Go Back  S2KI Honda S2000 Forums > General Interest > Car Talk
Reload this Page >

Why is the new CTR so slow?

Car Talk Discussions and comparisions of cars of all makes and models.

Why is the new CTR so slow?

 
Old 11-11-2017, 09:10 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Why is the new CTR so slow?

So I have read a lot of CTR reviews and many of the testers say that the car really accelerates hard once you get up to speed. The power to weight ratio is also quite good with about 4.4kg/hp. In general FWD cars accelerate better while up to speed compared to front-engine RWD cars because of lower transmission losses. Especially the 90-degree rear differentials have poor efficiency. But all the instrumented tests that I have seen just show poor acceleration figures. I am not talking about 0-100km/h now since all FWD cars will suck here. I am talking about 100-200km/h readings, something that is relevant for track driving.

In a recent test in the German Sport Auto magazine the CTR was tested against among others the BMW M2. The M2 has higher power (370hp) and slightly better power-to-weight ratio with 4.2kg/hp. The M2 blew the CTR away on Hockenheim, with a 1.59.8 laptime. The CTR pulled a 2.03.4 on the same track. The M2 was on pilot super sports and the CTR on the stock continentals. The interesting part comes when you analyze the speeds on different parts of the racetrack. The CTR has higher (and sometimes equal) curve speeds in all turns! This basically means, that everything that is lost to the M2 is because of acceleration! If the CTR had equal acceleration it would be quicker! I think this is very interesting data and that the CTR pulls higher G’s in the corners despite slightly worse tires (I consider the MPSS a bit better than the Continentals for dry track driving) is impressing!

So the CTR pulls a 100-200km/h acceleration in 14.8 seconds. The M2 makes the same in 11.5 seconds. OK, this is quite a large difference.

Comparing also to other cars with almost the same power to weight ratio the CTR seems slow.
M3 E46 (4.5kg/hp) = 12.0sec
GTI CS S (4.4kg/hp) = 13.0sec
Leon Cupra 300 (4.7kg/hp) =11.8sec
Cayman S 987.2 (4.3kg/hp) = 12.5sec

Source: fastestlaps.com

In my opinion the CTR should pull better times 100-200, so what is the issue here?
  • Does the CTR struggle with heat-soake and cannot make 320hp for a full pull to 200?
  • Is the CwA higher than its competitors?
  • Is it the lack of double-clutch gearbox that kills the acceleration times?
What do you guys think?
iqbad is offline  
Old 11-12-2017, 04:13 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 1,322
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by iqbad View Post
So I have read a lot of CTR reviews and many of the testers say that the car really accelerates hard once you get up to speed. The power to weight ratio is also quite good with about 4.4kg/hp. In general FWD cars accelerate better while up to speed compared to front-engine RWD cars because of lower transmission losses. Especially the 90-degree rear differentials have poor efficiency. But all the instrumented tests that I have seen just show poor acceleration figures. I am not talking about 0-100km/h now since all FWD cars will suck here. I am talking about 100-200km/h readings, something that is relevant for track driving.

In a recent test in the German Sport Auto magazine the CTR was tested against among others the BMW M2. The M2 has higher power (370hp) and slightly better power-to-weight ratio with 4.2kg/hp. The M2 blew the CTR away on Hockenheim, with a 1.59.8 laptime. The CTR pulled a 2.03.4 on the same track. The M2 was on pilot super sports and the CTR on the stock continentals. The interesting part comes when you analyze the speeds on different parts of the racetrack. The CTR has higher (and sometimes equal) curve speeds in all turns! This basically means, that everything that is lost to the M2 is because of acceleration! If the CTR had equal acceleration it would be quicker! I think this is very interesting data and that the CTR pulls higher G’s in the corners despite slightly worse tires (I consider the MPSS a bit better than the Continentals for dry track driving) is impressing!

So the CTR pulls a 100-200km/h acceleration in 14.8 seconds. The M2 makes the same in 11.5 seconds. OK, this is quite a large difference.

Comparing also to other cars with almost the same power to weight ratio the CTR seems slow.
M3 E46 (4.5kg/hp) = 12.0sec
GTI CS S (4.4kg/hp) = 13.0sec
Leon Cupra 300 (4.7kg/hp) =11.8sec
Cayman S 987.2 (4.3kg/hp) = 12.5sec

Source: fastestlaps.com

In my opinion the CTR should pull better times 100-200, so what is the issue here?
  • Does the CTR struggle with heat-soake and cannot make 320hp for a full pull to 200?
  • Is the CwA higher than its competitors?
  • Is it the lack of double-clutch gearbox that kills the acceleration times?
What do you guys think?
I think its all the rice body panels and 20' dubs.

or It could be the really bad gear grind from 1-2 shift, building up metal shavings over time and creating pseudo-parasitic drive train loss.

