Type R Road Test

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by richierich

Entrepeneur eh? Don't be getting all big headed Mr P, I think you need to contact them so at least they can get Jaynes name in the article, she is after all our WebMistress!

I'm having the p taken right now... She's asking what entrepreneurial activity I'm up to on the computer, and when I'm going to have an innovative shower and get my profitable act together and do some jobs. I just replied that I couldn't remember her name...

[czechplastik]

Thats brilliant!

[TTDegs]

I'm struggling to work out how running an internet forum at a loss counts as enterprenural

On the other hand, you can tell Jayne that I'm freshly showered and available


but back to the write up - did you find the gears to be as short as your Jag driving friend?

[jayt43]

Pottsy appears to be bang on the money with his review as the usually hard to please Andrew Frankel in the Times:

(http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...571383,00.html)

and 4 car's new review of the Type R:

(http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/honda/civic/1382/1)

essentially reach the same conclusions.

Of course, hard core enthusiasts on the Civic Type R Owners Club website seem largely dismissive of Honda's latest offering, but for the rest of us I reckon it'll be down to the showroom for a test drive ASAP!

Actually, having read Pottsy's review a few times, have you noticed how all the others so far seem really shallow by comparison? Very enjoyable to read such a comprehensive assessment (and one that's really helpful to non-Civic owners with an interest in the new Type R).

[basegreen]

How could you forget Jayne?!

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by TTDegs

did you find the gears to be as short as your Jag driving friend?

No, not really. Second took you to just above 60, and third took you to above 80. So I don't understand his concerns at all. Cruising at 80 was as quiet and relaxed as you'd expect for a car like this (so only a tiny bit noisier than mine), and easily good enough to use as a cruiser.

He says:

never going over 35mph along Lord March's driveway but I find myself with a hand on the gearstick seriously considering going for fifth. I decide against it but the engine is singing its ****** off

Odd. At 35 mph in fourth it would be close to labouring, not singing.


He says:

I change for second, quickly go for third, the engine is still screaming, go for fourth. Sod it, I'm doing 45 and going for fifth.

You can see from my gif comparing the diesel to the R that third runs out above 80. I wonder what he defines as "screaming"?


He says:

We speed up a bit so grab 6th. To my surprise it isn't a leggy over-drive but yet another low ratio gear

Sixth is in fact hugely overdriven in this car, for economy and quietness on the motorway.


He says:

I'll tell you now that in 4th gear from 30 to 40 it'll eat my 360lbs.ft Supra also in 4th

Well my rattly old diesel taxi bus dumper truck Civ eats the R in the mid range, so I'm glad I've never owned a Supra!!

EDIT: The point about stopping at 6000 rpm was Gaz's typo, so has been removed, and the Supra in the last point has 4 very very tall gears so in top is only doing 600 rpm (hence the trouble with the skin/rice pudding interface).

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by basegreen

How could you forget Jayne?!

Who?

[basegreen]

Did he drive the same car?

I'll be getting my drive in the R soonish (couldnt make the goodwood event in the end)... so does anyone have any particular requests in terms of review/analysis/

[Accord Type R]

I might have to scamper off and test drive the Civic Type R and see how it compares with my Accord Type R...

Anyone want to hazara a guess as to the differences I'll find?

[CivPilot]

Good review Pottsy.


As for Gazboys review on Pistonheads... Hardly think it is worth discounting just becasue it isn't as glowing as Pottsy's review or has a couple of inacuracies (which are nothing to do with the car, just the periferal details). Its a very real opinion by someone who has also driven the car. Gazboy has been around Pistonheads for a long time and does seem to know his stuff at times. And more to the point his overall tone is shared by Autocar's first drive that appeared on the Autocar website this morning....

Good but not good enough.

Personally I will wait until I've put a few miles on one before deciding who I agree with but I will be very interested to read the final evo mag review, which for me will be definative (A little biased but the guys at evo towers do tend to get most car reviews spot on compared to what I like in a car).

[czechplastik]

Autocar first drive is a bit disappointing really.

