In reply to Robbie:
FINE, 35k before taxes, license etc. still a $40k econo-box. Honda has made E36 M3 for years now. I saw plenty of that chucking their parts for 10 years. Yet people still equate the junk they're churning out as the same as the great cars they offered in the 90's. Same with Toyota. They've both sat on their asses for years riding their names. So no... not a fan.
If I want an econobox, I'll buy an econobox for $15-20k. If I want a track ready car for $40k (fine, $35) it's not going to be FWD and it's not going to be an econobox.
Look, I'm glad Honda may be slowly waking up from its slumber of laziness. But this thing isn't that great.
YMMV, IMHO, yadda yadda yadda.
Also... didn't you know that the Koreans and the Japanese are like oil and water?
Bobzilla wrote: FINE, 35k before taxes, license etc. still a $40k econo-box.
But it comes with two tickets to the Player Haters Ball.
I'll be curious to see how these pseudo rally-looking cars sell. It seems the FiST is selling pretty well, and maybe the FoST too, but those are in a lower price bracket. I"m not sure there are enough buyers in the $40K range for cars like the Focus RS, and CTR, seeing how many other appealing alternatives are available. Generally folks with $40K to spend are a bit older, and they may find the Amime-inspired styling off-putting.
I'm sure not seeing many new STi's in this area anymore, so I wonder how many folks will ante up. Looks notwithstanding, they are all pretty amazing machines.
In all fairness, I've always had a distaste for Honda's in general.
In reply to Joe Gearin:
I think that's going to be it's major problem. 40k is a lot of money for econobox obnoxious, which is pretty much what I'd roll the FoRS, Golf R, STi and CTR into. I'm sure we can argue fit and finish all day long but that 35k - 41k price range contains the Genesis G80, BMW 4 series, Audi S3 and A5, Kia Stinger (Rumored), Volvo S60 and V60, and a BRZ with a Supercharger.
I'll be the first to admit I never really grew out of the F&F phase of my life but for 40k you really have to want the the hotted up econobox.
I say this as I look at my 2011 MS3 (Which was $24,200 MSRP new) parked outside.
In reply to The0retical:
That's what I keep saying, but I get called hater.
Besides, if hotted up econobox is what you want, grab a Forte5 SX, turbo/tune it for the same power and roll. You can get 300whp from a 1.6T engine for much less than $35k, even if you bought a new car for $25k. Buy used and it gets even sillier.
EDIT: Just found a 2015 with 12k miles for $14,900, BTR stage 1 kit (250whp) for $2000. Add whatever wheel/tire combo you want and an LSD for another $2500. That means CTR knockoff for $19k without all the weird styling.
In reply to Bobzilla:
I think it's cool in so far as it exists but I can't see it being 31% better (assuming 35K) than my hotted up econohatch from six years ago (call it 4 if I had a 2013 but I don't.)
The0retical wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: I think that's going to be it's major problem. 40k is a lot of money for econobox obnoxious, which is pretty much what I'd roll the FoRS, Golf R, STi and CTR into. I'm sure we can argue fit and finish all day long but that 35k - 41k price range contains the Genesis G80, BMW 4 series, Audi S3 and A5, Kia Stinger (Rumored), Volvo S60 and V60, and a BRZ with a Supercharger. I'll be the first to admit I never really grew out of the F&F phase of my life but for 40k you really have to want the the hotted up econobox. I say this as I look at my 2011 MS3 (Which was $24,200 MSRP new) parked outside.
Don't forget the BMW 2-series, which starts at an MSRP of $33K. 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and an extremely capable rwd chassis. Or jump up to $50K and get the absolutely amazing M2--- which is probably BMW's best car. Yes, $50K is a substantial amount of money......but it's only $10K more than a Civic!
Joe Gearin wrote: Don't forget the BMW 2-series, which starts at an MSRP of $33K. 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and an extremely capable rwd chassis.
I had to look that up...that's crazy value. Had no idea the base ones were that quick.
calteg wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: Don't forget the BMW 2-series, which starts at an MSRP of $33K. 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and an extremely capable rwd chassis.I had to look that up...that's crazy value. Had no idea the base ones were that quick.
Yep--- dimensionally they feel a lot like an E36. Small enough to be nimble, big enough to be useful. You can also see out of them....which is nice (and rare) these days. It's a lot of car for the $$.
I do not need to know these things Joe.
