Topic: The Quick and the Dad: 2017 Honda Civic Type R

[dirtyjeffer]

Here's another picture of a race car with a giant rear wing. Yup, wings serve no purpose on FWD cars. 

that's a FWD race car?

The wings on that car have nothing to do with being wrong wheel drive.  It weighs 1930 lbs and has 750 hp.  The wings help it not take flight.

FWIW, that FWD design was completely non competitive.  One race only.  The next year the program was cancelled.

On the other hand, that chassis can be converted to AWD and was designed as such from the beginning.

i realize that...my point is the wings (or front and rear spoilers) are important on race cars, as they are very powerful and quite light (compared to regular cars we plebes drive)...they also drive at 10/10s limits on a track and at speeds none of us drive...i think in the case of CTR, they've done it more for looks (give it that F&F look) than outright practicality...the wing on it would offer minimal downforce on a car that isn't really any quicker than a Golf R.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYg1IDrJUs&t=173s

don't get me wrong, it's got some decent performance credentials...it's got some interesting engineering stuff behind it...i get that...i just think it looks over the top ridiculous and when combined with dealers asking $10k over list, i don't see why anyone would buy this over many of the other "hot hatches" available...if this car had a Hyundai badge slapped on the hood, this thread would be 14 pages long criticizing it's styling, price, FWD set up, etc...but throw an "H" on the hood and no one is allowed a differing opinion?...jebus.

[ChaosphereIX]

wings not needed on performance FWD cars? Modern touring cars since the mid 90s would beg to differ.

BTW Rob Huff's Civic in the WTCC pic above has the same power as the street car, just less weight....and the race engineers deemed it beneficial for it to have a wing.

[dirtyjeffer]

wings not needed on performance FWD cars? Modern touring cars since the mid 90s would beg to differ.

BTW Rob Huff's Civic in the WTCC pic above has the same power as the street car, just less weight....and the race engineers deemed it beneficial for it to have a wing.

i already said it makes sense on actual race cars...also, that car above has a 1.6L turbo engine pushing 380 hp and the car only weighs 1100 kg including the driver...again, driven on a track at 10/10s, the wings are necessary...i've already said this numerous times.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

i realize that...my point is the wings (or front and rear spoilers) are important on race cars, as they are very powerful and quite light (compared to regular cars we plebes drive)...they also drive at 10/10s limits on a track and at speeds none of us drive...i think in the case of CTR, they've done it more for looks (give it that F&F look) than outright practicality...the wing on it would offer minimal downforce on a car that isn't really any quicker than a Golf R.

I think you are wrong.  I think the aero on the CTR does INDEED do something.  Remember, the Civic Type R is only 1 second off the 997 GT3 on the Nurburgring:



Are you saying that Porsche engineers, who specialize in going fast, were wrong to put a wing on the back of the 911 GT3?  I mean, that car has most of its weight over its rear tires.  Why on earth would it need more downforce at speed?

[dirtyjeffer]

on further thought, perhaps the wing does make more sense...since there is little weight at the rear (of the CTR), it would help keep it planted...i still think the amount of downforce is pretty minimal though...rrocket said it was 66 pounds...that isn't very much.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Honda says street-legal, track-focused tires.  So probably Pilot Sport Cup 2's or something similar.  They also say the laptime was set by a pre-production model that was technically representative of a production model.  I suppose that could mean similar tune. 

The only modifications they made was to install a full cage (for safety), and remove the rear seats and HMI hardware to compensate for the weight of the cage.

Now, I'm conjecturing here, but if the Civic Type R is a second or two faster than an RS or an R on a short track, on a track such as the Nurburgring, I'd warrant that it's more then 6-7s off the pace of those cars.

EDIT:  This page has the RS doing a lap time of 8 minutes 6.3 seconds.  That's 22.5s off the pace of the CTR.  It also confirms the CTR was using Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires.

http://fordauthority.com/2017/05/honda-civic-type-r-faster-around-the-ring-than-ford-focus-rs/

[Noto]

EDIT:  This page has the RS doing a lap time of 8 minutes 6.3 seconds.  That's 22.5s off the pace of the CTR.  It also confirms the CTR was using Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires.

Lap times at the 'ring for a daily driver toy/hot hatch?  So I guess everyone in North America will be frequently tracking their CTR at the 'ring?

Yes, the CTR is capable.  More or less than its competitors here or there.  Who cares.

Question is do you want one or do you not.  If you do not, then go elsewhere.  If you do, you must be blind but that's OK - the world's all about inclusiveness lately .

[Great_Big_Abyss]

EDIT:  This page has the RS doing a lap time of 8 minutes 6.3 seconds.  That's 22.5s off the pace of the CTR.  It also confirms the CTR was using Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires.

Lap times at the 'ring for a daily driver toy/hot hatch?  So I guess everyone in North America will be frequently tracking their CTR at the 'ring?

Then why are you in this thread?  This is about a track-focused car.  Lap times matter.  And a good time at the 'ring is indicative of how fast a car is. 

What's more, we were discussing the merit of the large (albeit ugly) aero that the CTR uses.  I'm saying that the CTR definitely uses its aero to put down blisteringly fast lap times.

[ChaosphereIX]

wings not needed on performance FWD cars? Modern touring cars since the mid 90s would beg to differ.

BTW Rob Huff's Civic in the WTCC pic above has the same power as the street car, just less weight....and the race engineers deemed it beneficial for it to have a wing.

That car weighs over 500 lbs less than the road going car and does produce more power as it is completely unrestricted.  Different compression ratio, exhaust system, ECU tune. 

Apples to apples required.

I said it is lighter, and no...due to restrictors it makes around 300hp, sometimes less [balancing factor]. It is a 1.6T race engine, 300hp is plenty to move them about. ~300hp has been the power of touring cars for some time now due to Super2000 regulations etc.

[greengs]

Here's another picture of a race car with a giant rear wing. Yup, wings serve no purpose on FWD cars. 

that's a FWD race car?

The wings on that car have nothing to do with being wrong wheel drive.  It weighs 1930 lbs and has 750 hp.  The wings help it not take flight.

FWIW, that FWD design was completely non competitive.  One race only.  The next year the program was cancelled.

On the other hand, that chassis can be converted to AWD and was designed as such from the beginning.

i realize that...my point is the wings (or front and rear spoilers) are important on race cars, as they are very powerful and quite light (compared to regular cars we plebes drive)...they also drive at 10/10s limits on a track and at speeds none of us drive...i think in the case of CTR, they've done it more for looks (give it that F&F look) than outright practicality...the wing on it would offer minimal downforce on a car that isn't really any quicker than a Golf R.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYg1IDrJUs&t=173s

don't get me wrong, it's got some decent performance credentials...it's got some interesting engineering stuff behind it...i get that...i just think it looks over the top ridiculous and when combined with dealers asking $10k over list, i don't see why anyone would buy this over many of the other "hot hatches" available...if this car had a Hyundai badge slapped on the hood, this thread would be 14 pages long criticizing it's styling, price, FWD set up, etc...but throw an "H" on the hood and no one is allowed a differing opinion?...jebus.

You can order a CTR for MSRP all day long now if you're willing to wait as you can't get one on the lot. 
While Golf R is a great car for the money (probably the best overall package for most people) CTR is a much better driving, better handling, faster track car.  Unless all you're interested is 0-60 times Golf R can't compete against the CTR on the track.
Focus RS is $20,000 more.
So the reason lots of people are buying the CTR over other hot hatches is because right now it's the best handling, most fun car to Drive in that segment.  Period.  We can argue all day about how ugly it is, that the wings do nothing, but Focus was #1, now it's the Civic.  I'm not a fanboy but I have to give credit where credit is due. In fact if I were spending 45K I would have the Golf R with DSG because to me that car is a best compromise/daily driver. 

http://driving.ca/honda/civic/reviews/comparison/track-test-honda-civic-type-r-smashes-its-awd-competition

Oh, and it was just voted Top Gear car of the year beating out cars like the McClaren 720s, Porsche 911 GT, Ford GT, Bugatti Chiron, MB AMG E63S. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O9zwSRcA50

[dirtyjeffer]

Oh, and it was just voted Top Gear car of the year beating out cars like the McClaren 720s, Porsche 911 GT, Ford GT, Bugatti Chiron, MB AMG E63S. 

