2006+ Honda Civic Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,

A bit of an unusual request for information from people who may have owned or currently own both.

I've had a number of Honda's in my time and we currently own a Accord 2.4 CU2 (auto). I also previously owned a Accord 2.4 (CL7) in a manual and it was unbelievably good.

I'm considering selling my Lexus GS430, to get back into something a bit more fun in the twisties / more regular day to day driving. Plus, Honda manual gearboxes are the best.

I'm cross shopping between a Civic Type R FN2 and an Accord 2.4 CU2 (manual). I know they are fairly different, but not wildly different on paper.

Are there any people who have had both? Fuel economy isn't a big concern, 25mpg and above is fine for me. 30+ is a bonus, which I know both cars can achieve. I probably currently do around 10k miles a year, with a mix of journeys. I'd say I drive motorways and A roads much more overall.

My biggest concerns/queries are:

1. Ride quality - I assume the most talked about point of an FN2 - I do a lot of motorway driving as well as A/B road driving. I test drove one and it was 'bouncy' as hell on the motorway. Can it be fixed to be more compliant within a reasonable budget? (not compared to my Lexus but just better than standard)
2. Comfort - I don't need seats like my Lexus, but the Accord seats are lovely and very adjustable. I understand the FN2 seats aren't so adjustable?
3. Which did you prefer and why?

Keen to hear from you all, I've never scratched the Type R itch and I'm interested to hear thoughts/opinions. I'll know more once I test drive both too.
 

·
Registered
2010 Milano Red FN2 Type R GT #R22063
Joined
·
223 Posts
If you can't get past the stiff and bouncy ride on the FN2, I would suggest you probably shouldn't consider it. I commute in mine, I do anything between 10k and 25k a year in my works vehicles (mostly on the M1, M25, M11 and A14), depending on where my jobs are. I'm coming up to the 12 months of ownership mark on the 31st of July this year, and so far I've covered 19k miles. The ride has always been on the firm side, and it as always had that slightly unsettled "bounce" on roads where there's changes in tarmac pitch and finish, yes it can be "fixed" but not for cheap. In truth, the ride is something i've found I've got used to. You become accustomed to paying attention to to road surface, spotting and gently avoiding any nasty potholes or ramps in the tarmac. The seats are comfy and supportive, and with Cruise Control on, the miles just roll away effortlessly underneath. In my 11 months, the only things I've had done are servicing, and an aircon regas. It's going to need brakes all round soon, as well as a second service, but not a single thing has broken on it. The Michelin Pilot Sport 4s I put on it when I bought it have done an admirable job in all weathers, and are still showing 5mm of tread.

So far as adjustment goes, you set the driver's seat at a place you find comfy (all manual, base moves fore and aft, back fore and aft via a lever not a wheel, there is a lever to pump up and down to change the height slightly, headrest is integral to the backrest so no movement) and then NEVER move it again. The backrest in particular can be a sod to get right, as the mechanism doesn't really allow for granular changes in placement. So if you ever plan to have people in the back, usher them to the passenger side of the car and let them in that way, at least the passenger won't notice so much if the back and base aren't in exactly the right place.

I've never had an Accord, but i do like the look of them. In closing, the Type R is absolutely a car that has it's own way of doing things, and it's damned if it's doing them any other way. The seat, the suspension, the quirks, they're all going to impact you to greater and lesser degree, depending on how tolerant you are of them. That said, I'm absolutely gutted it took me this long to own one. It's an absolute hoot! It can soak the weeks miles without batting an eyelid, and at the weekend it's still ready to play with the corners, roundabouts and slip roads. Nothing i've owned (And i've had a few fast cars over the years) wills you to thrash the ever-living hell out of it quite like a Type R. It screams, it whines, it barks, it absolutely howls. Then, when you've finished scaring yourself and you're back to the humdrum work commute, it's docile and reliable again (with the occasional fidget and bounce, just to remind you this is not your Nan's EX).

Even if you only drive it for a year, there's nothing else like a Type R (just make sure you get the GT spec so you have Cruise Control for the motorways).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
If you can't get past the stiff and bouncy ride on the FN2, I would suggest you probably shouldn't consider it. I commute in mine, I do anything between 10k and 25k a year in my works vehicles (mostly on the M1, M25, M11 and A14), depending on where my jobs are. I'm coming up to the 12 months of ownership mark on the 31st of July this year, and so far I've covered 19k miles. The ride has always been on the firm side, and it as always had that slightly unsettled "bounce" on roads where there's changes in tarmac pitch and finish, yes it can be "fixed" but not for cheap. In truth, the ride is something i've found I've got used to. You become accustomed to paying attention to to road surface, spotting and gently avoiding any nasty potholes or ramps in the tarmac. The seats are comfy and supportive, and with Cruise Control on, the miles just roll away effortlessly underneath. In my 11 months, the only things I've had done are servicing, and an aircon regas. It's going to need brakes all round soon, as well as a second service, but not a single thing has broken on it. The Michelin Pilot Sport 4s I put on it when I bought it have done an admirable job in all weathers, and are still showing 5mm of tread.

So far as adjustment goes, you set the driver's seat at a place you find comfy (all manual, base moves fore and aft, back fore and aft via a lever not a wheel, there is a lever to pump up and down to change the height slightly, headrest is integral to the backrest so no movement) and then NEVER move it again. The backrest in particular can be a sod to get right, as the mechanism doesn't really allow for granular changes in placement. So if you ever plan to have people in the back, usher them to the passenger side of the car and let them in that way, at least the passenger won't notice so much if the back and base aren't in exactly the right place.

I've never had an Accord, but i do like the look of them. In closing, the Type R is absolutely a car that has it's own way of doing things, and it's damned if it's doing them any other way. The seat, the suspension, the quirks, they're all going to impact you to greater and lesser degree, depending on how tolerant you are of them. That said, I'm absolutely gutted it took me this long to own one. It's an absolute hoot! It can soak the weeks miles without batting an eyelid, and at the weekend it's still ready to play with the corners, roundabouts and slip roads. Nothing i've owned (And i've had a few fast cars over the years) wills you to thrash the ever-living hell out of it quite like a Type R. It screams, it whines, it barks, it absolutely howls. Then, when you've finished scaring yourself and you're back to the humdrum work commute, it's docile and reliable again (with the occasional fidget and bounce, just to remind you this is not your Nan's EX).

Even if you only drive it for a year, there's nothing else like a Type R (just make sure you get the GT spec so you have Cruise Control for the motorways).
I appreciate the lengthy summary. Part of me wants to experience one, but part of me is concerned about ride quality. This has always been my concern with some of the Honda's I've had. They've never been bad, but I know the FN2 is particularly stiff. I wouldn't even mind paying to sort the suspension, just to add some compliance.

Get accord. You have to love fn2 to drive it.
True. But, if I never get one - how can I ever love it? 😆

...........or try and find an Accord TypeR?
I love the idea of the Accord Type R, but it's a little too old school for me. I've never had a H22 car, but I prefer some of the creature comforts of the FN2. The Accord Type R misses all of those. But, I do like the seats of the Accord.

I did toy with the idea of the Euro R, but again misses out key functions such as cruise control. Which, I personally do use.

An excellent middle ground! The only potential downside,, aren't they a little hard to come by?
It would be a pretty good car, but quite old now. Also, if I remember correctly, they can suffer quite badly with rust.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
673 Posts
Ask someone to give you a ride. It will be pretty obvious if it’s for you or not. It’s not ideal car, but many people keep coming back to it after faster and more expensive cars. Personally I always wanted CTR and I know it has its downsides, but I simply don’t notice them because what fn2 gives me in return. Also, my civic is not standard, but I made it the way I wanted and it’s perfect for me.
Accord will be a safe option. Mature option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Ask someone to give you a ride. It will be pretty obvious if it’s for you or not. It’s not ideal car, but many people keep coming back to it after faster and more expensive cars. Personally I always wanted CTR and I know it has its downsides, but I simply don’t notice them because what fn2 gives me in return. Also, my civic is not standard, but I made it the way I wanted and it’s perfect for me.
Accord will be a safe option. Mature option.
Honestly, I drove one a while back (not the best condition) and I couldn't believe how bouncy it was on the motorway. It seemed excessively bouncy. Perhaps I'll test drive a few, because maybe the shocks had gone on that particular one.

I know it has a lot of pro's, hence me looking to be honest.

The Accord seems like most of the raw power, but as we all know that numbers only tell part of the story.

Decisions, decisions. There's no rush, but I'm in the research phase and we'll see how it pans out.
 

·
Registered
2010 Milano Red FN2 Type R GT #R22063
Joined
·
223 Posts
Given you've already driven one and were left shocked at how the ride was, only you can say if you'd be able to live with that. In truth, the easiest thing you can do to give your FN2 more compliance is not to have the 19" Rage alloys, or something aftermarket similar. You could go down the route of changing out the road springs and dampers, but that's quite pricey. It also does little to get away from the fact Honda MADE it be that stiff, the whole poise and stance of the car, even in stock trim is to be as planted and unyielding in fast corners as it can be without being utterly rock hard.