Joe Gearin wrote:The0retical wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: I think that's going to be it's major problem. 40k is a lot of money for econobox obnoxious, which is pretty much what I'd roll the FoRS, Golf R, STi and CTR into. I'm sure we can argue fit and finish all day long but that 35k - 41k price range contains the Genesis G80, BMW 4 series, Audi S3 and A5, Kia Stinger (Rumored), Volvo S60 and V60, and a BRZ with a Supercharger. I'll be the first to admit I never really grew out of the F&F phase of my life but for 40k you really have to want the the hotted up econobox. I say this as I look at my 2011 MS3 (Which was $24,200 MSRP new) parked outside.Don't forget the BMW 2-series, which starts at an MSRP of $33K. 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and an extremely capable rwd chassis. Or jump up to $50K and get the absolutely amazing M2--- which is probably BMW's best car. Yes, $50K is a substantial amount of money......but it's only $10K more than a Civic!
This is the first rational argument against the CTR in the thread...other than fugly.
racerdave600 wrote: I do not need to know these things Joe.
If it helps finding a 2 series with a stick and optioned right is hard as hell. Ordering is your only bet.
Joe Gearin wrote: pseudo rally-looking cars
Rally "style" is all about off-road functional - the opposite of the "stance" style....which is far closer to what this Civic looks like with its 20" wheels and low-to-the ground cladding. I'd say it's the opposite of rally-style, personally.
I always LOVE JG's car reviews
I want to drive one.
C. I have no berkeleying clue what FiST's and FoST's are.
.
Bobzilla wrote:Besides, if hotted up econobox is what you want, grab a Forte5 SX, turbo/tune it for the same power and roll. You can {...} buy used and it gets even sillier.
EDIT: Just found a 2015 with 12k miles for $14,900, BTR stage 1 kit (250whp) for $2000. Add whatever wheel/tire combo you want and an LSD for another $2500. That means CTR knockoff for $19k without all the weird styling.
And Velociter Turbos are a couple years older, and more depreciated with the same engine/chassis, albeit without the same trunk space (guess where my evening went)
.
Smarta$$ McPoopyPants wrote:C. I have no berkeleying clue what FiST's and FoST's are.
FiST = Fiesta ST
FoST = Focus ST
iirc
irish44j wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: pseudo rally-looking carsRally "style" is all about off-road functional - the opposite of the "stance" style....which is far closer to what this Civic looks like with its 20" wheels and low-to-the ground cladding. I'd say it's the opposite of rally-style, personally.
When 'people' think rally style they're thinking WRC or GRC. Auto sytlists aren't looking at NASA Rally events wondering how they can make their new cars look like slightly dented 35 year old sedans. 
sleepyhead wrote: .Bobzilla wrote: Besides, if hotted up econobox is what you want, grab a Forte5 SX, turbo/tune it for the same power and roll. You can {...} buy used and it gets even sillier. EDIT: Just found a 2015 with 12k miles for $14,900, BTR stage 1 kit (250whp) for $2000. Add whatever wheel/tire combo you want and an LSD for another $2500. That means CTR knockoff for $19k without all the weird styling.And Velociter Turbos are a couple years older, and more depreciated with the same engine/chassis, albeit without the same trunk space (guess where my evening went)
I put the Veloster into the same polarizing styling the CTR has. It's love or hate, no in between. I could deal with either side (3dr hatch or 5 dr hatch) but the crossbreed is just terrible. The other downside is in stock form the throttle mapping is terrible. So if you bought one you'd have to modify it almost instantly or you'd hate youre daily drive. Hell, even the older NA 2.4 Forte's have terrible throttle and clutch feel.
DrBoost wrote: Then there's the performance deficit against its competitors.
I'll just leave this here:
How do you tune a torque curve like that? Seems like total bs
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: How do you tune a torque curve like that? Seems like total bs
Boost. And then artificially limiting power in some ranges (presumably for durability of either engine or drivetrain parts). So the torque output could likely be higher where that flat spot is, but boost is held back to limit output in that range.
Driven5 wrote:DrBoost wrote: Then there's the performance deficit against its competitors.I'll just leave this here:
Wow, that article was done in my neck of the woods so I have a great reference.
I am shocked that the Civic is faster around St-Eustache. It's a tight track that requires good traction. And the roads are pretty bad over there...impressive.
You'll need to log in to post. Log in
