The new Honda Civic Type R (World Market version)
06-23-2017, 01:42 PM
#341
I see where you're coming from, you're entitled to your opinion and can throw around the word "suck" for whatever reason you see fit. I'm simply in the camp that thinks FWD can be fun and effective on the track and street. On a racetrack what determines superiority? Is it the drivetrain you selected based off of theory and textbooks, or is it the final standings? If a FWD car wins, it (along with the driver) has proven itself to be superior that day regardless of its shortcomings. Not to mention that many of the perceived issues people have with "old school" fwd comes at driving 10/10. For most owners driving at 7/10 in the twisties, it will likely be a blast, and at least they know the car is capable on the track if they want to go lapping. Kinda like a Bugatti owner might not ever hit top speed, but they at least gain some pride in knowing its capable...
BTW, the last-gen CTR was already breaking records on many smaller tracks in Europe: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/n...-europe-videos
Also seems to be faster than the Golf R, Focus RS etc. at many tracks. That seems like consistent performance.
Nürburgring Nordschleife
Civic Type R(FK2)7:50.00
Golf R 8:14.00
Tsukuba
Civic Type R(FK2)1:06.48
Golf R 1:07.83
Contidrom (3.8 km)
Civic Type R(FK2)1:36.70
Golf R 1:37.38
Sachsenring
Civic Type R(FK2)1:41.16
Golf R 1:41.73
Hockenheim Short
Civic Type R(FK2)1:15.70
Golf R 1:14.50
Llandow
Civic Type R(FK2)0:46.50
Golf R 0:49.00
The new Civic is even faster, with a more advanced multilink rear suspension setup. But the golf R and Focus RS are being refreshed slightly as well. Should be interesting.
BTW, the last-gen CTR was already breaking records on many smaller tracks in Europe: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/n...-europe-videos
Also seems to be faster than the Golf R, Focus RS etc. at many tracks. That seems like consistent performance.
Nürburgring Nordschleife
Civic Type R(FK2)7:50.00
Golf R 8:14.00
Tsukuba
Civic Type R(FK2)1:06.48
Golf R 1:07.83
Contidrom (3.8 km)
Civic Type R(FK2)1:36.70
Golf R 1:37.38
Sachsenring
Civic Type R(FK2)1:41.16
Golf R 1:41.73
Hockenheim Short
Civic Type R(FK2)1:15.70
Golf R 1:14.50
Llandow
Civic Type R(FK2)0:46.50
Golf R 0:49.00
The new Civic is even faster, with a more advanced multilink rear suspension setup. But the golf R and Focus RS are being refreshed slightly as well. Should be interesting.
Additionally, alot of those times were set by pro drivers, taking their best lap, etc etc. In the hands of a novice, most will have a more consistent experience in an AWD vehicle which is why cars like say an EVO are so popular. If FWD could be every bit as good and fun as RWD, then why not make the S2000 FWD as well?
In my hands, when the power starts to go north of 250hp, I'm consistently faster in an awd car when comparing factory cars, so let's not make another argument about taking say a K20 CRX and comparing it a 2002 WRX wagon ok. Simply put, I can get on the gas sooner, the car is more forgiving. As far as fun? Well fwd can be very very fun, but you can't... flirt with power oversteer in a fwd car can you?
06-23-2017, 01:58 PM
#342
You can't flirt with power oversteer in most AWD cars, either. They tend to push....
06-23-2017, 03:49 PM
#343
Yeah but they won't power understeer as much either and I can get on the power earlier more often than not, the point and shoot characteristics of awd is very confidence inspiring, the understeer nature of fwd isn't what I would call fun. Not saying that FWD can't be fun before we down that road again.
06-24-2017, 04:58 PM
#345
06-24-2017, 05:42 PM
#346
The selective ignorance in your review of others posts illustrates the defensive, Honda apologist nature of your posts. No one is saying that the car is not fun, and I know for a fact that I've posted in this very thread that I found FWD cars to be a hoot to drive as well, and I already said so and you acknowledged it, but you then circle back on it again. Are you posturing that FWD is every bit as capable as RWD? If your answer is no, then you understand the points others are making, the fact that you personally like the CTR is just that, you personally like it, and yes the car has shown to be very capable, but it is still an inferior platform.
Additionally, alot of those times were set by pro drivers, taking their best lap, etc etc. In the hands of a novice, most will have a more consistent experience in an AWD vehicle which is why cars like say an EVO are so popular. Well fwd can be very very fun, but you can't... flirt with power oversteer in a fwd car can you?
Additionally, alot of those times were set by pro drivers, taking their best lap, etc etc. In the hands of a novice, most will have a more consistent experience in an AWD vehicle which is why cars like say an EVO are so popular. Well fwd can be very very fun, but you can't... flirt with power oversteer in a fwd car can you?
lol. Because I defend a single car that Honda has done a great job on, I guess the torch is passed on to me lol. I get it, I'm going against the popular opinion, but I don't really mind.Each time I counter a point, people then try to invalidate it completely as if they werent the ones who brought it up the talking point in the first place.
1. "The new civic is slow." Well look at the ring record it set. It's the only objective measure we have right now, but I think it's impressive.
2. "Ring times don't matter, it's the driver" Well you have no problem praising a Porsche/insert whatever car you like, when it sets a record. Let's see a pro do the CTR time in a base Mustang.