I would never pay 50k for one, or even 35k. Its more of a mazda speed 3 competitor should have started at 24-25k.
EastS2k is offline  
Old 11-12-2017, 09:15 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 1,130
Received 81 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by EastS2k View Post
I would never pay 50k for one, or even 35k. Its more of a mazda speed 3 competitor should have started at 24-25k.
The CTR laps quicker than the Golf R, Focus RS, and STI which are cars squarely in its price range (34k). An M2 starts at 52k.
Chibo is online now  
Old 11-12-2017, 12:31 PM
  #4  
 
Elistan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 15,324
Received 27 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

2017 CTR 6spd manual
$34k
306 hp
3106 lbs
10.2 lb/hp
0-60 : 5.1 sec
0-120 : 18.7 sec
13.7 sec @ 106.3 mph
Clash of Clans: 2017 Type R vs 2018 370Z vs 2018 STI

2016 M2 6spd manual
$52k
365 hp
3415 lbs
9.4 lb/hp
0-60: 4.2 sec
0-120: 14.9 sec
12.7 @ 111.4 mph
228i, M235i, or M2: What's the Best BMW Coupe You Can Buy Today?

Personally, I don't find the difference to be surprising.

Also, to go from 60 to 120 in the CTR you need gears 2, 3, 4 and 5.
To go from 60 to 120 in the M2 you only need gears 2, 3 and 4.
Elistan is offline  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:35 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 1,322
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Elistan View Post
2017 CTR 6spd manual
$34k incorrect information, 35k msrp - which you can not buy it at that, real price around 45k.
306 hp
3106 lbs
10.2 lb/hp
0-60 : 5.1 sec
0-120 : 18.7 sec
13.7 sec @ 106.3 mph
Clash of Clans: 2017 Type R vs 2018 370Z vs 2018 STI

2016 M2 6spd manual
$52k
365 hp
3415 lbs
9.4 lb/hp
0-60: 4.2 sec
0-120: 14.9 sec
12.7 @ 111.4 mph
228i, M235i, or M2: What's the Best BMW Coupe You Can Buy Today?

Personally, I don't find the difference to be surprising.

Also, to go from 60 to 120 in the CTR you need gears 2, 3, 4 and 5.
To go from 60 to 120 in the M2 you only need gears 2, 3 and 4.
slight correction
EastS2k is offline  
Old 11-12-2017, 01:59 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 1,130
Received 81 Likes on 67 Posts
Default

Have you actually negotiated on a few, or are you just posting on the internet? 39k OTD is do-able at this point, which is basically MSRP.
Chibo is online now  
Old 11-12-2017, 02:18 PM
  #7  
 
TsukubaCody's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,795
Received 101 Likes on 94 Posts
Default

Yep. Guy on another forum I'm on just paid MSRP.

Shit talking Honda stop being cool in like 2011 dude, you'er just trying too hard now.
TsukubaCody is online now  
Old 11-12-2017, 02:36 PM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Austin
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

http://www.carscoops.com/2017/11/2018-honda-civic-type-r-chases-down.html?m=1
V TACH is offline  
Old 11-12-2017, 03:05 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,294
Received 73 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

Whut? The car with more power is quicker? Who'd a' thunk it?

In all seriousness, only two things really matter for high-speed acceleration, namely, the amount of drag (drag coefficient x frontal area + incidental drag from wings, etc) and the amount of power.

The CTR supposedly has a very low drag coefficient - 0.26 - https://jalopnik.com/by-the-numbers-...-wr-1796140398 - but that seems quite low for a car with as much aerodynamic grip as the CTR. I'd think it's more like 0.3 or so.

But it's still down on power by nearly 25%, which is pretty hard to overcome. With quite a bit less torque as well, it's not really going to be anywhere near as quick as an M2 in a straight line.
JonBoy is online now  
Old 11-12-2017, 03:12 PM
  #10  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,294
Received 73 Likes on 62 Posts
Default

In this video, at 1:27 to 1:39, the driver accelerates his CTR from roughly 101 kph up to 200 kph in about 12 seconds and that's starting in a partial curve (ie, it'd slow him down a bit as he's turning while accelerating). However, he's also accelerating down a hill, it appears, so that'd help him a bit.


Take a single test with a grain of salt. Multiple tests with multiple cars will tell you how quick a CTR is.
JonBoy is online now  

Quick Reply: Why is the new CTR so slow?


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands