Discussion
Type-R huh? Fast car due to the gearing but it is way too much effort to access the power, thrashing it all the time makes you look and feel like a tool as well.
Can't help but feel that the older cars are appealing to the wealthier chavs as well! Get something with a few more cubes or less weight. I got a car with both and am having alot more fun.
>> Edited by Charlieromeo on Thursday 12th May 23:15
Can't help but feel that the older cars are appealing to the wealthier chavs as well! Get something with a few more cubes or less weight. I got a car with both and am having alot more fun.
>> Edited by Charlieromeo on Thursday 12th May 23:15
check suspension (rear wishbones) & tracking (front is susceptible to problems i'm told).
again, no problems with mine, well apart from colliding with a brick wall.
emissions were a little high so i had the O2 sensor changed at 15,000 miles - seems to have fixed a slight flat spot at 2000rpm.
edited: forgot to go to sleep.
>> Edited by fido on Friday 13th May 00:55
Have all the critics of the CTR actually driven one?
Yes the power is a little "peeky" but the important thing is that the engine is the i-VTEC which delivers a lot more torque lower down than the older VTEC systems - and it works.
Its quick, damn quick. Not the fastest thing on four wheels, but faster than a Clio 182 and Focus RS - as mentioned by Tiff on 5th Gear. In fact the CTR is as fast to 100 than a Boxster 2.7! Kinda puts it into perspective a little!
Oh, and ownership - well Honda have recently switched to a fixed price service / parts model. This means that all parts are the same price regardless of model. Ok, owners of Civic 1.4's wont win, but CTR owners get cheaper brakes, pads, servicing and other bits and bobs. Keeping a CTR on the road now is much cheaper and simpler - oh, and its a Honda and pretty unlikely to go wrong in the first place.
For the un-hidged a new air filter and exhaust will see 215 - 220 BHP and a re-map will take that higher. For the seriously mental £3000 and you can have a Jackson supercharger and 300BHP....
In my mind its a real pocket rocket in the old sense. Yes its a little harsh riding and the interior is dull. But seeing as they are down to £10k or less, its a fantastic bargain. Never underestimate the effort they put into the "R" badged models.... its not just a cooking Civic... its certainly more than the sum of its parts...
Oh, and what to look for - paint chips on the front, heavy and uneven wear on the tyres and warped disks from what I know. Alloys are easily damaged and costly to replace. Servicing should be on the mileage - anything out of line should be viewed with caution. Electrics are generally excellent, though some have had failed windows and central locking - though this isnt a major issue, just a few quid to sort out. Basically look for anything that has been thrashed and bashed really.
Yes the power is a little "peeky" but the important thing is that the engine is the i-VTEC which delivers a lot more torque lower down than the older VTEC systems - and it works.
Its quick, damn quick. Not the fastest thing on four wheels, but faster than a Clio 182 and Focus RS - as mentioned by Tiff on 5th Gear. In fact the CTR is as fast to 100 than a Boxster 2.7! Kinda puts it into perspective a little!
Oh, and ownership - well Honda have recently switched to a fixed price service / parts model. This means that all parts are the same price regardless of model. Ok, owners of Civic 1.4's wont win, but CTR owners get cheaper brakes, pads, servicing and other bits and bobs. Keeping a CTR on the road now is much cheaper and simpler - oh, and its a Honda and pretty unlikely to go wrong in the first place.
For the un-hidged a new air filter and exhaust will see 215 - 220 BHP and a re-map will take that higher. For the seriously mental £3000 and you can have a Jackson supercharger and 300BHP....
In my mind its a real pocket rocket in the old sense. Yes its a little harsh riding and the interior is dull. But seeing as they are down to £10k or less, its a fantastic bargain. Never underestimate the effort they put into the "R" badged models.... its not just a cooking Civic... its certainly more than the sum of its parts...