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by CivPilot

Good review Pottsy.

Ta. I think Gaz had a hard time, mostly due to lack of sleep but also because he didn't get a chance to drive the car properly. We drove out, swapped drivers and then came back a longer and much less congested way. There were two people per car, so half a drive each - except in our car there was me and Jayne so I got her go.

If you read my review carefully, I try to make the point that this car will only satisfy if you have certain expectations. Autocar's expectation was different to mine (they want a car that is the same concept as the outgoing CTR, except better and faster), but in fact the CTR's market has shifted sideways and will now satisfy those who want the modern convenience and practicality of a Golf, but who are not satisfied with a rather dull and blunt turbocharged engine. Granted a lot of people will find the dull and blunt turbo engines really very good, and would consider having to change down a gear or two for some power a very bad thing (Gaz's continuous negative references to the "screaming" engine would put him in this camp). I though see the new CTR as the most fun of the modern and convenient hatches, and can get enthusiastic about it. But I had hoped I had laboured the point hard enough that some people would not see the point of the car.

I think a lot of buyers will be unsuited to the car, and it will remain rarer than Honda had hoped for. But this kind of adds to the appeal....

[richierich]

Originally Posted by basegreen

Did he drive the same car?

I'll be getting my drive in the R soonish (couldnt make the goodwood event in the end)... so does anyone have any particular requests in terms of review/analysis/

Any requests - Can I come?

[Accord Type R]

Thank you Sir Pottsy of Civic for an informative and useful review of the new Civic Type R. As someone who has been driving an Accord Type R for the last seven years it is interesting to read your observations about the Civic. I shall be selling mine this year and have one foot in the 'buy the Civic Type R' camp and the other foot in the 'buy the Civic Type S diesel and have it remapped' camp.

Pottsy is probably correct with his assertation that in 97% of driving the diesel Civic is miles quicker, and more relaxed, and smoother and more economical than the Type R, but for those dwindling petrolheads among us, I would just say that yes, logic dictates the diesel is the 'winner'; yet I am not a machine.

Before the ATR I had the 1.8 S and it was a fine car; 36 mpg, comfortable, spacious, reliable and really for a 'normal' car there was nothing wrong with it. Or should I say, nothing wrong with it until the Type R version was unleashed upon us, like a plague of screaming red frogs raining down. For then, in one that moment, I knew here, at last, was a car built for that special moment of the day.

My 1.8 S delivered the 97% Pottsy mentions but I would argue that we do not live for the mundane; we do not hanker after sitting on the motorway watching the mpg computer plummet; we do not desire to drive exactly 60 mph on an A road or 70 motorway (nor am I suggesting we desire to drive at illegal speeds); we do not yearn to drive through urban areas doing the hazard assessment routine. More that most of us - most of us who like cars and enjoy driving - desire the other 3%, the other 3% which is governed not by economy or comfort or merely 'getting from A to B' but is defined as fun.

Honda makes more engines on this planet than any other company. Fact. And yes, there will always be a place for the 1.8 S cars of this world and, for those of us who want more mpg and less CO2 and perhaps a torquier ride, there will always be a place for a diesel.

Yet if I buy the Type S diesel I will pass a lonely B road and for all its merits, for all its worth, I know I shall feel sad; I know that in that one instance, in that one essence, the other 3% beckons and beckons like nothing else; the other 3% beckons for a Type R moment, a moment of pure handling joy that few other cars (and none under £20K) can deliver, not a GTI, not a 1.8 S and not a remapped Civic Type S diesel (?).

I am ruled by the head AND the heart; and my heart tells me to enjoy life even if it means only finding that elusive 3% once a week. Most cars can deliver the 97% but few can deliver the 3% and I, for one, know that I would miss this...

And, yes Sir Pottsy, I've bounced my Accord Type R off the rev limiter THREE times this week already

[richierich]

What a beautifully written piece, I look forward to the outcome.

[Pottsy]

There has been some discussion about gearing and its effect on the new car, so I did some theory here:

Performance / gearing comparison between EP3 and FN2

[BlueMan]

Pottsy,
Thanks for the review. This is my first post since joining and I have to confess that I am currently driving a 2005 Civic Hybrid and have a new Hybrid on order for delivery mid-year (unless they pull their fingers out in Japan and ship it earlier!). However, I did have a Type-R for 3 years until some muppet in a Transit van wrote it off last year....

A few points of the review are very interesting in comparison to the old Type-R.
It had a very pronounced (almost party trick) vtec kick in the pants in 2nd gear. It sound like it is a much smoother transition in the new car which is almost a bit of a shame.

The old car was geared so that changing up at the rev limiter kept you in the 'vtec zone' for the next higher gear. Is that still true of the new one. Two consequences were that 2nd gear didn't quite get to 60mph (about 58 I think) which messed up the 0-60 and 0-62 times. Sixth gear was also way too short as a result so economy wasn't too hot on motorway and fast dual carriageway roads. Has that changed?

You are spot on to suggest that it is an enthusiast car. You could get caught napping in the old one (out of the upper vtec range) and struggle to accelerate. If you were in the right gear for your road speed, especially in third, it felt rocket propelled to the extent of even being a bit frightening.

The electric power steering was always a weakness in the old car. It was too vague, especially around straight ahead and could get caught out by suddent switches in input (e.g quickly changing from steering left to steering right) which made it feel like the wheels were connected by rubber bands! How is the new one?

I loved my Type-R but it struggled to beat low 30 mpg figures even when driven very gently and opportunities to 'vtec' are getting fewer and fewer. Having said that, if you love driving, and haven't owned a Type-R then get one quick. It is THE bargain performance car which delivers on the fun factor even when compared to cars that are faster on paper. Just be prepared to go all sensible afterwards....average 55mpg over hundreds of mile in the HCH I.

[Pottsy]

BlueMan, hello!

The VTEC transition is now totally linear, with no noticeable step (well I didn't notice it!) When you change gear, the revs fall to about 5500 from first to second, then no lower than 6000 from then up, so you always stay in the interesting zone.

The steering in the new car is great, and much improved over the EP3. I never had an issue with it - it's as good as you'd hope for (but not as good as a proper car, like say a Boxster).

I think users who are doing some decent mileages in the new car are getting 25-28 mpg, so no change there!

HTH,

[Gazboy]

Hi Lets see how much I can FURBAR this lot lol.

Originally Posted by TTDegs

did you find the gears to be as short as your Jag driving friend?

Originally Posted by Pottsy

No, not really. Second took you to just above 60, and third took you to above 80. So I don't understand his concerns at all. Cruising at 80 was as quiet and relaxed as you'd expect for a car like this (so only a tiny bit noisier than mine), and easily good enough to use as a cruiser.

Gaz: I don't own the Jag XKR, my cars are a Supra twin turbo & a 1300cc Hyundai Getz. Other than the last point to illistrate low gearing to overcome low torque I didn't compare the CTR to the Supra or XKR as they aren't comparable. Gavin owns a new Astra diesel, a Cerbera 4.2 & an EliseS.

Regarding third taking you to above 80- 3rd in my Getz also takes me to 80, but at only 6000rpm- at the same speed and the same gear the CTR is 2000revs higher, so forgive me if I have this a**e about face, but surely that means the CTR's third is 25% shorter than that of the Getz???

Originally Posted by Gazboy

never going over 35mph along Lord March's driveway but I find myself with a hand on the gearstick seriously considering going for fifth. I decide against it but the engine is singing its ****** off

Originally Posted by Pottsy

Odd. At 35 mph in fourth it would be close to labouring, not singing.

Gaz: Did you think so? I genuinely don't mind having a thrashy high reving lump when out in the open, but I do draw the line when in town when I want to be descreet & not sounding like Kevin in his Nova in the wrong gear as I go through town. I can't remember now what revs it was at that speed, but I do rmember feeling very concious about it at the time.