It's always going to have that rigidity. It kind of needs it when you're on the attack, it gives you the confidence that all four corners are down and you're getting all the grip it has to give.

I think your idea of test driving a few is a good one, it's quite possible the example you drove had tired suspension and wasn't as well damped as it should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Given you've already driven one and were left shocked at how the ride was, only you can say if you'd be able to live with that. In truth, the easiest thing you can do to give your FN2 more compliance is not to have the 19" Rage alloys, or something aftermarket similar. You could go down the route of changing out the road springs and dampers, but that's quite pricey. It also does little to get away from the fact Honda MADE it be that stiff, the whole poise and stance of the car, even in stock trim is to be as planted and unyielding in fast corners as it can be without being utterly rock hard.

It's always going to have that rigidity. It kind of needs it when you're on the attack, it gives you the confidence that all four corners are down and you're getting all the grip it has to give.

I think your idea of test driving a few is a good one, it's quite possible the example you drove had tired suspension and wasn't as well damped as it should be.
I'm hoping it was more that it was a tired version I tried out. I wouldn't even consider an FN2 with the Rage alloys to be honest.

Again, I don't want to completely change the car but I've always found it to be somewhat oxymoronic as a car. Here's a GT pack with climate control and cruise control, but we've not figured out how to make the car compliant without being overly stiff. I say that painfully, as a Honda fanboy!

There's nothing wrong with rigidity, my issue is more around compliance which is a different although related thing.

I will test drive a few and report back at some point.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
I have replaced the original Honda shocks with Sachs, who made the originals anyway.
They are still stiff but seem to be better at damping out the bumps than the Honda ones.
One of the original rears had seized when I bought the car and was replaced under warranty - now that was an f'ing hard ride.

I still feel just about every imperfection in the road surface especially on roads like the M25 & M27 that are concrete slabs with the odd bit of asphalt slapped on the top. With a nice smooth new surface it just glides along.
The 1.8 Si is not far behind in this respect running on 225/45/17 tyres.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
When I had my Accord Type-S 2.4 vtec I often thought about some kind of engine / head work that would make it a 2.4 Type-R style engine which I think maybe referred to as a "frankenstein" build - this would be the ideal option from my perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I have replaced the original Honda shocks with Sachs, who made the originals anyway.
They are still stiff but seem to be better at damping out the bumps than the Honda ones.
One of the original rears had seized when I bought the car and was replaced under warranty - now that was an f'ing hard ride.

I still feel just about every imperfection in the road surface especially on roads like the M25 & M27 that are concrete slabs with the odd bit of asphalt slapped on the top. With a nice smooth new surface it just glides along.
The 1.8 Si is not far behind in this respect running on 225/45/17 tyres.
I really appreciate this response, I had read about this from some other threads (might even have been your thread!)

Your description of the road surface would seem correct, because it's not a wafty saloon so I get that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Isn't the Accord wishbone suspension all round or something?

That's a vastly superior setup to the FN2's front struts and rear solid axle when it comes to ride quality.

You notice it the most when the road is extra bumpy as the rear beam means you feel a lot more of it.

Sometimes I wish I bought a car that had multi link rear or something that wasn't a solid rear beam as on my 1.8 Civic...
 

·
Premium Member
2008 Civic Type R
Joined
·
940 Posts
You notice it the most when the road is extra bumpy as the rear beam means you feel a lot more of it.

Sometimes I wish I bought a car that had multi link rear or something that wasn't a solid rear beam as on my 1.8 Civic...
People get hung up on the rear beam causing all of their road holding/handling problems, it's far from the case. Spring rates, damping and bushes are by far the largest contributors to ride quality. There is increased unsprung mass with a beam setup since it's included with the wheel and hub, but being a part of the pivot mechanism nullifies this to a degree. The real issues with a beam setup are simply in the wheel motion, specifically dynamic camber and toe changes. This primarily affects rear axle grip through cornering, not ride quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wilmo

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
If you can't get past the stiff and bouncy ride on the FN2, I would suggest you probably shouldn't consider it. I commute in mine, I do anything between 10k and 25k a year in my works vehicles (mostly on the M1, M25, M11 and A14), depending on where my jobs are. I'm coming up to the 12 months of ownership mark on the 31st of July this year, and so far I've covered 19k miles. The ride has always been on the firm side, and it as always had that slightly unsettled "bounce" on roads where there's changes in tarmac pitch and finish, yes it can be "fixed" but not for cheap. In truth, the ride is something i've found I've got used to. You become accustomed to paying attention to to road surface, spotting and gently avoiding any nasty potholes or ramps in the tarmac. The seats are comfy and supportive, and with Cruise Control on, the miles just roll away effortlessly underneath. In my 11 months, the only things I've had done are servicing, and an aircon regas. It's going to need brakes all round soon, as well as a second service, but not a single thing has broken on it. The Michelin Pilot Sport 4s I put on it when I bought it have done an admirable job in all weathers, and are still showing 5mm of tread.

So far as adjustment goes, you set the driver's seat at a place you find comfy (all manual, base moves fore and aft, back fore and aft via a lever not a wheel, there is a lever to pump up and down to change the height slightly, headrest is integral to the backrest so no movement) and then NEVER move it again. The backrest in particular can be a sod to get right, as the mechanism doesn't really allow for granular changes in placement. So if you ever plan to have people in the back, usher them to the passenger side of the car and let them in that way, at least the passenger won't notice so much if the back and base aren't in exactly the right place.

I've never had an Accord, but i do like the look of them. In closing, the Type R is absolutely a car that has it's own way of doing things, and it's damned if it's doing them any other way. The seat, the suspension, the quirks, they're all going to impact you to greater and lesser degree, depending on how tolerant you are of them. That said, I'm absolutely gutted it took me this long to own one. It's an absolute hoot! It can soak the weeks miles without batting an eyelid, and at the weekend it's still ready to play with the corners, roundabouts and slip roads. Nothing i've owned (And i've had a few fast cars over the years) wills you to thrash the ever-living hell out of it quite like a Type R. It screams, it whines, it barks, it absolutely howls. Then, when you've finished scaring yourself and you're back to the humdrum work commute, it's docile and reliable again (with the occasional fidget and bounce, just to remind you this is not your Nan's EX).

Even if you only drive it for a year, there's nothing else like a Type R (just make sure you get the GT spec so you have Cruise Control for the motorways).
I'm from way across the waves - Australia - where the Cu2 is known as the Accord Euro. I bought my 2013 model new and still think it's a bit of all-right to drive. It has firm ride and can be heavy on petrol, around town, but is great on the highway.
You mention a manual model, but I find the gearchange paddles on the steering wheel much easier - and quicker - to use. The 2.4 litre, high compression motor assures good performance.
I understand Accords over there also come with the Honda 3.5 litre six-cylinder motivator and in station wagon/countryman form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I'm from way across the waves - Australia - where the Cu2 is known as the Accord Euro. I bought my 2013 model new and still think it's a bit of all-right to drive. It has firm ride and can be heavy on petrol, around town, but is great on the highway.
You mention a manual model, but I find the gearchange paddles on the steering wheel much easier - and quicker - to use. The 2.4 litre, high compression motor assures good performance.
I understand Accords over there also come with the Honda 3.5 litre six-cylinder motivator and in station wagon/countryman form.
G'day!

Appreciate the feedback. We actually already own the auto model, which is fairly nice. But, the feel of a car is very important to me so the auto kind of robs you of that control and acceleration. The sequential auto is pretty decent, probably better than the gearbox in my GS.

The official figures for the auto 0-60 is 9.5 secs, but the manual is 7.8 secs! Pretty large difference. I can definitely tell the auto has robbed the acceleration from the sweet K24, my OLDER manual CL9 feels so much faster (regardless of the weight difference).

We get the Legend's in a 3.5, but not the Accord. You might be thinking of Stateside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I'm from way across the waves - Australia - where the Cu2 is known as the Accord Euro. I bought my 2013 model new and still think it's a bit of all-right to drive. It has firm ride and can be heavy on petrol, around town, but is great on the highway.
You mention a manual model, but I find the gearchange paddles on the steering wheel much easier - and quicker - to use. The 2.4 litre, high compression motor assures good performance.
I understand Accords over there also come with the Honda 3.5 litre six-cylinder motivator and in station wagon/countryman form.
I should have mentioned owning two Civics, one 1991, the other 2009, but the latter was no comparison for my Euro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Well, looks like I'm not going for either vehicle.

I'm deciding to play it sensible (for now) and look for a 9th gen Civic 1.8 EX or EX GT. Now to research the auto vs manual information. Ultimately, something more practical and a decent amount of range is now important to me. My current V8 as a daily driver is infuriating in terms of range (not surprising!).

Thanks for everyone's help.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top