2006+ Honda Civic Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I found this while on another Type R forum and thought it might be of some interest to everyone.

People are always discussion 0-60 figures so i thought it was nice to see this comparison.

FN2 GT with sat nav, full tank & passenger tested by EVO mag.



enjoy!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
What i found really interesting is that when you see the various figures together it just goes to show that there is very little difference between the cars perfomance wise.

Now when you add in the beautifully engaged drive the R gives you coupled with the breath taken good looks, well we have a clear winner dont we :)

I waited two years for my R, and it was soooo worth it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Mid range figures tell a different story and are more reliable as performance measurement
Sorry, thats wrong. Mid range figures are normally 40-60 in 4th gear (for example) and the CTR would lose considerably against turbo cars. BUT if you're driving a CTR and you want to get from 40-60 quickly you wouldn't do it in 4th gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I found this while on another Type R forum and thought it might be of some interest to everyone.

People are always discussion 0-60 figures so i thought it was nice to see this comparison.

FN2 GT with sat nav, full tank & passenger tested by EVO mag.



enjoy!

Errr thought that was for the Japanese Type R? it's 225bhp standard and would make sense as it's a similar figure there to the ST/VXR, i'll have to fetch the mag i've seen it in later.
 

·
Wheel Man
Joined
·
169 Posts
I think this test was the Japanese market one, but evo quote 6.8 for the UK Type R as well as far as I remember. That was tested as well, not Honda's figures.

For 0-60 it's in the mix with the others but the turbos will all have piles more torque. Looking at it, the vast majority of hot hatches are turbos these days, almost none are n/a any more...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I think this test was the Japanese market one, but evo quote 6.8 for the UK Type R as well as far as I remember. That was tested as well, not Honda's figures.

For 0-60 it's in the mix with the others but the turbos will all have piles more torque. Looking at it, the vast majority of hot hatches are turbos these days, almost none are n/a any more...

Yep thats my point, just goes to show how amazing the R's engine really is.
 

·
Civinfo's Bulb Supplier
Joined
·
13,427 Posts
I have posted this before, it's quite good considering how anti Honda "EVO" are.

I have said it a million times less than half a car's length between all of them hence never buy a car based on 0-60, 0-100 times.

Glad the Clio 197 isn't in it :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
This test was for the UK one not the japanese version.

The 1/4 mile time matched the golf GTI and leon FR and was only 0.1 second off the focus ST and astra VXR.

Although I tend to bait Type R drivers on here from time to time you cannot argue the ability of the car.

The Evo mag this month has the article on the MUGEN R- buy it now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I have posted this before, it's quite good considering how anti Honda "EVO" are.

I have said it a million times less than half a car's length between all of them hence never buy a car based on 0-60, 0-100 times.

Glad the Clio 197 isn't in it :oops:
i think the Clio's struggle a bit to get near the claimed 197bhp, plus they are no slim jim like they used to be. think it put on 150kg going from 182 to 197.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,286 Posts
Great article mate thanks for posting it up:) I knew the ctr is a fantastically capable machine so glad I chose it over the others. Yes you can chage the performance easy on turbo cars but I value reliability over performance any day of the week. My mate used to have a very modfied rs turbo wound up using his mums ka most mornings for work tho can you guess why;)
 

·
Wheel Man
Joined
·
169 Posts
I've been looking out for the new evo mag in the shops but not seen it yet. I'll go have a look at lunch time. :)

I love it that the Type R isn't a turbo and everything else is. It's got more soul I reckon. And 200bhp from a 2.0 litre seems to get ignored lately because of the likes of the Focus RS and all that now hitting high 200's / 300 bhp. But 200bhp from a n/a 2.0 litre is a hell of a lot still.

Out of interest, has anyone dyno'd a standard Type R?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
559 Posts
There is absolutely nothing in it, on the day you could leave an ST but the following day a GTI could catch you off guard

I saw a decal on an EP3 the other day saying something like Honda NTR - No turbo required. Just can't beat dropping down a gear or 3 :)
 

·
CS1.6 Pro
Joined
·
1,601 Posts
0-62 is listed at 6.6 so how it gets to 60 in 6.8 sorta shows me that its a bad statistic from honda OR a bad driver in the test - or the petrol could come into effect & the type s is listed at 8.6 and i can only do it 8.8 with about half a tank - not tried it when its almost empty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
0-62 is listed at 6.6 so how it gets to 60 in 6.8 sorta shows me that its a bad statistic from honda OR a bad driver in the test - or the petrol could come into effect & the type s is listed at 8.6 and i can only do it 8.8 with about half a tank - not tried it when its almost empty.

I don't know how Honda measures the 0-62 time.... This is measured with a full tank and a passenger, so i don't think it's too bad.

What also may be a difference is that you have to shift to 3rd gear to even get to 62 mph. That takes extra time. I don't know if that's also the case with the other cars in this test.
 

·
Civinfo's Bulb Supplier
Joined
·
13,427 Posts
Honda's test is also under controlled conditions without the same variables such as temperature, weather, surface etc etc.

Honda also hard shift without using the clutch.
 

·
Wheel Man
Joined
·
169 Posts
There's no doubt the manufacturers' figures will always be the best they can possibly justify to maximise the marketing potential of the car so Honda's could even be with the fuel light on and the smallest driver available etc. (as an example). Evo's are more likely to be real world comparable if they have a full tank and a mate on board.

Interesting comparisons though.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top