Civic Type R What are they like in the real world

[gti-ted]

Who has one
I am toying with getting one prob circa 52-53 plate So what are they like as an everyday car?
What sort of mpg can they achieve, servicing costs etc are they comfortable, are the brakes any good etc etc.

Cheers Ted

[SS HSV]

Why don't you find one in the classifieds and test drive it as all you will get is people telling you they are good or bad, and as its you thats going to be driving it you wont know until you've driven it IMO.

As for mpg, it always makes me laugh when people look to buy sports cars and say "what miles per gallon do they do?". Do you really care? All sports cars when driven hard will use loads more fuel because of their aggressive camshaft profile, the bigger induction/exhaust system and the generally higher compression ratio/advance curve of th eignition.

If you want a sports car, expect them to use more fuel when driven in anger than the same model which is not. If you want something economical then buy a Micra

[andygo]

I had one for 4 years. They are awesome pices of kit. Brakes mega, really reliable, mine used hardly any iol, despite repeated thrashings. Often got more than 30mpg. Superb handling.

Try and get the '04 facelift model - revs a bit better, lowered by 25mm, nicer bodykit eyc.

(previous cars include a 330ci, STI8, 3 cozzies, loads of Golf gti's, Corrado, Elise, Rs 2000's etc.)

[Sarkmeister]

SS HSV said:

As for mpg, it always makes me laugh when people look to buy sports cars and say "what miles per gallon do they do?".

Why is that such a stupid question? The mpg of sports cars varies greatly, so if someone is on a budget its nice to find one with decent mpg. Not all people buying these type of cars are loaded. Personally one of the reasons I bought an elise was the relatively high mpg figuure, a few of the other options would only get low 20s.

[gti-ted]

Sarkmeister said:

SS HSV said:

As for mpg, it always makes me laugh when people look to buy sports cars and say "what miles per gallon do they do?".

Why is that such a stupid question? The mpg of sports cars varies greatly, so if someone is on a budget its nice to find one with decent mpg. Not all people buying these type of cars are loaded. Personally one of the reasons I bought an elise was the relatively high mpg figuure, a few of the other options would only get low 20s.

If an owner said to me that there Type R only returns around 25mpg in the real world then i would have to reconsider my options as allthough i can buy the car outright i still have 2 kids and a mortgage to pay so i don't want to spunk all of money into fuelling the beast hence the reason for asking the question.

[750turbo]

Go for it, I had the 02 model for 18 months and did 40,000 miles in it, averaging around 30mpg. I now have the current model and love it to bits, averaging around 35mpg, but I do LOTS of Motorway driving at legal speeds. Have a mooch round thse sites, there is loads of info here, and they generally are very friendly.

http://www.civictype-r.co.uk/forum/

http://www.type-r-scotland.com/forum/index.php

http://www.type-r-scotland.com/forum/index.php

Good luck

[SS HSV]

Sarkmeister said:

SS HSV said:

As for mpg, it always makes me laugh when people look to buy sports cars and say "what miles per gallon do they do?".

Why is that such a stupid question? The mpg of sports cars varies greatly, so if someone is on a budget its nice to find one with decent mpg. Not all people buying these type of cars are loaded. Personally one of the reasons I bought an elise was the relatively high mpg figuure, a few of the other options would only get low 20s.

Where did I say it's a stupid question? - I offered good advice I thought but obviously it was not taken as that.

Where did I infur that the OP was/was not loaded? - I gave a generalisation about tuned sports car engines that's all.

gti-ted said:

If an owner said to me that there Type R only returns around 25mpg in the real world then i would have to reconsider my options as allthough i can buy the car outright i still have 2 kids and a mortgage to pay so i don't want to spunk all of money into fuelling the beast hence the reason for asking the question.

So you are saying that the difference between you buying the car and not is 5mpg? I GUARANTEE I could get a Type R down to 20mpg - it is entirely dependent on how you drive it. My comments were light hearted at the reasons guys try to justify to themselves for buying a sportscar when they know all along that they are going to buy it anyway and don't want to be put off. And yet you havent even test driven it to see if you like it yet

If I was looking for a family car with performance the last place I would look is a Type R. I would probably be looking at a T5 or Saab, or something which will go some way to protect by valuable cargo not a front wheel drive, boy racing screamer that revs to 8k.. again all just my opinion

[gti-ted]

SS HSV said:

Sarkmeister said:

SS HSV said:

As for mpg, it always makes me laugh when people look to buy sports cars and say "what miles per gallon do they do?".

