TommyDeVito

One, it's not an argument. Two, I don't share your opinion of the new NSX. Three I'm not a Honda Fanboi so......

If someone took a swing at me it'd be JHP time

rob-2

Walked in after super bowl ad to put a down on the v10. I wouldn't buy it in its current form or price.

TheDonEffect

I think the delays did take away alot of it's thunder. It became a running joke with the delays, and other brands introduced awesome electrified cars. So it was the first at nothing except with their own patents that didn't make the car faster cheaper simpler in any significant manner, been dry humping over a decade, and then came out as good but nothing great. And the sales reflect this.

This type r is impressive, but it misses the point that made Honda's great, cheap simple and so reliable a high schooler can maintain it on a budget in his back yard. This car won't be cheap, may be simple, and we'll see if this will be dead reliable. I don't take a lot of stock in factory backed ring tests since they all wait for ideal situations etc etc, I'll wait for independent track tests to see just how fast it is in the real world. That said this thing is wicked fast, but will most people be able to pass say a c6 zr1 with a comparably skilled driver on a long high speed track in this type r? Probably say no...
Still impressive, but I'd have a hard time taking it over a standard gti for the better value or a focus rs because awd.

WolfpackS2k

Compare it, in the real world on a normal track, against contemporary and similarly priced RWD vehicles and you might be surprised at the results (if you're making all assumptions from a 'Ring time).

20 years ago an Integra Type R was similarly priced to a Mustang GT or Camaro Z28 and handled better than them but was still slower in a straight line. Fast forward twenty years and the Civic Type R is inferior in both respects while possibly costing more. Different strokes for different folks, but its nothing interesting to me. Just proves to me how much Ford & Chevy have improved as sports coupe/car makers while Honda has kinda held the line.

EastS2k

Damn that's savage man, if honda CEO read this he'd probably be pretty butt hurt right now.

vigilante

Not to mention having to replace the "street-legal track focused tires" they used on the ring test. If they are talking about the pilot sport cup 2 tire, that is ~$400 per tire for less than 8k miles.

Elistan

15 years ago, a Nissan Altima 3.5 was faster in a straight line than an S2000. That didn't bother me then, didn't make the S2000 any lesser of a car, and it doesn't bother me now if a ~$34k Mustang GT is faster than a similarly priced or more expensive CTR. Not that I'm interested in purchasing one, however, per my previously stated dislike of FWD, I just thinking pointing to Mustangs has never been, and isn't currently, valid criticism of any other performance oriented car.

circuitclub

I agree - would be very interested in the cars performance compared to other cars in a similar category. I also agree that ford and chevy have stepped up their game significantly. Lastly, didn't know the civic has an inferior suspension compared to these other cars

JonBoy

A Mustang GT costs about the same as a CTR so that's a valid thought. Camaro Z28? Nope, not even close. Camaro SS? Sure. Even a Camaro SS 1LE might be doable at $37K (that's what one guy got his for, a few months ago). Which would I take? Without having driven the CTR, I'd have to lean towards the Camaro because of its RWD, more power, new chassis, and great engine sound. I'm not a fan of boost so a big, normally aspirated engine is my preference. However, I can definitely see the CTR's appeal in that it's quite light, quite focused, will probably hold its value a lot better, is less common and is "the best of its breed" (FWD production cars).

We'll see how the CTR does against those guys, when it comes to lap times (specifically, the Mustang GT or Camaro SS). Better base tires, way less weight and a newer chassis mean that it'll have a fighting chance on a smaller, tighter course (for sure) but will still struggle, in all probability, on the longer tracks.

I remember reading a comparo of an Integra Type R vs a Mustang GT, back in the day. The Type R won the comparo, despite being slower in a straight line, and I believe it was actually faster around the track (don't hold me to that - it's obviously been a long time!).

I think it's great that you've already declared the CTR inferior without having driven it AND in the face of it being a mere 13s slower than the hardcore Z/28 on a nearly 8 minute track. On a 2 minute track, you're down to a 3s difference between a CTR that costs $35K and has 300 hp and a Z/28 that costs $76K and has 505hp, ceramic brakes,spool-valve dampers, fairly aggressive aero and massive, nearly slick tires. Ford doesn't even run the Mustang at the Nurburgring... OBJECTIVELY, the CTR appears to be much quicker than the sum of its parts, given that it's putting a beatdown on cars from Porsche that have way more power, RWD (or AWD), factory hotshoe at the wheel, etc. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

TommyDeVito

You can't outrun ugly. Hype R. Well at least it made it here some two decades later. So the new NSX took ten years, the new Type R, twenty years. I hope the next S2000 doesn't take nearly as long as either but we've already been waiting ten years so much the same. The two standout vehicles they offer, to me, are the Ridgeline and the Fit.