Linus27 Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 It is a bit of a mess. Just seems fussy and already riced. The triple exhausts and red piping everywhere is hideous. The thing is, a few years ago, all the hot hatches looked really boring and like every day shopping cars like the Megane 250, Clio 200, Civic FN2, Seat Leon, Golf GTi etc. Now they are going extreme the other way and going totally overboard with big wings, vents, scoops etc. I do like this a lot and 0 - 60 in ubder 4 seconds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimz Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Christ, that Civic really looks like the designer was happy with it ten steps prior but every time they took it to the boss he showed it to his 10 year old for approval. "Nope, needs more vents and exhaust pipes" "But...sir..." "What Timmy wants, Timmy gets." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Aren't the new Type-Rs supposed to be the fastest FWD production cars round The Ring? Nope, the stripped out Golf R thing on Cup2s is atm. Isn't the Golf R AWD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 Good point. Still, that's who Honda themselves target. Still, with all these fast hatchbacks out now is it even possible to buy a bad one? I mean, the CTR looks like a dog's dinner but it'll drive fine, and then you've still got the Leon CR and the Megane RS and the two sensible 4WD in the FRS and Golf, and not even forgetting the big boys with the A45 & M140 & S3/RS3. Great time to be a fan of fast hatches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) If you're rich Gimme a 2017 Focus RS, you can keep the rest, and my Z for that matter. Edited March 8, 2017 by Aashenfox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunRS Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Think its the golf gti clubsport that is the quickest fwd at the ring. IMO its irrelevant as its a strip out car and totally defeats the purpose of a hot hatch, which is fast and practical. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 Ah that'll be the one then, not the R. That makes more sense now, stupid Golfs and their billionty special editions 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) Yeah, the civic has lost it's way a bit a think it terms of design. It's gone from the grocery-go-getter-granny mobile to 14 year old's wet dream with more angles than a dodecagon. And that triple exhaust it's not a tossing LFA. Edited March 8, 2017 by Rock_Steady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeezeebaba Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I'm all for moving the game on with hot hatches but all the power on tap now is getting silly. If I was forced to buy one with my own money at my age it would be a warm hatch like a fiesta st IMHO a perfect all rounder and plenty fast enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Ah that'll be the one then, not the R. That makes more sense now, stupid Golfs and their billionty special editions That was the one we saw at goodwood, looked completely average, except it's stripped out interior and semi-slicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jords Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 This new civic is trying too damn hard!! The ek9 was great, the ep3 was good, the fn2 was the same engine just a different body... But the new type r is not all its supposed to be. The type r was always understated, simple and yet brilliantly engineered and able to nip at the heels of cars that should have wiped the floor with a civic. The new one is not like that at all. Didn't they pit the newer type r against the equivalent focus and the focus whooped it in every aspect, including the price???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul K Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 and apart from anything else, it has all that fancy technology in it, and more power yet its only marginally quicker 0-60 than a 2003 DE!! I'd bet once passed 60 it would wipe the floor with it. what the Zed or the CTR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaunRS Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 and apart from anything else, it has all that fancy technology in it, and more power yet its only marginally quicker 0-60 than a 2003 DE!! I'd bet once passed 60 it would wipe the floor with it. what the Zed or the CTR? the CTR. Once into 3rd gear and got traction it would sail past a 350 with ease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linus27 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 The Type R always was supposed to be a road going race car. Raw and stripped out but compliant to legislation to keep it road legal. The EK9 and DC2 were certainly these things and the DC5 and EP3 were also in most cases, certainly the DC5 is more track focused and raw than an EP3 that has electronic steering and less feedback. The FN2 onwards has lost a lot of what a Type R is all about and become heavier, less involving, more gadgets, more creature comforts and is easier to live with daily. I would love to see Honda make a true sports car, based around an S2000 to compete with the Lotus Elise/Exige. Keep it simple, fairly stripped out, great handling, Brembo brakes, lightweight with 250 - 300 bhp RWD and stick a Type R badge on it and it would be awesome. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richf Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 and apart from anything else, it has all that fancy technology in it, and more power yet its only marginally quicker 0-60 than a 2003 DE!! I'd bet once passed 60 it would wipe the floor with it. what the Zed or the CTR? the CTR. Once into 3rd gear and got traction it would sail past a 350 with ease. Absolutely the zed wouldn't see which way the CTR went , they are a match for a supercharged 370z as Nissanman312 found out in his old car , they are properly quick. Comparing cars on 0-60 works well in Top Trumps but is not a useful guide in real world performance Look at how it compared on the ring back in 2015, this new one is meant to be even quicker 7:50 2016 Honda Civic Type R 7:50 BMW M3 CSL 7:50 2009 Porsche 911 Carerra S 7:52 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 7:54 Mercedes CLK DTM AMG 7:54 Nissan GT-R 7:54 997 Porsche 911 Turbo 7:54 (.36) Renault Megane RS 275 7:55 Caterham R500 Superlight 7:55 Ferrari F430 F1 7:56 C5 Corvette Z06 7:56 996 generation Porsche 911 Turbo 7:56 Porsche Panamera Turbo http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/03/10-sports-cars-the-civic-type-r-beat-around-the-n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 8, 2017 Author Share Posted March 8, 2017 Not a cat in hell's chance the CTR that did that time was remotely standard. IIRC it was caged, stripped and on Cup2s, as well as being a pre-production special. Not saying it's not quick and that engineering hasn't come on in leaps and bounds, but on no planet would it be quicker than a GT-R. And looking at those times, why is a 997 C2S quicker than a 997 Turbo? By four seconds? Even assuming PDK to manual, that doesn't remove the extra 100bhp+ and 4WD of the Turbo. Nope, I'm calling shenanigans. Much like the shenanigans of the Huracan doing a 6'50" the other week. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Just read that article and some of the shouty comments after it - the awesome but nearly as fugly GT-R35 in re-test is supposed to be nearly a half a MINUTE faster Good performance effort Honda though.. would be a nice car without the body kit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 and apart from anything else, it has all that fancy technology in it, and more power yet its only marginally quicker 0-60 than a 2003 DE!! I'd bet once passed 60 it would wipe the floor with it. what the Zed or the CTR? the CTR. Once into 3rd gear and got traction it would sail past a 350 with ease. Absolutely the zed wouldn't see which way the CTR went , they are a match for a supercharged 370z as Nissanman312 found out in his old car , they are properly quick. Comparing cars on 0-60 works well in Top Trumps but is not a useful guide in real world performance Look at how it compared on the ring back in 2015, this new one is meant to be even quicker 7:50 2016 Honda Civic Type R 7:50 BMW M3 CSL 7:50 2009 Porsche 911 Carerra S 7:52 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 7:54 Mercedes CLK DTM AMG 7:54 Nissan GT-R 7:54 997 Porsche 911 Turbo 7:54 (.36) Renault Megane RS 275 7:55 Caterham R500 Superlight 7:55 Ferrari F430 F1 7:56 C5 Corvette Z06 7:56 996 generation Porsche 911 Turbo 7:56 Porsche Panamera Turbo http://www.autoguide...at-around-the-n And i would have every single one of the those below the Type R before the Type R and there area few Porsches in there and i really dont like them. Thought the GTR was 7.24? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richf Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 and apart from anything else, it has all that fancy technology in it, and more power yet its only marginally quicker 0-60 than a 2003 DE!! I'd bet once passed 60 it would wipe the floor with it. what the Zed or the CTR? the CTR. Once into 3rd gear and got traction it would sail past a 350 with ease. Absolutely the zed wouldn't see which way the CTR went , they are a match for a supercharged 370z as Nissanman312 found out in his old car , they are properly quick. Comparing cars on 0-60 works well in Top Trumps but is not a useful guide in real world performance Look at how it compared on the ring back in 2015, this new one is meant to be even quicker 7:50 2016 Honda Civic Type R 7:50 BMW M3 CSL 7:50 2009 Porsche 911 Carerra S 7:52 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 7:54 Mercedes CLK DTM AMG 7:54 Nissan GT-R 7:54 997 Porsche 911 Turbo 7:54 (.36) Renault Megane RS 275 7:55 Caterham R500 Superlight 7:55 Ferrari F430 F1 7:56 C5 Corvette Z06 7:56 996 generation Porsche 911 Turbo 7:56 Porsche Panamera Turbo http://www.autoguide...at-around-the-n And i would have every single one of the those below the Type R before the Type R and there area few Porsches in there and i really dont like them. Thought the GTR was 7.24? Its an article from 2015 remember, I suspect there is ALWAYS shenanigans when it comes to ring times, but i have little doubt this new one will be significantly quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 'ring times is another subject of constant amusement to me. I challenge any driver to go to the ring 10 days in a row, in the same car, do 5 laps on each day, then check them all at the end, and have all 50 lap times within 5 seconds of each other. That's what you would need to be able to do to be able to say that you are consistent enough WITH THAT CAR to post an 'official' lap time for that vehicle, under the average track circumstances over the ten days. Times intended to directly compete with that, would then have to be posted under the same standards of consistency. Having an itchy left testicle will affect your lap time over the course of an 8 minute lap. Posted ring times are just propaganda and utterly meaningless, just the best run their best driver managed to get with the strongest example of the model they could find during the course of their stay at the 'ring. Going on the hottest day of the year will net you 10 seconds on semi slicks, it's completely crazy the variation on an 8 minute lap. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I would suspect that because the ring is effectively a road and as close to our normal daily driving conditions I.e its not a lovely smooth short race circuit, it offers a benchmark of simulated road performance/pace and general abilities, long straights, very fast sweeping corners, tight corners with all the lumps and bumps and everything in between. Whilst the times set down may be slightly spurious with regards to complete accuracy, I would very much doubt you could look through the times and hand on heart tell me that a slower timed car is actually quicker than some of the cars above it. It paints a picture, just a slight blurry one, a lot like dynos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Hand on heart, a 997.1 Turbo is significantly quicker than a 997.2 C2S. That's not blurry, that's crystal clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) I would very much doubt you could look through the times and hand on heart tell me that a slower timed car is actually quicker than some of the cars above it. It paints a picture, just a slight blurry one, a lot like dynos I am absolutely saying that I think a very large number are not in the appropriate order. And once again, I'm blaming the length of the lap and the variation of surface/driver/prevailing track conditions. The Top Gear test track is a MUCH better meter of which cars are faster, as the times are all made by the same driver on a short lap so much less scope for variation, plus the TG test track is also rough, a good approximation of real road surfaces. The main problem with TG is that they don't care if it's wet or dry, so there's no consistency on that front, but under more controlled conditions, it would make for better comparisons than the Green Hell. Short laps introduce new variables of course, for example, did they warm up the tires, how much fuel are they carrying, but overall, much less scope for variation. Edited March 10, 2017 by Aashenfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Hand on heart, a 997.1 Turbo is significantly quicker than a 997.2 C2S. That's not blurry, that's crystal clear Id be surprised if a GTR is slower than a CSL as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I would very much doubt you could look through the times and hand on heart tell me that a slower timed car is actually quicker than some of the cars above it. It paints a picture, just a slight blurry one, a lot like dynos I am absolutely saying that I think a very large number are not in the appropriate order. And once again, I'm blaming the length of the lap and the variation of surface/driver/prevailing track conditions. The Top Gear test track is a MUCH better meter of which cars are faster, as the times are all made by the same driver on a short lap so much less scope for variation, plus the TG test track is also rough, a good approximation of real road surfaces. The main problem with TG is that they don't care if it's wet or dry, so there's no consistency on that front, but under more controlled conditions, it would make for better comparisons than the Green Hell. Short laps introduce new variables of course, for example, did they warm up the tires, how much fuel are they carrying, but overall, much less scope for variation. tg track is a flat smooth circuit, no lumps or bumps, no real off camber corners, it bears about as much resemblance to the real world as driving around on the grass, 350z and rx8 are exactly the same time, on general roads the 350z is a quicker car, it would only be on real twisty roads where the rx8 held any advantage. Track and roads are very very different animals. Hand on heart, a 997.1 Turbo is significantly quicker than a 997.2 C2S. That's not blurry, that's crystal clear Hand on heart, a 997.1 Turbo is significantly quicker than a 997.2 C2S. That's not blurry, that's crystal clear I thought the c2s was the daddy of handling over a lardy turbo? Id be surprised if a GTR is slower than a CSL as well. M3 CSL? The gtr has so many times, as low as 7.19 so takes your choice on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.