3. "We need lap times at smaller track, by someone like a Randy pobst." Well here is a list of numerous lap times showing the previous gen SLOWER CTR beating the Golf R. Guess what? It was neck and neck with the Focus RS as well.
4. "Well your avg driver can't drive as fast as professional drivers." Well I guess no lap times published by magazines matter, and enthusiasts don't want to know the maximum potential a car has?
5. "FWD is just plain inferior" Inferior at launching or drifting sure, but not necessarily at track driving as evidenced by lap times, which is a better indicator of all-around performance. No matter how much theory you quote, it's real world results that count.
I get it, if you want a faster 0-60 car, or something that makes 1mil calculations/second and is "more easy to be consistent," get an AWD. Some ppl prefer the challenge of something more analog though. If you want something you can drift, RWD is your best bet. Those points work much better than blanket statements I've seen like "fwd is slow, sucks" etc.
I'm not saying you have personally stated all of these things, but I'm simply in the minority trying to address what I've read from multiple people. But I've said what I wanted to say, carry on.
The following users liked this post:
JonBoy (06-24-2017)
06-24-2017, 09:52 PM
#347
Registered User
06-24-2017, 10:35 PM
#348
I thought someone else was the Honda apologist of forum lol. Because I defend a single car that Honda has done a great job on, I guess the torch is passed on to me lol. I get it, I'm going against the popular opinion, but I don't really mind.
Each time I counter a point, people then try to invalidate it completely as if they werent the ones who brought it up the talking point in the first place.
1. "The new civic is slow." Well look at the ring record it set. It's the only objective measure we have right now, but I think it's impressive.
2. "Ring times don't matter, it's the driver" Well you have no problem praising a Porsche/insert whatever car you like, when it sets a record. Let's see a pro do the CTR time in a base Mustang.
3. "We need lap times at smaller track, by someone like a Randy pobst." Well here is a list of numerous lap times showing the previous gen SLOWER CTR beating the Golf R. Guess what? It was neck and neck with the Focus RS as well.
4. "Well your avg driver can't drive as fast as professional drivers." Well I guess no lap times published by magazines matter, and enthusiasts don't want to know the maximum potential a car has?
5. "FWD is just plain inferior" Inferior at launching or drifting sure, but not necessarily at track driving as evidenced by lap times, which is a better indicator of all-around performance. No matter how much theory you quote, it's real world results that count.
I get it, if you want a faster 0-60 car, or something that makes 1mil calculations/second and is "more easy to be consistent," get an AWD. Some ppl prefer the challenge of something more analog though. If you want something you can drift, RWD is your best bet. Those points work much better than blanket statements I've seen like "fwd is slow, sucks" etc.
I'm not saying you have personally stated all of these things, but I'm simply in the minority trying to address what I've read from multiple people. But I've said what I wanted to say, carry on.
lol. Because I defend a single car that Honda has done a great job on, I guess the torch is passed on to me lol. I get it, I'm going against the popular opinion, but I don't really mind.Each time I counter a point, people then try to invalidate it completely as if they werent the ones who brought it up the talking point in the first place.
1. "The new civic is slow." Well look at the ring record it set. It's the only objective measure we have right now, but I think it's impressive.
2. "Ring times don't matter, it's the driver" Well you have no problem praising a Porsche/insert whatever car you like, when it sets a record. Let's see a pro do the CTR time in a base Mustang.
3. "We need lap times at smaller track, by someone like a Randy pobst." Well here is a list of numerous lap times showing the previous gen SLOWER CTR beating the Golf R. Guess what? It was neck and neck with the Focus RS as well.
4. "Well your avg driver can't drive as fast as professional drivers." Well I guess no lap times published by magazines matter, and enthusiasts don't want to know the maximum potential a car has?
5. "FWD is just plain inferior" Inferior at launching or drifting sure, but not necessarily at track driving as evidenced by lap times, which is a better indicator of all-around performance. No matter how much theory you quote, it's real world results that count.
I get it, if you want a faster 0-60 car, or something that makes 1mil calculations/second and is "more easy to be consistent," get an AWD. Some ppl prefer the challenge of something more analog though. If you want something you can drift, RWD is your best bet. Those points work much better than blanket statements I've seen like "fwd is slow, sucks" etc.
I'm not saying you have personally stated all of these things, but I'm simply in the minority trying to address what I've read from multiple people. But I've said what I wanted to say, carry on.
Aaaand we're right back to where we started. You do realize you ignored all my points and put words into my mouth to fit your argument right? Then again this is the internet.
Anyway, just did simplify this argument, if honda was so awesome at making fwd cars go fast, then why is the new nsx awd? If fwd is just as engaging why was the s2000 rwd?
06-24-2017, 11:03 PM
#349
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a29538/honda-civic-type-r-lap-records/
Looks like honda was busy, how do those times stack up against other cars? Btw I got the answer to my questing the vw clubsport now owns the fwd record in the ring, granted it has no back seats etc.
Looks like honda was busy, how do those times stack up against other cars? Btw I got the answer to my questing the vw clubsport now owns the fwd record in the ring, granted it has no back seats etc.
06-25-2017, 06:47 AM
#350
Registered User
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a29538/honda-civic-type-r-lap-records/
Looks like honda was busy, how do those times stack up against other cars? Btw I got the answer to my questing the vw clubsport now owns the fwd record in the ring, granted it has no back seats etc.
Looks like honda was busy, how do those times stack up against other cars? Btw I got the answer to my questing the vw clubsport now owns the fwd record in the ring, granted it has no back seats etc.
