I still would like to know why we cannot get the Civic-Type R UK style..


Honda (UK) - Civic

 

neat. i'd look at the following website:
Redline: Time Attack!!

compare street AWD (1:40.3) with street FWD (1:44.7). over 4 seconds difference in lap times. 4 seconds is HUGE.

now compare unlimited class cars:
FWD - 1:40.2
AWD - 1:31.8
RWD - 1:31.4


i love laguna seca. my opinion - laguna seca favors RWD. and RWD took the time of the day, and winning is winning, but the margin to me indicates that it's a bit tough for you to say that AWD isn't meant for paved racing. if anything, you seem to agree that AWD is the far and away winner when conditions are less than max grip dry pavement. and let's be honest, FWD is a massive disadvantage when it comes to competitive motorsports.

 

I like how people say racing this, racing that, but how many people actually legitimately race? 1 out of 20 legitimately I'd say. Numbers are numbers it's all about driving experience...making hp an end all is bullshit. It all comes down to driver satisfaction.

 

ok seriously, you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

Q: who wants a $26K Civic when they can get a S2k?
A: someone who wants a sedan and not a roadster

Q: who wants a $26k Civic when they can get a STI or Evo for a little more?
A: someone who doesn't have the extra money. someone who doesn't like turbo or AWD.

Q who wants a $26k Civic when they can have a used luxury car?
A: someone who doesn't want a used car. Someone who doesn't care about status.

Does it really make a difference if one car is faster than the other? Each person has different taste. Same reason why we bought a Fit over a Yaris. Different things appeal to different people. No matter what excuse there is, there will always be a legitimate reasons for someone wanting a $26k Civic. You also have to understand that the Civic is no longer the base end car that it used to be. Same for Corolla, Sentra, and so on. So a higher price tag is justified.

Acura is only a Honda, Lexus is only a Toyota, Infinity is only a Nissan. I don't understand how having one brand over another is so inferior?

Honda will lose money? Sure maybe but have you thought about brand loyalty? Maybe by bringing a CTR, it could bring in new potential demographics for the future. Think of it as public relations move. Or maybe it would strengthen loyalty among current loyal Honda owners by offering the chance to purchase a fine machine? Who knows.

And yes, I don't like turbo cars. Why? because I can't stand having to press the pedal slightly and have the car launch like a bat out of hell as soon as the turbo spools. I like linear power that NA and superchargers offer.

I'm not trying to put down anyone, just trying to shed light on other possibilities.

 

What were the specs on the street AWD cars and the street FWD cars? I doubt any of them were FD2s, or anywhere near to it's performance level. The unlimited class doesn't matter since it's not an issue between an FD2 CTR vs an STi. Plus I already agreed that FWD is not a good racing platform.

 

please don't get me wrong. i've said it once, i'll say it again. 26k for a CTR as an out the door price presents an excellent opportunity to have a car that is as reliable as a honda, has NA power delivery, and the spectacular sound that honda delivers that as far as i'm concerned is THE best NA sound other than an F430.

however, the CTR, whether it intends to or not, competes with cars that are literally echelons above in terms of raw capability.

if we look at raw price, the RS evolution is actually less expensive. and with that in mind, it does not make sense either as an economist or a car freak to choose the CTR over an RS evo.

26k for a CTR out the door and on the road, as we all know, is very unrealistic. and if you live anywhere it snows, or even rains, awd is such a serious real world advantage, i just don't see ANY reason to pick the CTR.

i think that honda products are excellent real world, throughly developed products. they are, in the end, not as excellent as an Evo or Sti. and that remains true whether you're in the regular street bound world or in the world of putting hoosiers, REAL coilovers (not teins or cuscos or other assorted JDM second fiddle suspensions) et all.

this coming from a guy that loves and utilizes his honda as a track training car and intends to figure out how to drive 40mpg when commuting. believe me, i love that my honda will probably live close to forever (as far as cars are concerned) and that the factory package is so thoroughly capable as is.

 

until the day comes that i have so much money that i can just afford every single car that i feel like driving, i am forced to choose with care where my money goes. i cannot justify the purity of VTEC actuation and the sound that individual throttle bodies produce if they don't produce the firepower to match the aural experience.

mitsu 4G63 for many honda folks do not produce the same passion in terms of subjective experience. but in terms of sheer power, no one complains that the 4G63 especially in the latest version has unexpectedly wonderful response at 2000! rpm and simply continues until fuel cut.

so, i'm sorry i'm poor, but i just have to point out that for my dollar, and i hope for yours too, i'll have to choose the car that presents the most performance, and potential, for my poor man's few dollars.

 

absolutely agree with you here. road going cars are significantly more than their numbers. a big reason why the e36 M3 was such a winner, even though it isn't all that great when it comes to pure numbers. same reason why i can't think of a single audi i'd drive given the chance to choose an equivalent BMW. or why i don't care that honda is so unbelievably uncompetitive at F1 since their road cars are generally so excellent.



the allowable modifications for each class is clearly listed on the website.
no, there were no FD2's at this particular event. but unless honda is literally operating with a different physics textbook, there is no realistic reason to think it would make up that 4.x second gap i had previously mentioned. even if the FD2 were 2 full seconds better than its contemporaries, it would still be 2 seconds slower than what is now the previous generation of AWD. and 2 seconds on a real track is still a HUGE deal. it's what makes me think a car is worth 26k or not.

 

kennef, while the back to the future reference had me rolling, i think that the type r would have little trouble backing up its higher price point over the regular si.

I'm assuming you have not seen the mugen si? this is a car that basically has mostly visual modifications and its retailing for 30k MSRP in the states. Even if you DIDN"T pay 26k out the door for a type r, it would still be a bargain compared to the mugen, which is what this thread was about. not about lap times or fwdvsawdvsrwd (granted i understand that you were responding to a pro-fwd biased person). BUt while were on the subject, unless a type r fwd WAS THERE at the even which the times you posted came from, its pretty much useless...and at the very least for another thread.

There are a lot of cars for almost 30k that don't outperform the sti or evo. and they are either more luxurious or refined or less boy-racerish. so its different strokes for different folks. a type r in the us would probably be in less numbers than the sti's and evos that are sold, so its an even smaller niche that honda would be catering to.

even though the sti and evo are the highest level imprezas and lancers like the type r is the most hardcore civic, they still don't REALLY TOTALLY compete with eachother, even just going by which wheels propels them.


besides, in the world of modding cars, its not uncommon to see fwd cars blow the doors of rally machines such as these, and vice versa. sometimes its just who hits 3rd gear properly.;) and how many of us REALLY race? not many. again, different strokes for different folks.


but a sedan that laps as quick if not quicker than a 30k s2k is a-ok in my book. and for someone like me who is not totally anal about what makes a 'real' sports car, i don't car that it has 4 doors and is fwd.

as far as performance goes, the si makes due with nearly 200hp, 140lbs of torque weighs almost 3k lbs and rushes from 0-60 in about 6.8-7.0 seconds. heck the uk type r (which i prefer stylistically) makes due with only a slight weight advantage and a couple more ponies and tq and does the deed in 6.5.


A civic with nearly 20lbs of tq and 25 more hp, sticker tires AND that weighs less than our si would most certainly run 0-60 in 6 seconds flat. hell a good driver could probably muster high fives out of it with no problems. that performance that is on par with the mazdaspeed 3, which has been noted as being an alternative fwd driver to the sti and evo. and it costs less. it has more tq and hp than the si, but it has tq steer out the ass and it weighs quite a bit.


27 more hp, almost 20lbs of more tq and an over 100lbs weight advantage, phenomenal brakes, wider stickier tires and a 26k msrp TOTALLY makes a civic type r worth it, and defintely gives it the goods to back up its price.


go look up the mugen. and then tell me which one you'd rather have.

 

This I think is fine to say if there were numbers that backed it up, but that isn't case. Best Motoring did a comparison/lap battle for the 8/07 edition that included the Type-R and it held its own quite well. Considering that all runs were conducted on the same day, same track, and same conditions, as well as all the drivers were SuperGT competitors, I'd say the results are pretty indicative of the true potential of all the cars involved. Best lap results were:

NSX Type-R: 1'06"132
Impreza RA-R: 1'06"405
Impreza Spec C: 1'07"350
Evo 9 MR: 1'07"655
Civic Type-R: 1'07"947
350Z Nismo: 1'08"003

The Imprezas and the Evo didn't exactly walk away from the Type-R by any stretch; the fastest STI, the RA-R, was only ~1.5 sec faster than the Type-R, which, considering it's a 300 unit track-tuned ltd. edition, w/ 100HP more than the CTR, and also runs almost $12,700 more as well, it's not exactly overwhelming. The Evo MR was only ~1/3 sec faster than the CTR, which is fairly underwhelming as well. With the CTR being under 2 secs even compared to the NSX-R, which is almost 4 times the cost of the CTR, I'd say it seems more than competitive. Unfortunately, they didn't conduct any straight-line tests, so no figures to give for that. I would expect, though, that the STI/Evo's would have a big advantage here simply due to the HP/traction difference.

Keep in mind as well, that this is only pertaining to the prior gen STI/Evo's; the new crop might be a different game altogether, though from reading reviews of the new STI, it sounds like a dog -- lots of body roll, much softer suspension than the prior gen, and generally lacking the racey edge that made the prior STI's so good (plus it's hideous). New Evo X seems to have gone the same route as well, though most reviews say that despite it lacking the edginess of the last gen, the overall performance numbers are higher than before.

If I had to spend my money, I'd probably pick the CTR over the new STI or Evo X, if only because a) the CTR is $7200 less than the STI and $5700 less than a Evo X GSR (RS is almost the same price as the CTR, though it's really stripped and doesn't even have Brembo's, the better turbo on the GSR, 18" wheels, or even the Recaro seats); b) Subaru and Mitsubishi seem to be moving away from performance towards mass appeal, whereas Honda is doing the opposite and really put their heart into the drivabilty and performance of the CTR at the sacrifice of comfort and mass appeal; c) most reviews of the CTR say pretty much the same things -- drives like a FR, and is faster overall and handles as good or better than the S2000.

 

ah yes, the best motoring video. it's probably a function of what part of the world you live in, but my friends and i watch best motoring videos the same way one might watch initial d. while wonderful entertainment, and it's inspiring to think that lesser vehicles with greater drivers can win, i definitely wouldn't say initial d has a lot to say about reality. nor do any of us take best motoring, option, et al as serious automotive journalism. so i would agree with your analysis, if i thought that best motoring had a lot to say about a car's true potential. but, we'll probably have to agree to disagree; i pay more attention to the BBC's top gear or to a few select car mags.

with that, please watch this video:
YouTube - Best Motoring - Bmw M3 vs Mitsubishi Lancer vs Ferrari 360

if you'd advance to 4:36, you'll notice that the three top cars are
1. 360 with 6MT @ 1:05.32
2. evo 7, manual @ 1:05.53
3. 360 with F1 paddles @ 1:05.97

so, there are two conclusions one could draw here:
1. the evo 7, from 2001(!) beat the CTR (vintage: today) by 2.5(!) seconds by the same set/type of drivers that had 5-6 years less experience at that time.

or,

2. where a specific car starts out in traffic makes a massive difference. that evo started out in front and had ZERO traffic issues. i am betting that, if best motoring stays true to its usual format, that the lowest power car (CTR) starts out in front.


ok, with that said, conclusion 1 while true, is overly simplified. no consideration to position, the different drivers' familiarity with their assigned car that day, the pavement that tsukuba has today vs. what it was like in '01.

conclusion 2 is a little closer. also highly simplified, but i believe it takes into account something that comes closer to explaining why a car with such a significant disadvantage (FWD) is only 1.8s away from an NSX-R.

i'm going to guess that i'm not the only one here that's gonna throw the BS flag for two reasons:
1. no one honestly thinks that a stock evo is literally within .2 of an F360 on tsukuba. .2 is insignificant to the point that the two cars are essentially the same car. .2 if the F360 is stuck in traffic is certainly realistic. .2 in a time attack format? i wouldn't bet on it in vegas. time attack would more closely reflect the car's capability, whereas a wheel to wheel format has traffic with slow cars holding up fast cars.

2. does anyone really believe that a CTR is within 1.8 of an NSX-R?


in america, all the Evos have almost exactly the same specs. the RS deletes ABS, radio, and A/C and costs <26k msrp. a CTR, if it even hypothetically sold in the US for 26k msrp (likely an optimistic estimate) just doesn't compete. again, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. from my track experience, which is by no means all-knowing, FWD makes a great car to train in. but you KNOW that it isn't even close if we talk about greater than 250whp. and it's no different stock. that's why i posted the redline time attack as one instance where FWD just really isn't competitive when you can isolate certain variables, traffic being a very important one of them.

 

says who? grip is probably the same if acceleration isn't and the type r doesn't HAVE to do without those anemities to be at that suppossed price.


i'm not time attack or track know it all, but even if the type r was lagging almost 21/2 seconds behind, its not bad for a FWD NA vehicle. You have to put things into perspective as well.

And you still have to consider the niche honda would be catering to. its a recepie thats very unique to them; lightweight, high revving, naturally aspirated. subie can't claim they have the only turboed awd monster around; neither can mitsu. hell they can't even flaunt that they have got the only big turbo 4 doors, now that mazda and dodge have entered into the fray of big turbo 4's.

mind you, all the numbers posted are from previous gen subies and mitsus. the newest interation of the sti probably wont fare as well and while the mitsu puts up impressive numbers its not as involving to drive.


lets not forget that as of right now an STI stickers for around 34k, which even if you were to leave the honda dealer with an otd price of 27k for a civic, you'd still be in better shape and the extra performance to be had with the sti has been well paid for.


all this talk of the type r not being able to compete is silly. theres a lot more to it than track times. and was the type r in those videos even the newest version? there was talk of the videos featuring older models, so i dunno if it was the previous gen type r hatch which as great as it was, is still inferior the the jdm sedan.

 

quick clarification - when i spoke of greater than 250whp, i meant that a fwd with greater than 250whp really isn't very competitive. it becomes very difficult to manage and ends up being slow because driver attention shifts from being fast to managing understeer.

FWD quickly transitions from balanced ability to overly specialized, poorly controlled slop when the power gets above a certain limit. which brings me to my next point: FWD, no matter how well engineered, no matter how sticky the tire, has a serious disadvantage due to inherently inferior design. the design is inferior due to physics. for the people that like drag racing (i think it's uber ghey) or street "racing" (which is even lower than drag racing) they are all familiar with the fact that FWD does not have traction at a launch. for track oriented folks, they know that using only 2 of the 4 wheels to do all of the duties of turning, speeding up, and slowing down is a bad policy (tire wear, poorly balanced spring rates, etc). FWD can never accelerate AND turn or decelerate AND turn at the same rate that an AWD/RWD could. and autox guys know that FWD holds its own given that the particular FWD is significantly lighter than its competitors.

this is a very wordy way to say that, while FWD *could* hold its own under specific conditions (significantly lighter, better position in traffic if racing wheel to wheel) that the same $26K for a type r (a very optimistic price, as we can all admit) one no longer has to settle for a car that generally holds its own. you can get a car that outright dominates in so many fields (low traction surfaces of snow or rain; real world bumpy or debris strewn roads; small to big road courses; or, and i hate to think it, the 1/4 mile) for the same price. the Evo RS. and that car, in my opinion, is way more pure than a type r.

i hope i havent brought this too far off topic. two last things (for now at least):
1. even at the same price, the type R represents way more car to me than a mugen. i'm a bit jaded from my aftermarket experience, so i want a car that is thoroughly developed from the factory.

2. unless honda can undercut the Evo RS (in the american market) with some very serious discounting, there is not a single performance reason one should pay 26k for a type R when one could get an Evo for the same price. my use of the Evo as a basis of comparison is to point out not that the Evo is better (kinda like pointing out that the sky is blue) but rather to point out that 26k for a civic, in america, probably is crazy. it wouldn't be a smart move for honda.

 

but yes, honda thinking that people would pay 29k for a mugen but not 26k for a type r gives me more reason to think poorly of marketing and finance people.

it's like this - SURE! we'll overcharge you for a mugen but put no significant additional content. but we'll do no such thing as give you actual performance for your 26k.

well done honda. and you wonder why your fan base is primarily kids putting alteezas on 89 civic DXs and the NSX-R never gets taken seriously in the supercar world (except for Japan domestic video infomericals known as Option or Best Motoring).

 

You guys all need to stop bitchin, you think the prices in the usa suck try livivng in thailand , yes i can get any jdm honda i am willing to pay for , thats means at least double the list Us market price if not more

 

i HAVE NEVER SEEN A FIT OR "JAZZ" AS I KNOW IT IN THE USA AS I HAVE BEEN GONE FORM THERE SINCE BEFORE IT CAME OUT ?

So does any one know what the difference is between the two models ?
Thai vs. the USA

 

I think the biggest issue here, and maybe the point that really needs to be addressed as opposed to strict performance, is that peoples' definitions of what makes a car "good", "better", or "best" varies widely. This is the main reason why the CTR would probably do well, or at least well enough to justify bringing it over. As an example, to you the Evo makes the most sense because it generates the highest performance numbers for cash at hand. No problem with that at all, it's a good reason. For me, the Evo is murderously boring -- too much electronics in the way, and not much fun because doesn't require much skill to go stupidly fast with precision -- I much prefer to go reasonably fast with precision and having to work for it at the same time, it's simply more rewarding. Neither view is better, just different, and this is why there are so many cars to choose from and why people buy them -- we all have different wants/needs. I'm sure there are other's who feel the same way as me, and they also would probably be more attracted to the CTR as well. Of course, some other things that play into the attractiveness of the CTR would be reliability (Mitsu and some other companies could use more than a few lessons from Honda with this), the Type-R branding which in itself would generate interest, resale value (Integra TR's here are still fecthing some fair prices even now, while a lot of Evo's have dropped substantially in just 4 years), and the beautiful sound that is a high-revving race-inspired engine. When you look at it with all of that considered as well, I honestly think a $27k sports car that meets those criteria is not going to be a hard sell.

 

The biggest point to be made is that the CTR sells in Japan... where there is much more competition then just an Evo RS. Hell you could probably pick up a used R33 Skyline over there for a significant ammount less than the CTR... but people buy it. I see no logical reason why a CTR would not sell here simply because of the Evo RS.

 

Yeah, actually this is the ultimate truth when you boil it all down. I guarantee there are a lot of "better" cars that can be had for less, yet it's selling quite well and even caused a small uproar when it was released because people didn't quite expect it to be as good as it is. I know in '03, the last year I was in Sapporo, I used to commonly find R33's for about $20-22k USD w/ R32's about $3k or so less; most STI's/Evo's were about the same then as a CTR now, and S15's were actully really cheap at about $13-14k. I'm sure after 5 yrs they're even less now, and people are still buying the CTR.

 

happy thanksgiving!

one thing is for sure - it's more fun driving a slow car fast than driving a fast car slow. but i think you've got it wrong about the evo. that is a beautifully dynamic car with steering more precice and feedback so clear than any honda rack i've sampled. it's not a bad thing to make poor drivers better. the e36 M3 is very good at that, and that is a complement to the total ability of the car. and non-ABS evos are spectacularly pure.

as far as sales go, i still think that the CTR will inevitably be compared to cars that outclass it because price is an objective and reasonable basis on which to start a converstion, and there are excellent cars in the 30k range. VW R32's, for some reason, sell very well. i think that $32k for an overweight, low performing VW (a VW! at that) is totally stupid. but if marketers and car magazines can convince you that your $32k for an R32 is worth it, or what will more reasonable be 26-29k for a CTR, then they've done their job.

i guess that i'll have to agree - it won't be a hard sell. i just don't think it would be a smart way to spend money meant to buy a sports car when the alternatives out there are at the same price range and require zero explanation to sports car types.