Oh, and what to look for - paint chips on the front, heavy and uneven wear on the tyres and warped disks from what I know. Alloys are easily damaged and costly to replace. Servicing should be on the mileage - anything out of line should be viewed with caution. Electrics are generally excellent, though some have had failed windows and central locking - though this isnt a major issue, just a few quid to sort out. Basically look for anything that has been thrashed and bashed really.
Having said that, some 6-pots are gutless at low to medium revs and the Civic Type R IS a fast car for the money and also for the high quality you get.
I could only just beat my mate's CTR in my Focus RS, the gap in actual performance was very small. Difference was, I had decent grunt anywhere above 3000 rpm.
I could only just beat my mate's CTR in my Focus RS, the gap in actual performance was very small. Difference was, I had decent grunt anywhere above 3000 rpm.
off_again said:
Have all the critics of the CTR actually driven one?
Yes, many times.
I won't say I'm a "critic" of the Type R. The thing is, it would be much more at home on a track than on the public roads. I can't stress enough how utterly dull the interior is, and to have A/C as an optional extra on a car priced at 17k is simply ludicrous.
Honda have done a great marketing job on this car, hence its popularity, but I wonder how many owners tire of it whilst on their daily commute?
Other downsides. Thievability. The press whipped this motor up in a frenzy, and all car thieves/scum worth their fake burberry caps will want to pinch it. Do you need that kind of hassle? Everywhere you go, people want to race it. Traffic light GP a-go-go....
Just my informed opinion, of course.
loftylad said:
Have all the critics of the CTR actually driven one?
Yes, many times.
I won't say I'm a "critic" of the Type R. The thing is, it would be much more at home on a track than on the public roads. I can't stress enough how utterly dull the interior is, and to have A/C as an optional extra on a car priced at 17k is simply ludicrous.
Honda have done a great marketing job on this car, hence its popularity, but I wonder how many owners tire of it whilst on their daily commute?
Other downsides. Thievability. The press whipped this motor up in a frenzy, and all car thieves/scum worth their fake burberry caps will want to pinch it. Do you need that kind of hassle? Everywhere you go, people want to race it. Traffic light GP a-go-go....
Just my informed opinion, of course.
I agree that the air-con as an extra is a bit of a con. It should be included as standard for a car of that price. But then again, its a premium product and hence a premium price. Dealers will let one go (with air-con) for around £15k-£16k these days so a bit of a bargain. A new model is due at the end of 2006 so many buyers are holding out.
Got my wife a second hand one and its a minter. Minimum hassle maintenance deal (from the dealer) and she really loves it. Dont need to spin it up if she doesnt want too and as a result fuel economy is actually very good - 32MPG isnt bad in my book for the journey she does! Mind you economy isnt something that you would normally be worried about. Yes its a peeky motor, but it makes the whole drive an experience - something that you dont get much of these days. Its a bit special but in a different kind of way....
Its not to everyone's taste and thats fine. Personally I think its one of the unsung heros of the hot hatch group. Often overlooked but very capable. Dont write them off as being crap - remember its a 200BHP 3 door hatch with Japanese reliability.... something that many buyers might be looking for.
In the real world, to the average driver, the CTR is not faster than a Clio 182. They're very similar in terms of performance, but the Clio would probably just nudge it for most people. In a drag race the CTR would probably win, but around a course of B-roads the Clio would be chomping serious bites out of a CTR.
I've driven both of these cars a few times and, in my opinion, the Clio is the easiest to get along with AS LONG AS you find the driving position comfortable (many people don't, the pedals are offset awkwardly and you sit on the car rather than in it).
You'll find most reviewers rate the Clio as being a better car, and indeed a faster car day-to-day (CTR's are very fast if you cane the crap out of them, which sometimes you don't want to do). They don't test the speed of their demo's by drifting them round corners like Tiff did on Fifth Gear! Or cocking up the last corner in the Clio! I suspect Fifth Gear probably had a spare CTR kicking about, and so to give it away they 'made sure' it won that race.
The CTR I've been in, however, is very nice and very practical. Fuel consumption is not too bad, and the thing is physically built well (better than the Clio). The Civic also holds on to its value a little better, from what I've seen.
I've driven both of these cars a few times and, in my opinion, the Clio is the easiest to get along with AS LONG AS you find the driving position comfortable (many people don't, the pedals are offset awkwardly and you sit on the car rather than in it).
You'll find most reviewers rate the Clio as being a better car, and indeed a faster car day-to-day (CTR's are very fast if you cane the crap out of them, which sometimes you don't want to do). They don't test the speed of their demo's by drifting them round corners like Tiff did on Fifth Gear! Or cocking up the last corner in the Clio! I suspect Fifth Gear probably had a spare CTR kicking about, and so to give it away they 'made sure' it won that race.
The CTR I've been in, however, is very nice and very practical. Fuel consumption is not too bad, and the thing is physically built well (better than the Clio). The Civic also holds on to its value a little better, from what I've seen.
fishtek69 said:
In the real world, to the average driver, the CTR is not faster than a Clio 182. They're very similar in terms of performance, but the Clio would probably just nudge it for most people. In a drag race the CTR would probably win, but around a course of B-roads the Clio would be chomping serious bites out of a CTR.
I've driven both of these cars a few times and, in my opinion, the Clio is the easiest to get along with AS LONG AS you find the driving position comfortable (many people don't, the pedals are offset awkwardly and you sit on the car rather than in it).
You'll find most reviewers rate the Clio as being a better car, and indeed a faster car day-to-day (CTR's are very fast if you cane the crap out of them, which sometimes you don't want to do). They don't test the speed of their demo's by drifting them round corners like Tiff did on Fifth Gear! Or cocking up the last corner in the Clio! I suspect Fifth Gear probably had a spare CTR kicking about, and so to give it away they 'made sure' it won that race.
The CTR I've been in, however, is very nice and very practical. Fuel consumption is not too bad, and the thing is physically built well (better than the Clio). The Civic also holds on to its value a little better, from what I've seen.
What he said, the Clio is not as well built but you do get loads of toys for your money. i.e. Climate control, auto Xenons, auto wipers and also £4K in your back pocket as you can pick up a 182 for £12500 or there abouts.
I looked at both and didn't feel the extra price for the CTR was worth it. It is bigger and definately better built but if I want comfort, I'll take the wife's A3 TDi out instead. the driving position can be strange until you get used to it.
off_again said:
Have all the critics of the CTR actually driven one?
Owned one for two years so I think that qualifies me to have an opinion.
The thing with the Type-R is that you get used to the peaky engine, the dodgy steering and the high driving position.
But as soon as I jumped in a proper sports car and I realised what I was missing out on. For the money as well there are alot better and more capable cars secondhand.
off_again said:
Have all the critics of the CTR actually driven one?
yep, as a CTR owner i get the same comments reg. lack of torque nah nah nah from Focus drivers etc. who have never actaully sat in one, let alone driven one.
example only last week when i gave some geezer (who works for the Beeb) a lift from Guildford to London. after doing the usual 0-xxx off the slip road, he seemed quite surprised at how easily it revs to the 7900rpm redline, and then proceeded to bang all the interior panels commenting on how well built it was - to which i replied "it's really badly built compared to previous Honda i owned"!
re. the torque curve, the i-VTEC makes a whole lot of difference; previous V-TEC was 2-stage cam switch. the K20A is no less torquey than most other naturally aspirated 2.0 litre engines - it certainly feels the same below 3000rpm as a Rover 220 or Primera GT. the Clio 182 has less flexible valve timing (intake only i think) so i doubt it has a better spread of torque throughout the rev range. if you want a really torquey N/A 4-pot try the K24A (only in the Accord 2.4 at the moment) - even Evo magazine rates it.
having said that, i've tried the Focus RS and it feels alot faster the CTR, pretty much up with the low-end Imprezas at least, for in-gear acceleration.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff