Topic: Road test of 2018 Civic Type R

[johngenx]

WOW!  The braking results are crazy!!

 

You're not kidding!

[johngenx]

I love this car, but would never buy one.  I'm SO glad Honda built it.  I'd be much more interested in the 2-dr coupe as drawn in concepts by some people - I find the sedan just not proportioned right.  The Focus RS, to my eyes, is 1000x better looking.

The Honda really does bring performance worthy of the R badge.  Amazing.

[rrocket]

Car and Driver's in-depth review of the Type R. 0-60 in 4.9 sec and a trap speed of 108 mph in the 1/4 mile. Faster than the WRX STI & Golf R in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, only pipped by the Focus RS to 60 but has a higher trap speed than the Focus for the 1/4 mile. Noteworthy that the other 3 are AWD.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-in-depth-model-review

WOW!  The braking results are crazy!!

I saw that earlier this month in my issue and thought back to the those on the forum poo-pooing it.

108 trap speed is very impressive. Serious performance.

C'mon dude...these number don't mean anything because they tested it in the dry, man!   

[JG20]

Car and Driver's in-depth review of the Type R. 0-60 in 4.9 sec and a trap speed of 108 mph in the 1/4 mile. Faster than the WRX STI & Golf R in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, only pipped by the Focus RS to 60 but has a higher trap speed than the Focus for the 1/4 mile. Noteworthy that the other 3 are AWD.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-in-depth-model-review

Crazy performance, but those STI numbers are way too slow even compared to C&D's earlier tests. Forgot what the 1/4 mile times were but 0-60 was around 4.6 - 4.7s, only a tick off the RS.

[Patrick_D1]

Car and Driver's in-depth review of the Type R. 0-60 in 4.9 sec and a trap speed of 108 mph in the 1/4 mile. Faster than the WRX STI & Golf R in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, only pipped by the Focus RS to 60 but has a higher trap speed than the Focus for the 1/4 mile. Noteworthy that the other 3 are AWD.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-in-depth-model-review

Crazy performance, but those STI numbers are way too slow even compared to C&D's earlier tests. Forgot what the 1/4 mile times were but 0-60 was around 4.6 - 4.7s, only a tick off the RS.

The problem with those figures is they can't be easily reproduced in an "owner's car." With a good driver, a FWD or RWD car can be launched hard with minimal driveline abuse. But AWD cars with a manual gearbox? To get those figures out of an STI you need to do a massively-abusive clutch dump, which shunts the entire driveline because the tires don't give way. In the real-world no one is getting those numbers if they hope to keep their car long term.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I know they're keeping it Apples to Apples regarding the transmissions, but it would be interesting for them to include a Golf R with the DSG, considering it's supposed to be faster off the line than the manual Golf R.

[JG20]

Car and Driver's in-depth review of the Type R. 0-60 in 4.9 sec and a trap speed of 108 mph in the 1/4 mile. Faster than the WRX STI & Golf R in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, only pipped by the Focus RS to 60 but has a higher trap speed than the Focus for the 1/4 mile. Noteworthy that the other 3 are AWD.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-in-depth-model-review

Crazy performance, but those STI numbers are way too slow even compared to C&D's earlier tests. Forgot what the 1/4 mile times were but 0-60 was around 4.6 - 4.7s, only a tick off the RS.

The problem with those figures is they can't be easily reproduced in an "owner's car." With a good driver, a FWD or RWD car can be launched hard with minimal driveline abuse. But AWD cars with a manual gearbox? To get those figures out of an STI you need to do a massively-abusive clutch dump, which shunts the entire driveline because the tires don't give way. In the real-world no one is getting those numbers if they hope to keep their car long term.

I agree, but same thing can be said for the RS and R. And I would say the STI's driveline would be the most robust of the 3. And these are all just bragging numbers anyway. I would never do these launches on any of these cars, even the Type R.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Car and Driver's in-depth review of the Type R. 0-60 in 4.9 sec and a trap speed of 108 mph in the 1/4 mile. Faster than the WRX STI & Golf R in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, only pipped by the Focus RS to 60 but has a higher trap speed than the Focus for the 1/4 mile. Noteworthy that the other 3 are AWD.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-in-depth-model-review

Crazy performance, but those STI numbers are way too slow even compared to C&D's earlier tests. Forgot what the 1/4 mile times were but 0-60 was around 4.6 - 4.7s, only a tick off the RS.

The problem with those figures is they can't be easily reproduced in an "owner's car." With a good driver, a FWD or RWD car can be launched hard with minimal driveline abuse. But AWD cars with a manual gearbox? To get those figures out of an STI you need to do a massively-abusive clutch dump, which shunts the entire driveline because the tires don't give way. In the real-world no one is getting those numbers if they hope to keep their car long term.

I agree, but same thing can be said for the RS and R. And I would say the STI's driveline would be the most robust of the 3. And these are all just bragging numbers anyway. I would never do these launches on any of these cars, even the Type R.

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

[quadzilla]

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

Is that 50-70 done in top gear only? If so, gearing, boost, etc also come into play. I'd like to also see the same test but with the car down in the meaty gear(s) for it. Even in my GTI there is a big difference.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

Is that 50-70 done in top gear only? If so, gearing, boost, etc also come into play. I'd like to also see the same test but with the car down in the meaty gear(s) for it. Even in my GTI there is a big difference.

I'm not sure.  It would seem that top gear would be significantly slower than that.  I'm thinking it must be selecting the optimum gear.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Focus RS has launch control. I believe the Golf R with DSG has also, but doesn't really need it because it's the quickest of the bunch by a fair bit.

Turns out that Honda sandbagged the hp of the Civic R. Dynos are showing it closer to 300whp, or roughly 345hp at the crank, just a bit less than the rated HP of the Focus RS.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/a10042078/is-the-civic-type-rs-horsepower-underrated/

Similar hp, lower weight and lower driveline losses explain its performance in some metrics. It being slower to 60 demonstrates its difficulty in putting power down at low speeds.

And nobody poo-pooed the Civic's performance. We just pointed out the limits of a high hp fwd car. Then the Honda-bois went apeshit.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Ah c'mon now. Bench racing isn't about being reasonable. 

And FWD SUX

[quadzilla]

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

Is that 50-70 done in top gear only? If so, gearing, boost, etc also come into play. I'd like to also see the same test but with the car down in the meaty gear(s) for it. Even in my GTI there is a big difference.

I'm not sure.  It would seem that top gear would be significantly slower than that.  I'm thinking it must be selecting the optimum gear.

I'm now thinking that they are in top gear. After a quick search I found these times for a MK6 GTI just to compare.

50-70 mph
3rd-3.4s
4th-4.6s
5th-6.0s
6th-7.4s

* Yes I know it wasn't the same day, same track, same condition, same driver. Just illustrating the big difference by downshifting.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

Is that 50-70 done in top gear only? If so, gearing, boost, etc also come into play. I'd like to also see the same test but with the car down in the meaty gear(s) for it. Even in my GTI there is a big difference.

I'm not sure.  It would seem that top gear would be significantly slower than that.  I'm thinking it must be selecting the optimum gear.

I'm now thinking that they are in top gear. After a quick search I found these times for a MK6 GTI just to compare.

50-70 mph
3rd-3.4s
4th-4.6s
5th-6.0s
6th-7.4s

* Yes I know it wasn't the same day, same track, same condition, same driver. Just illustrating the big difference by downshifting.

Okay, nice find.  That makes sense then.  Then, definitely the STI was off boost, and it's not really a telling metric at all.  I wonder why they included it, and also why they didn't explain their methodology on how they arrived at the number?  They spent an entire page talking about the size of bloody Ping-Pong balls, but they couldn't explain how they got the 50-70mph test figures.  That boggles the mind.

[warp]

Yes.  And for this reason, I've long maintained that the 50-70mph test is much more telling.  And the Civic destroys all, with a time of 6.1s.  The Focus RS does it in 6.3s, the Golf R in 7.5s, and the WRX STI at a glacial 9.1s (not sure why it's that slow...off boost maybe? I think my van is faster than that).

Is that 50-70 done in top gear only? If so, gearing, boost, etc also come into play. I'd like to also see the same test but with the car down in the meaty gear(s) for it. Even in my GTI there is a big difference.

I'm not sure.  It would seem that top gear would be significantly slower than that.  I'm thinking it must be selecting the optimum gear.

I'm now thinking that they are in top gear. After a quick search I found these times for a MK6 GTI just to compare.

50-70 mph
3rd-3.4s
4th-4.6s
5th-6.0s
6th-7.4s

* Yes I know it wasn't the same day, same track, same condition, same driver. Just illustrating the big difference by downshifting.

Okay, nice find.  That makes sense then.  Then, definitely the STI was off boost, and it's not really a telling metric at all.  I wonder why they included it, and also why they didn't explain their methodology on how they arrived at the number?  They spent an entire page talking about the size of bloody Ping-Pong balls, but they couldn't explain how they got the 50-70mph test figures.  That boggles the mind.

C&D have always done the 50-70 in top gear in the case of manual transmission cars. This being one of their oldest metrics I guess they figure that all readers know about it.

The trap speed of 108 mph is a truer indicator of horsepower. Of course at more than 50 mph cd and frontal area will also come play. Notwithstanding, the crank hp number is definitely understated. It's probably about the same as the Focus RS but with lower driveline losses because it's only FWD.

The other mind boggling number is max cornering capability at 1.02 g. The STI is positively pedestrian in comparison at 0.93 g

[johngenx]

In most driving circumstances on public roads, the Type R is as quick and lively as the NSX.  In some purely objective measures, it actually matches the hyper-expensive super-car.  Even on a track, the performance gap between the two cars is surprisingly small.

Which to me highlights either how overpriced the NSX is, what great value the Type R is, or both.  I'll go with both.

As the Type R would be a summer toy for me, put me in the camp of just going all in with a V-8 and getting a 1LE SS, but that doesn't diminish the wonder that the R is - it's just my personal preference for an old-school massive V-8.

[Weels]

As the Type R would be a summer toy for me, put me in the camp of just going all in with a V-8 and getting a 1LE SS, but that doesn't diminish the wonder that the R is - it's just my personal preference for an old-school massive V-8.

Same.
I don't think I could drive an R without my face being pixelated... but this thing does kick some ass.

[Jaeger]

As the Type R would be a summer toy for me, put me in the camp of just going all in with a V-8 and getting a 1LE SS, but that doesn't diminish the wonder that the R is - it's just my personal preference for an old-school massive V-8.

Same.
I don't think I could drive an R without my face being pixelated... but this thing does kick some ass.

    Thread win. 

[johngenx]

I don't think I could drive an R without my face being pixelated...

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

A few things:

-This is the slowest test of a 2015+ STI ever.  I am thinking something was amiss given their last two tests had 0-60 iin 4.7 and 4.8.
-Which tires did the Focus RS have?  There are two options in the US and it affects off the line performance (even by Car and Driver's previous tests).
-The Civic has the lowest profile rubber which have a life of 10K miles (according to Honda).  I need to mention the $1100 USD per rim cost as well.  Just because it borders on insanity.
-As a result of the above, road holding is highest, although as mentioned in the point above, the Ford Focus RS with the Pilot SS has acheived over 1G in C&D own tests.
-Braking is the best - but a lot of this is the performance of the tire as all wear similar brakes.
-Although 1.02G is remarkable for a FWD car, I am more interested in what the car does once it exceeds that level.  In the cast of the Honda, it will understeer more than the others.
-Additional Dealer Mark Up and / or adding a bunch of dealer installed options and marking them up 300% appears to be the norm.  In Alberta, for example, the Type R is selling for no less than $49K (and sometimes quite a bit more than that).  Without GST.  No matter how impressed I am with what Honda has done, that is an insance price for a FWD Civic.
-Why won't they compare the fastest Golf R instead?  i.e. the pedestrian DSG?  Right - it is the quickest and permits making sandwiches between gears.
-The Golf, Focus, and STI are based on old platforms.  When the newer versions arrive, whichever one arrives first will be the flavor of the month.

Oh and snow.  Happy now Jaeger and Sir O?  Happy now?