Why is that such a stupid question? The mpg of sports cars varies greatly, so if someone is on a budget its nice to find one with decent mpg. Not all people buying these type of cars are loaded. Personally one of the reasons I bought an elise was the relatively high mpg figuure, a few of the other options would only get low 20s.

Where did I say it's a stupid question? - I offered good advice I thought but obviously it was not taken as that.

Where did I infur that the OP was/was not loaded? - I gave a generalisation about tuned sports car engines that's all.

gti-ted said:

If an owner said to me that there Type R only returns around 25mpg in the real world then i would have to reconsider my options as allthough i can buy the car outright i still have 2 kids and a mortgage to pay so i don't want to spunk all of money into fuelling the beast hence the reason for asking the question.

So you are saying that the difference between you buying the car and not is 5mpg? I GUARANTEE I could get a Type R down to 20mpg - it is entirely dependent on how you drive it. My comments were light hearted at the reasons guys try to justify to themselves for buying a sportscar when they know all along that they are going to buy it anyway and don't want to be put off. And yet you havent even test driven it to see if you like it yet

If I was looking for a family car with performance the last place I would look is a Type R. I would probably be looking at a T5 or Saab, or something which will go some way to protect by valuable cargo not a front wheel drive, boy racing screamer that revs to 8k.. again all just my opinion

So go and buy a Saab then FFS I am 35 not 55 and if i was looking at that Ilk of car i would buy an Audi.
I would like a Type R and I just want feedback from Type R owners. Do you have one? If you do then please give me some constructive insight on your ownership of the car. If not then feck off...

[Animal]

Ted,

I had an '03 place CTR for a year and never really grew to love it. Great gearbox, fantastic engine (esp. at the limiter!) but I was never particularly impressed with the brakes and I always thought the chassis was 90% nose-led (unlike an Integra). Mine developed some annoying rattles, including a loose heat shield under the bonnet) and they're very sensitive to poor tracking.

That aside, it was reasonably comfortable, I averaged about 27-28 mpg over the year and it never, ever failed to get me where I wanted it to go. I drove from Hemel to Mallaig in a day once (510 miles) and got out at the other end without a headache or any numb parts.

Take one for a long test drive and once you've given it a bit of a ragging (a tunnel is a must!) think hard about whether or not you can live with a car that is quite raw and unrefined day-to-day.

Not a bad car, but when I traded it in for my Impreza didn't look back once...

[_Lee_]

I had a CTR (mk 2) for 2 years.

I loved that car, from the noise it made to the fact it always felt like it egged you on to thrash it even harder. No hot hatch out there gets anywhere near the CTR for noise and when you drive the car very hard, it feels really special because everything comes together with the car.

It handled very well and once you get to grips with the meaty steering, it's wonderful.

When I first drove the car I was underwhelmed and bought another hatch, however when I borrowed a friends for 3 days, I got into the groove of the car and part-ex'd my other car 5 days later for the CTR.

Downsides? Bone crunching suspension and seats, hopeless factory fit tyres. Envious other hot hatch drivers going around talking rubbish about the car have no torque etc.

[_Lee_]

A good comparison video.

Fifth Gear. Civic Type R x Focus x Leon Cupra
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m6BTrKmyAAc

[gti-ted]

Cheers Guy's.
I have fancied one for ages but now that they are circa £5-£7k I think I am going to get one.

Are there any bad issue's, callbacks that i should be aware of?

[Animal]

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

Tyres - The factory-fit Bridgestones were poo. I had Avon ZZ3s fitted and could really notice the difference.

Brakes - Could do with upgrading the brake fluid and pads.

Oil - Needs to be changed every 5-6,000 miles.

[10 Pence Short]

Animal said:

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

Tyres - The factory-fit Bridgestones were poo. I had Avon ZZ3s fitted and could really notice the difference.

Brakes - Could do with upgrading the brake fluid and pads.

Oil - Needs to be changed every 5-6,000 miles.

Every bit of that is absolute poo.

The Bridgestone's do not have the grippiest compound in cold and damp conditions (though in very wet conditions the tread pattern is fine at dispersing water). When dry they are spot on, as they are designed to be, and matched to a very stiff construction. If you move to another tyre, you have to be very careful, as tyres with softer sidewalls (an example would be the old Eagle GSD3s)totally ruin the handling characteristics. I would happily sacrifice less outright grip in the cold and damp than ruin the handling with tyres ill suited to the car. Stick with the RE040s.

The brakes? The Civic I ran was one of the few cars that would handle any amount of abuse on the road without fade. All four pads could be smoking away when you come to a standstill, yet the brake pedal would be as firm as you like. I would only consider changing the fluid and pads if I were to go on track with it.

Oil? Just stick to the standard intervals and all will be well- whilst changing more often won't do any harm, it's just an unnecessary expense. What you do need to do is keep an eye on your oil level- if you let that drop too low, then you will cause damage.

I ran an 02 plate CTR from new over 125,000 miles in 23 months, btw.

[10 Pence Short]

Animal said:

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

It's worth noting that the rear runs quite a lot of camber which will wear the inside of the rears faster than the rest of the tyre. Also, a certain batch of early (pre-facelift) cars were delivered with rear suspension arms putting too much camber on the rear compared to spec. Dealers replaced these under warranty, if requested.

[gti-ted]

10 Pence Short said:

Animal said:

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

Tyres - The factory-fit Bridgestones were poo. I had Avon ZZ3s fitted and could really notice the difference.

Brakes - Could do with upgrading the brake fluid and pads.

Oil - Needs to be changed every 5-6,000 miles.

Every bit of that is absolute poo.

The Bridgestone's do not have the grippiest compound in cold and damp conditions (though in very wet conditions the tread pattern is fine at dispersing water). When dry they are spot on, as they are designed to be, and matched to a very stiff construction. If you move to another tyre, you have to be very careful, as tyres with softer sidewalls (an example would be the old Eagle GSD3s)totally ruin the handling characteristics. I would happily sacrifice less outright grip in the cold and damp than ruin the handling with tyres ill suited to the car. Stick with the RE040s.

The brakes? The Civic I ran was one of the few cars that would handle any amount of abuse on the road without fade. All four pads could be smoking away when you come to a standstill, yet the brake pedal would be as firm as you like. I would only consider changing the fluid and pads if I were to go on track with it.

Oil? Just stick to the standard intervals and all will be well- whilst changing more often won't do any harm, it's just an unnecessary expense. What you do need to do is keep an eye on your oil level- if you let that drop too low, then you will cause damage.

I ran an 02 plate CTR from new over 125,000 miles in 23 months, btw.

A good car in your opinion?

[10 Pence Short]

gti-ted said:

10 Pence Short said:

Animal said:

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

Tyres - The factory-fit Bridgestones were poo. I had Avon ZZ3s fitted and could really notice the difference.

Brakes - Could do with upgrading the brake fluid and pads.

Oil - Needs to be changed every 5-6,000 miles.

Every bit of that is absolute poo.

The Bridgestone's do not have the grippiest compound in cold and damp conditions (though in very wet conditions the tread pattern is fine at dispersing water). When dry they are spot on, as they are designed to be, and matched to a very stiff construction. If you move to another tyre, you have to be very careful, as tyres with softer sidewalls (an example would be the old Eagle GSD3s)totally ruin the handling characteristics. I would happily sacrifice less outright grip in the cold and damp than ruin the handling with tyres ill suited to the car. Stick with the RE040s.

The brakes? The Civic I ran was one of the few cars that would handle any amount of abuse on the road without fade. All four pads could be smoking away when you come to a standstill, yet the brake pedal would be as firm as you like. I would only consider changing the fluid and pads if I were to go on track with it.

Oil? Just stick to the standard intervals and all will be well- whilst changing more often won't do any harm, it's just an unnecessary expense. What you do need to do is keep an eye on your oil level- if you let that drop too low, then you will cause damage.

I ran an 02 plate CTR from new over 125,000 miles in 23 months, btw.

A good car in your opinion?

They are a very good car in my opinion, and a bit of a bargain at the moment. Good sales figures at the time mean there are plenty about now.

Don't worry too much about the mileage, but DO be very fussy about the service history. Servicing isn't expensive so people have no excuse to miss it. Try and avoid cars with induction kits/ silly exhausts and daft wheels and look for something standard.

If you go for a pre-facelift car (53 plate or before), see if the steering rack has been replaced. The early cars suffered from very unreliable electric racks which are circa £1k to replace (mine went through 3 racks in the time I had it). That is not to say all the cars will fail, just that it is a weak point on the car.

As for economy, you will easily get early to mid 30s if you drive conservatively. The best I did was 46mpg over 170 miles at a steady 60 on the motorway. The worst will be high teens, if you are ragging it.

It is a cheap car to buy and run, considering the performance- just be fussy when you buy.

If it was me, I'd be looking for the end-of-run special (53 plated cars) before the facelift. These were known as the Anniversary Edition and come with proper Recaros, a MOMO steering wheel and air con, as well as darkened rear windows. The post facelift cars had the handling softened down a bit and are a bit less noisy than the earlier ones.

[D1MAC]

10 Pence Short said:

Animal said:

Tracking - I had a new set of tyres fitted and the old set were so unevenly worn that I was amazed I hadn't fallen off the road.

Tyres - The factory-fit Bridgestones were poo. I had Avon ZZ3s fitted and could really notice the difference.

Brakes - Could do with upgrading the brake fluid and pads.

Oil - Needs to be changed every 5-6,000 miles.

Every bit of that is absolute poo.

The Bridgestone's do not have the grippiest compound in cold and damp conditions (though in very wet conditions the tread pattern is fine at dispersing water). When dry they are spot on, as they are designed to be, and matched to a very stiff construction. If you move to another tyre, you have to be very careful, as tyres with softer sidewalls (an example would be the old Eagle GSD3s)totally ruin the handling characteristics. I would happily sacrifice less outright grip in the cold and damp than ruin the handling with tyres ill suited to the car. Stick with the RE040s.

The brakes? The Civic I ran was one of the few cars that would handle any amount of abuse on the road without fade. All four pads could be smoking away when you come to a standstill, yet the brake pedal would be as firm as you like. I would only consider changing the fluid and pads if I were to go on track with it.

Oil? Just stick to the standard intervals and all will be well- whilst changing more often won't do any harm, it's just an unnecessary expense. What you do need to do is keep an eye on your oil level- if you let that drop too low, then you will cause damage.

I ran an 02 plate CTR from new over 125,000 miles in 23 months, btw.

It isn't quite the manure you're making it out to be.


Tyres - I never actually bothered with changing to another make but the Bridgestones were decidedly ordinary in anything other than nice, dry conditions. Even then, they were fine but nowhere near great.
As I didn't change, I can't be certain but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Michelins were better.

However, the Civic does have known issues with the front suspension and that will chew the tyres up no end, as it did with mine. Thankfully I picked it up sufficiently quickly and about a month before the warranty ran out, otherwise I'd have been looking at a bill in thousands.

Brakes - Keep reading how great they are supposed to be be but again never found that to be reality. They were ok but nothing spectacular, plus the lifespan wasn't good. New pads every 12-15k but my Civic's replacement is considerably heavier (just like it's driver, unfortunately ), brakes just as well and is still on it's original pads after 35k, with life left.

Oil - Check every couple of weeks max IMO but would agree that changing more often doesn't really gain you much, if anything. As long as the level is ok then the engine will be fine. If it isn't then big cost here we come.
I checked mine that often and never gave it much grief when it was cold and it never used more than 1/2 litre between services.


I also ran one but only 50k in 4 years. However it was under just about every driving condition possible, bar track days.

[10 Pence Short]

I'm not sure how you can suggest the tyres weren't that good when you didn't compare them against anything else? Tyre's are made with a compound and construction to get performance in certain conditions. There is always compromise. What one person classes as 'better' another could say is worse. For example, fitting Goodyear Eagles improved traction, particularly in the wet, but the soft sidewalls left the handling ruined. I preferred to keep the feel and balance and accept that I didn't get the same traction in wet conditions with the Bridgestones.

As for the front suspension, there were never any huge problems with the Civic. The only problem I had in my time with one was a loose anti roll bar, which isn't exactly hard to fix.

Regarding the longevity of the brakes, again, it's a compromise. I used to go through pads every 20,000 miles or so, which I was happy with for the way they could deal with prolonged heat.

All in all, it is easy to have one car and tell people that the faults you've had are likely to happen to others, which obviously isn't the case. From memory, I had the following faults with mine over 125,000 miles:
- 4 alloy wheels replaced under warranty due to corrosion
- 1 new gearbox due to bearing whine in 4th
- 3 new steering racks
- 3 new steering rack control units (separate to the rack failures)
- New rear suspension arms
- Numerous dashboard rattles
- Blocked throttle body shortly after 110,000 miles
- Faulty sensor reading CAT failure when there wasn't one
- Replacement exhaust manifold after the metal on an internal joint sheared and lodged in the CAT

There was also the issue of having to have the bonnet resprayed 3 times after requiring a repair, when they really struggled to paint match the Nighthawk Black.

[Mr. Potato Head]

10 Pence Short said:

If you move to another tyre, you have to be very careful, as tyres with softer sidewalls (an example would be the old Eagle GSD3s)totally ruin the handling characteristics.

Funny how people are different, because my mum fitted GSD3s to hers because she didn't like the wet performance of the Bridgys, and her, my dad and I prefer them

I'm not saying you're wrong btw - far from it

OP: try one. It's a Marmite car, but I love em. Can you get the kids in an Integra?

Edited by Mr. Potato Head on Sunday 26th October 09:57