- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,251
Not bad, I'd drive it!
2020 Honda Ciivic Type R
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Originally Posted by gathermewool
About as far away from the base Civic as an STI is from an Impreza, as a Golf R is from a Golf, as a Focus RS was from a Focus, as an Evo was from a Lancer. What about the price of THIS heavily modified, tarted-up econobox surprises you?
Golf [FWD] --> Golf R [AWD]
Focus [FWD] --> Focus RS [AWD]
Lancer [FWD] --> Evolution [AWD]
Impreza [AWD] --> WRX STI [AWD]
Civic [FWD] --> Civic Type R [FWD]
Subaru notwithstanding, it seems your money is buying an entirely new powertrain layout when you step up to the performance variant, not just more power in the same configuration.
What an overly simplistic way to compare drivetrains!
Are you saying that the regular Civic and CTR have the same drivetrain???
I didn't says drivetrain. I said powertrain layout. You literally quoted me on it.
And, yes, a CTR does have the same powertrain layout: Front engine, front wheel drive.
When you buy a Golf R, it is changing from a front engine, front wheel drive layout to front engine, all wheel drive.
It is that simple.
This is purely an exercise in justifying the cost of a tarted-up econobox, which was the post I was responding to, not what is best.
When you're trying to explain to your grandpa why you spent $37,000 on a car that fundamentally starts at $21,000, it's a lot easier to explain when the car you bought has a super-trick AWD system with a magic transfer case and rear axle that can transfer 100% of power to any wheel and has crazy software with a setting called "Drift Mode" than it is to just say it has everything a regular Civic has, a turbo, a manual transmission, a suspension, and so on, but the one in your car is special and better.
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Originally Posted by gathermewool
About as far away from the base Civic as an STI is from an Impreza, as a Golf R is from a Golf, as a Focus RS was from a Focus, as an Evo was from a Lancer. What about the price of THIS heavily modified, tarted-up econobox surprises you?
Golf [FWD] --> Golf R [AWD]
Focus [FWD] --> Focus RS [AWD]
Lancer [FWD] --> Evolution [AWD]
Impreza [AWD] --> WRX STI [AWD]
Civic [FWD] --> Civic Type R [FWD]
Subaru notwithstanding, it seems your money is buying an entirely new powertrain layout when you step up to the performance variant, not just more power in the same configuration.
Are you saying that the regular Civic and CTR have the same drivetrain???
I didn't says drivetrain. I said powertrain layout. You literally quoted me on it.
And, yes, a CTR does have the same powertrain layout: Front engine, front wheel drive.
When you buy a Golf R, it is changing from a front engine, front wheel drive layout to front engine, all wheel drive.
It is that simple.
This is purely an exercise in justifying the cost of a tarted-up econobox, which was the post I was responding to, not what is best.
When you're trying to explain to your grandpa why you spent $37,000 on a car that fundamentally starts at $21,000, it's a lot easier to explain when the car you bought has a super-trick AWD system with a magic transfer case and rear axle that can transfer 100% of power to any wheel and has crazy software with a setting called "Drift Mode" than it is to just say it has everything a regular Civic has, a turbo, a manual transmission, a suspension, and so on, but the one in your car is special and better.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Originally Posted by gathermewool
About as far away from the base Civic as an STI is from an Impreza, as a Golf R is from a Golf, as a Focus RS was from a Focus, as an Evo was from a Lancer. What about the price of THIS heavily modified, tarted-up econobox surprises you?
Golf [FWD] --> Golf R [AWD]
Focus [FWD] --> Focus RS [AWD]
Lancer [FWD] --> Evolution [AWD]
Impreza [AWD] --> WRX STI [AWD]
Civic [FWD] --> Civic Type R [FWD]
Subaru notwithstanding, it seems your money is buying an entirely new powertrain layout when you step up to the performance variant, not just more power in the same configuration.
What an overly simplistic way to compare drivetrains!
Are you saying that the regular Civic and CTR have the same drivetrain???
I didn't says drivetrain. I said powertrain layout. You literally quoted me on it.
And, yes, a CTR does have the same powertrain layout: Front engine, front wheel drive.
When you buy a Golf R, it is changing from a front engine, front wheel drive layout to front engine, all wheel drive.
It is that simple.
This is purely an exercise in justifying the cost of a tarted-up econobox, which was the post I was responding to, not what is best.
When you're trying to explain to your grandpa why you spent $37,000 on a car that fundamentally starts at $21,000, it's a lot easier to explain when the car you bought has a super-trick AWD system with a magic transfer case and rear axle that can transfer 100% of power to any wheel and has crazy software with a setting called "Drift Mode" than it is to just say it has everything a regular Civic has, a turbo, a manual transmission, a suspension, and so on, but the one in your car is special and better.
What!? What does my grandpa have to do with any of my decisions in car buying? He's been dead since I was in college. Besides, and again, what do you really think between a base Civic and a CTR is the same? Google is truly your friend, my friend.
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Originally Posted by gathermewool
About as far away from the base Civic as an STI is from an Impreza, as a Golf R is from a Golf, as a Focus RS was from a Focus, as an Evo was from a Lancer. What about the price of THIS heavily modified, tarted-up econobox surprises you?
Golf [FWD] --> Golf R [AWD]
Focus [FWD] --> Focus RS [AWD]
Lancer [FWD] --> Evolution [AWD]
Impreza [AWD] --> WRX STI [AWD]
Civic [FWD] --> Civic Type R [FWD]
Subaru notwithstanding, it seems your money is buying an entirely new powertrain layout when you step up to the performance variant, not just more power in the same configuration.
Are you saying that the regular Civic and CTR have the same drivetrain???
I didn't says drivetrain. I said powertrain layout. You literally quoted me on it.
And, yes, a CTR does have the same powertrain layout: Front engine, front wheel drive.
When you buy a Golf R, it is changing from a front engine, front wheel drive layout to front engine, all wheel drive.
It is that simple.
This is purely an exercise in justifying the cost of a tarted-up econobox, which was the post I was responding to, not what is best.
When you're trying to explain to your grandpa why you spent $37,000 on a car that fundamentally starts at $21,000, it's a lot easier to explain when the car you bought has a super-trick AWD system with a magic transfer case and rear axle that can transfer 100% of power to any wheel and has crazy software with a setting called "Drift Mode" than it is to just say it has everything a regular Civic has, a turbo, a manual transmission, a suspension, and so on, but the one in your car is special and better.
I think the styling is a little too aggressive to hold a lot of value long term. It will always be worth something And much more than a base model but doubt it will hold value like a S2000, NSX or Integra type R. I see it more like a Firebird Ws6. Didn't age so well. I am biased as a S2000 owner, it's front (mid) engine rwd set up is why. FWD racer is not appealing unless used as a commuter.
Everyone I know who owns one loves it, but hates the tires, which are basically nonexistent and blow often, bend rims, etc. Due to super super low profile.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
I used to think about what the design of the car was... i.e. did it have wishbone suspension front and rear, did it have a mechanical limited slip, was it a RWD or rear-biased AWD car...
Now as I'm older I think about the empirical results that the Mfr achieves with the design.
So though logic tells us that the FWD Civic Type R should never be a success with (just) FWD - the empirical results are very, very good.
Defies logic.
Also, I must say that I found the design hideous to start with. I do note that some colours, in my mind, work better for this car than others.... Though I don't generally go for a black car, a black version of the CTR makes the body "features" less evident.
I think Honda did a good job... but I also think the car is very serious-minded. It would NOT be a really smooth ride, by any stretch... and surely, some price in ultimate durability would be paid for pulling 306 HP out of 122 cubic inches. But who can say that Honda does not have a contingent of really, really talented engineers.... so who knows?
Now as I'm older I think about the empirical results that the Mfr achieves with the design.
So though logic tells us that the FWD Civic Type R should never be a success with (just) FWD - the empirical results are very, very good.
Defies logic.
Also, I must say that I found the design hideous to start with. I do note that some colours, in my mind, work better for this car than others.... Though I don't generally go for a black car, a black version of the CTR makes the body "features" less evident.
I think Honda did a good job... but I also think the car is very serious-minded. It would NOT be a really smooth ride, by any stretch... and surely, some price in ultimate durability would be paid for pulling 306 HP out of 122 cubic inches. But who can say that Honda does not have a contingent of really, really talented engineers.... so who knows?
Originally Posted by Cdn17Sport6MT
I used to think about what the design of the car was... i.e. did it have wishbone suspension front and rear, did it have a mechanical limited slip, was it a RWD or rear-biased AWD car...
Now as I'm older I think about the empirical results that the Mfr achieves with the design.
So though logic tells us that the FWD Civic Type R should never be a success with (just) FWD - the empirical results are very, very good.
Defies logic.
Also, I must say that I found the design hideous to start with. I do note that some colours, in my mind, work better for this car than others.... Though I don't generally go for a black car, a black version of the CTR makes the body "features" less evident.
I think Honda did a good job... but I also think the car is very serious-minded. It would NOT be a really smooth ride, by any stretch... and surely, some price in ultimate durability would be paid for pulling 306 HP out of 122 cubic inches. But who can say that Honda does not have a contingent of really, really talented engineers.... so who knows?
The empirical results are good, but there is penalty for that, a large one. Type R is super heavy in front, plus other limitations that come with that due to transverse engine, FWD etc. It is unpleasant car in a daily routine, far from Golf R for example which is much more pleasant vehicle to live with. You cannot achieve those results without sacrificing practicality etc.
I used to think about what the design of the car was... i.e. did it have wishbone suspension front and rear, did it have a mechanical limited slip, was it a RWD or rear-biased AWD car...
Now as I'm older I think about the empirical results that the Mfr achieves with the design.
So though logic tells us that the FWD Civic Type R should never be a success with (just) FWD - the empirical results are very, very good.
Defies logic.
Also, I must say that I found the design hideous to start with. I do note that some colours, in my mind, work better for this car than others.... Though I don't generally go for a black car, a black version of the CTR makes the body "features" less evident.
I think Honda did a good job... but I also think the car is very serious-minded. It would NOT be a really smooth ride, by any stretch... and surely, some price in ultimate durability would be paid for pulling 306 HP out of 122 cubic inches. But who can say that Honda does not have a contingent of really, really talented engineers.... so who knows?
The empirical results are good, but there is penalty for that, a large one. Type R is super heavy in front, plus other limitations that come with that due to transverse engine, FWD etc. It is unpleasant car in a daily routine, far from Golf R for example which is much more pleasant vehicle to live with. You cannot achieve those results without sacrificing practicality etc.
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
Only the Supra and the NSX were rare and the Supra wasn't really considered an exotic. The others were quite common.
Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
Only the Supra and the NSX were rare and the Supra wasn't really considered an exotic. The others were quite common.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by harrydog
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
Only the Supra and the NSX were rare and the Supra wasn't really considered an exotic. The others were quite common.
Back when cars I listed these were current I never saw them,but once in a great while. Whereas there would be 10 Mustangs or Camaros for ever city block.
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by 2strokeNorthstar
NSX
This was definitely a different era. The era of the "Japanese exotics". We suddenly had the 300ZX twin turbo, the 3000GT VR-4,The RX-7 twin turbo, the Supra twin turbo, and NSX. They were rare,fast,expensive,and all in competition with each other. An era that will never be repeated.
Only the Supra and the NSX were rare and the Supra wasn't really considered an exotic. The others were quite common.
Back when cars I listed these were current I never saw them,but once in a great while. Whereas there would be 10 Mustangs or Camaros for ever city block.