Originally Posted by Gazboy

I change for second, quickly go for third, the engine is still screaming, go for fourth. Sod it, I'm doing 45 and going for fifth.

Originally Posted by Pottsy

You can see from my gif comparing the diesel to the R that third runs out above 80. I wonder what he defines as "screaming"?

Gaz: Already answered above re 80 @6k in my shopping trolley.

Originally Posted by Gazboy

We speed up a bit so grab 6th. To my surprise it isn't a leggy over-drive but yet another low ratio gear

Originally Posted by Pottsy

Sixth is in fact hugely overdriven in this car, for economy and quietness on the motorway.

Gaz: Again, I disagree- even Steve said the quoted mpg figures were optimistic so 6th can't be that long, and to me it felt like another small step up in a box full of second gears, imo.

Originally Posted by Gazboy

I'll tell you now that in 4th gear from 30 to 40 it'll eat my 360lbs.ft Supra also in 4th

Originally Posted by Pottsy

Well my rattly old diesel taxi bus dumper truck Civ eats the R in the mid range, so I'm glad I've never owned a Supra!!

EDIT: The point about stopping at 6000 rpm was Gaz's typo, so has been removed, and the Supra in the last point has 4 very very tall gears so in top is only doing 600 rpm (hence the trouble with the skin/rice pudding interface).

Gaz: Supras midrange in 4th is closer to 130-140mph- cars are geared according to their strengths & weaknesses- if I was to demonstrate 30-40mph midrange I'd have to use 1st or 2nd. Which hammers home my point on PH that the gear ratios appear to be selected to make on-paper in-gear times look faster than it's rivals. I think the acceleration through the gears is going to favour the VXR/Focus/Golf as it won't matter what number gear they are in- they can use what's best for them.

Originally Posted by Pottsy

Ta. I think Gaz had a hard time, mostly due to lack of sleep but also because he didn't get a chance to drive the car properly. We drove out, swapped drivers and then came back a longer and much less congested way. There were two people per car, so half a drive each - except in our car there was me and Jayne so I got her go.

If you read my review carefully, I try to make the point that this car will only satisfy if you have certain expectations. Autocar's expectation was different to mine (they want a car that is the same concept as the outgoing CTR, except better and faster), but in fact the CTR's market has shifted sideways and will now satisfy those who want the modern convenience and practicality of a Golf, but who are not satisfied with a rather dull and blunt turbocharged engine. Granted a lot of people will find the dull and blunt turbo engines really very good, and would consider having to change down a gear or two for some power a very bad thing (Gaz's continuous negative references to the "screaming" engine would put him in this camp). I though see the new CTR as the most fun of the modern and convenient hatches, and can get enthusiastic about it. But I had hoped I had laboured the point hard enough that some people would not see the point of the car.

I think a lot of buyers will be unsuited to the car, and it will remain rarer than Honda had hoped for. But this kind of adds to the appeal....

Gaz: Lack of sleep I can deal with, I had about 4-5 hours. What does annoy me is taking six hours out of my day to dodder about at 45mph like a pensioner for ten minutes, barely scratching the surface of the CTR. I think 6300rpm was the highest I got, which as you've shown the CTR is only just getting started.

I am an open minded chap (the mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open) and was expecting a car closer to a Civic VTi than a Integra Type R. I don't think I've ever found a turbocharged engine dull neither have I any objection to knocking it down a few cogs for some power.

Feel free to edit my post as you see fit to make the quotes look clearer btw.

*Edit TTDegs
Hopefully my edits have helped
Gaz's quotes are from his posting on the other forum
'Gaz:' is Gaz's comments in this post.
Hopefully
*Edit

[Pottsy]

Gaz - thanks for that, and I take your points. It's a great shame you didn't get the second drive (or even a better first drive). The car has short gearing owing to it's high revs, so it can't really be compared to a car that tops out at 6000 rpm. Top is very much overdriven - peak power comes at 165 mph.

I did some graphs here:
Performance / gearing comparison between EP3 and FN2