Top Gear Car of the Year?

well that settles it then...it has to the best car out there.

it can now join the ranks of:

Car of the Year

1997: Ford Puma
1998: Ford Focus
2000: Fiat Multipla
2002: Range Rover
2003: Jaguar XJ8
2004: Nissan 350Z
2005: Toyota Aygo & Bugatti Veyron
2006: Jaguar XK
2007: Subaru Legacy Outback and the Ford Mondeo
2008: Volkswagen Scirocco
2009: Ferrari 458 Italia
2010: Citroën DS3
2011: Range Rover Evoque
2012: Toyota GT86
2013: Ford Fiesta ST
2014: BMW i8
2015: Ford Focus RS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(magazine)#Car_of_the_Year

the Citroen DS3 and Ford Mondeo...i mean, that's pretty serious company there.

[tortoise]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

[dirtyjeffer]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

the fact that the list doesn't really mean anything...as i've said, i'm sure the CTR is a really good car...i just don't like it, but then, i'm not the target market for it...it seemed perfectly ok for people to dislike the Kia Stinger, what's so hard to understand here?

[Fobroader]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Would that be the craptastic Range Rover products, the Mondeo, Multipla or the Golf in drag "Scirocco"??

[dirtyjeffer]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Would that be the craptastic Range Rover products, the Mondeo, Multipla or the Golf in drag "Scirocco"??

the list is fake news anyway...there is no effin way the CTR beat the Buick Envision Premium II...impossible.

[Dante]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

the fact that the list doesn't really mean anything...as i've said, i'm sure the CTR is a really good car...i just don't like it, but then, i'm not the target market for it...it seemed perfectly ok for people to dislike the Kia Stinger, what's so hard to understand here?

You got the point now.... no Kia in the list 

[greengs]

There's a lot of good cars on that list.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

the fact that the list doesn't really mean anything...as i've said, i'm sure the CTR is a really good car...i just don't like it, but then, i'm not the target market for it...it seemed perfectly ok for people to dislike the Kia Stinger, what's so hard to understand here?

The Top Gear thing was just the latest thing that popped up this morning.  There are lots of other comparos online you can look up.  The consensus is the CTR is the top car in its class now as per journalists that do this for a living.  Car and Driver for example:

https://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-ford-focus-rs-vs-2017-honda-civic-type-r-comparison-test

I am totally fine with people saying it's ugly as F and they wouldn't be caught dead inside one.  But, you shouldn't deny this thing is the best track car out there right now in the hot hatch segment. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^That was hardly conclusive

The Focus was much quicker and had a better shifter, but a harsher ride. And that wasn't on the optional sport tires.

They liked the Civic for the softer ride.

I'll take the AWD. If I wanted comfort, I'd get the Golf R. Added bonus, neither it nor the Focus look like "autobot sex toys^TM".

[Noto]

But, you shouldn't deny this thing is the best track car out there right now in the hot hatch segment. 

"best"?

Lap times matter. 

To varying degrees, I agree.  My comment was that 1-2s between cars on shorter, non-top echelon tracks...they're all great.  Even 22.5s - is this not simply bragging rights for a pissing contest?  I agree with Vman:

It like me saying are you going to take your car to a drag strip when you cite 0-60 or 1/4 mile?

Track times demonstrate the overall performance of a car better than anything else.

It's "demonstrative" of capabilities that most will never use or care about.  I'm OK with that, and support it.

...but to the same point, I often times will 'floor it' in my car, in which 0-60 times may matter somewhat (especially between a 6.2s Pilot vs a 11s Prius).  I've never advocated for 1/4 mile times since I don't get up to 100+ mph on legal roadways, but still appreciate the information that the 1/4 mile times show.

...but whether the Focus RS is 2s slower at Calabogie than a CTR - that's where you've lost me.  Having been 'round that track, I can understand why folks would want a faster, more 'fun' car; but then, wouldn't the individual attributes (handling, power delivery, etc) be more important than overall lap times?  How many "races" or "timed trials" do folks usually do with their CTRs?  I was out there for "bring your own car day" and none of it was timed.

[Fobroader]

^That was hardly conclusive

The Focus was much quicker and had a better shifter, but a harsher ride. And that wasn't on the optional sport tires.

They liked the Civic for the softer ride.

I'll take the AWD. If I wanted comfort, I'd get the Golf R. Added bonus, neither it nor the Focus look like "autobot sex toys^TM".

FWD is cute and all, but for something that I would use year round, it is after all an economy hatchback with a whizz bang drivetrain, AWD would win it for me, RS or the STI for this guy.