PDA

View Full Version : Autospeed say Civic Type R is weak



yfin
28-09-2007, 09:46 PM
Controversial? Check
An unfair blog? Check
Still worth a read? yep.

Everyone knows the engine lacks torque - but to say it is weak car is ridiculous. Not all that many years ago Australian V8s (early 90s) were running low 15s over the quarter too.

http://blog.autospeed.com/2007/09/24/one-reason-i-dont-think-much-of-the-type-r-civic/

Preview....

http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/blog/2007/09/dyno-graph.jpg

aaronng
28-09-2007, 11:35 PM
I'd take everything from Autospeed with a pinch of salt. Check out their Epica review, it was very biased: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_109042/article.html

Here are some quotes and my interpretations:
- Powered in the tested model by a Porsche-designed 2.5 litre straight six cylinder engine, the $27,990 car uses the almost unique configuration of placing the engine transversely across the nose, something that with six cylinder engines normally requires a V design.
Porsche doesn't use straight sixes, so why did they design one? Could have been a design that they didn't want to/couldn't use and so sold it off for cheap.

-Not overly endowed with power – there’s 115kW available at 5800 rpm – and with low-down torque that is clearly not in the league of the local sixes, the 1500kg Epica still manages to acquit itself quite well in the normal cut-and-thrust of urban traffic. In this it’s helped by the complete lack of (dry road) wheelspin and the well-matched auto transmission torque converter.
It is underpowered for the weight but its pace is suitable for urban traffic jams. Oh, and it has low torque for a six cylidner engine.

-Away from idle, the straight six is silky smooth (at idle there’s a slight lumpiness) and noticeably ‘comes on cam’ (or is it the switching of the variable length intake manifold?) at around 3500-4000 rpm. Because of its relatively small size, hard acceleration requires lots of revs and the engine then becomes clearly audible. There’s also a slight jerk when getting back on the throttle, something particularly noticeable with the cruise control engaged.
The idle is poor for an inline-6 that is meant to be the ideally balanced configuration. It is flat below 3500rpm (which is bad for a 6-cylinder). It needs a lot of throttle and revs to move like a small capacity engine and it is noisy as well. The electronic throttle is jerky.

-But for our money the biggest driveline deficiency is not the engine but the 5-speed auto trans. No easy-to-use manual shift mode is provided – a pity, when at times the power and torque characteristics of the engine would lend themselves well to manual control.
The engine is underpowered that it needs a tiptronic to stay in lower gears.

-The ride is excellent, feeling ‘large car’ and being upset only by continuous short-spaced bumps on country roads – there, the ride can become a little jiggly. In other conditions, including dirt roads, the suspension feels long-travel and well-damped.
The car handles like a boat and is rough on country roads. The car has good suspension for going rallying.

-The Epica is a full-size family car, capable of swallowing four adults.
The Epica is meant to a big car but is too tight in the rear for 3 adults.

-Rear space looks at first a bit tight for leg-room but that’s primarily because the rear seat tracks extend back a long way – position them so that front occupants are still comfortable and the back seat has sufficient leg-room for normal sized adults.
The rear has van-type seats that can move back because of poor legroom when you move the front seats back.

-A large, flat-lidded compartment is provided in the middle of the dashboard – presumably, an LCD display is placed there in other models.
Aussies get jipped. We lose out on a feature that the Koreans get in their Daewoo.

VT3C
28-09-2007, 11:55 PM
man the Epica is sooooo bad !! when they started the advertising campaign I was worried it'd effect EURO sales but we had Honda Australia Comparison training the other day and we got to drive the Epica.. man it's cheap but u get what u pay for.. a V6 ? wow the Euro is only a 4cyl.. but the Epica is ~105KW and 2L.. Euro 140Kw and 2.4L.. but that's just the epica's motor.. but sorry that's of topic ;)

the only way to see what the FN2 is like is to take one for a drive.. forget reading these kind of articles - make up your own mind.

matt
29-09-2007, 02:03 AM
An unfair blog? Check


agreed :thumbsup:


With a 2 litre naturally aspirated engine that revs to 8000 rpm and develops 148kW, it might look the goods on paper - but the reality is very different.

To go further, I think the idea that small, naturally aspirated engines can compete with turbo cars is the stuff of fairytales.

this section here pretty much finished the article for me, i know most reviewers base their articles on the specsa of the cars (im in the AV industry so i see this far too often). but since when was there somethign wrong with being different. sure the honda isnt going to be the fastest but it will deliver the most unique driving experience from the rest of the turbo mob.
and IMO theres somethign to be said for that.

fasthonda
29-09-2007, 02:39 PM
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................
the only way to see what the FN2 is like is to take one for a drive.. forget reading these kind of articles - make up your own mind.

Exactly,that's what I did twice!and I bought the car(delivery in a couple of weeks).Test driving dispelled a number of "bad" review opinions by so called experts-like this backyard mechanic in Autospeed.His writing style reminds of what a hoon driver would write.
I wonder why he chose the Madza Mps 3 probably to make the CTR look as "bad" as possible-the Madza is a very good car but even their NA 2.3 ltr has only 10 NM more than the CTR's 2.0 litre.

T-onedc2
29-09-2007, 03:56 PM
......Madza is a very good car but even their NA 2.3 ltr has only 10 NM more than the CTR's 2.0 litre.
and over 30 less kw than CTR, it's laughable

DreadAngel
29-09-2007, 04:53 PM
You just need to read the article to know that he doesn't "get" NA power. He doesn't even compare it to a NA car with bigger displacement which he claims to offset the lack of torque but instead goes straight to a FI car ie Mazda 3 MPS lol.


With a 2 litre naturally aspirated engine that revs to 8000 rpm and develops 148kW, it might look the goods on paper - but the reality is very different.

That quote there tells you what to expect from the engine, its not going to have a mountain of torque, smooth behaviour low down then fun time up high. I don't need to be a "Motor Journalist" to know that a 2L NA won't have that much torque down low compared to a 2L Turbo let alone a 2.3L Turbo.

This guy needs a headcheck...


In these torque-less, high-revving naturally aspirated engines, you put your foot down and in relative terms, nothing happens. Revs wind up and up, and as they do, the acceleration finally starts to build. In turbo cars – like the Focus XR5 and the Mazda 3 MPS – you tromp it at anything over 2000 rpm and the cars immediately go hard. And then continue to go hard right ’til the redline.

But if you accelerate from (say) 1500 rpm, the response will initially be leisurely followed by a sudden increase in acceleration as the car comes up on boost.

The torque curve of a naturally aspirated engine is flatter: that is, there isn’t the rush of torque when a turbo comes on boost. Fans of small naturally aspirated engines will say that the flat torque curve allows better throttle control. That a certain movement of the throttle will give the same increase in torque at the wheels, irrespective of whether the revs are at 2000 or 4000 rpm. That when you’re cornering on slippery surfaces, feeding-in power and feeling the front-end just starting to walk, the last thing you want is a sudden rush of power.

See, he even KNOWS that its not going to compare torque wise to the Turbo cars yet he complains? Stupid imho. Type-R was never the straight line machine the other hot hatches can claim to be. When has Type-R EVER been about straight line? Its modest at best with straight line. Its more about the experience and feel of the car rather than outright stonk that I could get out of a Z06 C6.


And if you don’t believe me, take a look at this dyno graph (click on it to enlarge). It shows the power and torque outputs of the Type R Civic, as recorded on ChipTorque’s chassis dyno. Peak output of the Type R is a creditable 121kW at the wheels – and look at how flat that torque curve is! But hold on, what are the blue lines? They’re the outputs for a standard Mazda 3 MPS - that’s the one with the 2.3 litre, direct injected, turbo and intercooled engine.

What a genius! A car that has more displacement and is force induced will normally have a better torque curve and power curve than a car that is smaller in displacement and naturally aspirated. *claps hand for the idiot*

They should employ me, at least I know what the hell I'm driving instead of sitting in the driver seat and figure out... OH SHITZ!!! This Type-R isn't force induced and hey, IT DON'T BEHAVE LIKE A FORCE INDUCED CAR *claps like a seal*

T-onedc2
29-09-2007, 04:56 PM
^^^hahaha I second that!!!^^^

DreadAngel
29-09-2007, 05:04 PM
Julian Edgar, 44, has been writing about car modification and automotive technology for 17 years. He has owned cars with two, three, four, five, six and eight cylinders; single turbo, twin turbo, supercharged, diesel and hybrid electric drivelines. He lists his automotive interests as turbocharging, aerodynamics, suspension design and human powered vehicles.

Line, hook and sinker...

6ary
29-09-2007, 05:13 PM
The reviewer is probably too used to driving his holden and ford V8s

DreadAngel
29-09-2007, 05:19 PM
Nah, Honda Australia's Press Release and Marketing got him so good, made him believe that the Type-R beats the competitors senseless with its crazy power and awesome torque delivery. Come on man, who the heck takes advertisements as hardcore facts? So stupid...

If we all take press releases and marketing ads as facts, we'll all be so damn disappointed with our cars. At best we're all cynical of advertisements, they give you beautiful facts without telling you the rest. Its up to your judgement then, this guy for all his claims of knowledge and expertise failed to look pass the marketing exercise and got sucked in, left his commonsense at the door.

T-onedc2
29-09-2007, 05:22 PM
yeah according to the tv ad the Falcon XR8 handles like it's on rails and beats the Z06 C5R Race car & 350Z!

DreadAngel
29-09-2007, 05:22 PM
*gets into his Z06 C5R and hauls ass to Ford Dealership*

Omotesando
29-09-2007, 05:56 PM
You know what is really weird?
I actually found that article to be very un-biased.

"The torque curve of a naturally aspirated engine is flatter: that is, there isn’t the rush of torque when a turbo comes on boost. Fans of small naturally aspirated engines will say that the flat torque curve allows better throttle control. That a certain movement of the throttle will give the same increase in torque at the wheels, irrespective of whether the revs are at 2000 or 4000 rpm. That when you’re cornering on slippery surfaces, feeding-in power and feeling the front-end just starting to walk, the last thing you want is a sudden rush of power."

"And if the naturally aspirated engines being fitted to these cars were large enough, or, to put it more accurately, had a sufficiently high ratio of torque to the car’s weight, this argument would be great. You could have decent acceleration from low revs and have excellent throttle control. This Eunos 30X was fitted with a 2.5 litre V6 and had excellent acceleration and throttle control."


I dont understand what is wrong with comparing the Civic Type R to the turbo hatches mentioned. It is the Type R's 'targeted' direct competitors on the market.

Julian did reply as follows:

"One of the reasons I was underwhelmed by the Type R was its lack of performance in what is, ostensibly, a performance car."

I agree with him wholeheartedly. The car is overweight for its torque, and also for its chassis. I just don't see why Honda released it under the Type R badge despite it being a different philosophy than the JDM version. If it had a Type S or Type F for Fun badge on it then that's a completely different issue.

This guy loves the DC5 Integra Type S and also the DC2 Type Rs. He even loves the NA Magna V6s. So I dont think he's against the NA cars at all. He's barely saying that this particular car is not fast enough relative to its original philosophy and when duly compared to its competitors.

What's wrong with that?

blahZ
29-09-2007, 06:19 PM
new ctr are overrated

locote
29-09-2007, 07:17 PM
If it retailed for 30k it wouldnt be:)

fasthonda
29-09-2007, 07:39 PM
new ctr are overrated
I don't know who has overrated the FN2R,maybe Honda's marketing department?
What's going to be interesting is when the new EVO X and Subaru STI are released.
I assure you they will have a ton more torque and certainly more HP and straight line speed than the FD2R.-that would make it a weak car according to Autospeed's backyard mechanic.
The only overating has been concerning the FD2R, a car that is not available in Australia and thus not driven by anyone on these forums.;)

Omotesando
29-09-2007, 07:47 PM
Yeah but is that car actually coming to Australia?

Let's face it. Honda stuffed up by calling the version here the Type R. They stuffed up last time already by giving a watered down version of the Integra Type R, no brembos and less power (blame the fuel though).

Although what I think is really really wrong these days? It'll have to be the TRD supercharged Aurion. Seems silly even next to the Mazda 3 MPS.

I just think the local FD2R needs a better engine with torque, but it doesnt necessarily mean super/turbo charged. The Type R philosophy should be about 'balance'. Unfortunately I dont see balance in this CTR.

Tofu
29-09-2007, 08:23 PM
The Type R philosophy should be about 'balance'. Unfortunately I dont see balance in this CTR.

exact reason why I dislike the FN2R...
it tries to be a more refined car, yet it tries to be a performance hot hatch...Honda UK tried to be good at doing two things at once but in the end they failed at both.

DreadAngel
29-09-2007, 08:35 PM
Yeah but is that car actually coming to Australia?

Let's face it. Honda stuffed up by calling the version here the Type R. They stuffed up last time already by giving a watered down version of the Integra Type R, no brembos and less power (blame the fuel though).

Although what I think is really really wrong these days? It'll have to be the TRD supercharged Aurion. Seems silly even next to the Mazda 3 MPS.

I just think the local FD2R needs a better engine with torque, but it doesnt necessarily mean super/turbo charged. The Type R philosophy should be about 'balance'. Unfortunately I dont see balance in this CTR.

Honda Oz learnt thats why they give us the full UKDM spec LOL :p You have to admit, Honda Oz played it smart lol Nobody can blame them of a watered down version cause he get what the Poms get lol. As for badging it Type-R, its badged as Type-R in UK why rebadge it to something else in Oz? It wouldn't make sense.

I envy Malaysia, they get the JDM CTR Sedan!!! :(

sitta
29-09-2007, 08:45 PM
new ctr are overrated

dont think its overrated. Its just that people expect too much and they are dissapointed that it doesnt deliver what they expected this people saying its over rated

fasthonda
29-09-2007, 08:54 PM
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............
I just think the local FD2R needs a better engine with torque, but it doesnt necessarily mean super/turbo charged. The Type R philosophy should be about 'balance'. Unfortunately I dont see balance in this CTR.

I understand the point you are making but,the Type R phliosophy is really anything that Honda wants it to be and will change it as much as it feels fit to do so.
I work in the car industry and it really is about sales and lowering costs.Honda Australia doesn't need to bring out the Type R or the JDM Type R to survive ,blandness sells ,just ask Toyota.
I realise some people on this forum have felt shortchanged by this new CTR however, I really liked the car and bought one.
Just remember it took VW almost 20 years to get their GTI back on track,imagine how the enthuasiasts felt -IMHO Honda hasn't done too badly.
Whichever car manufacturer you follow,I guarantee they will disappoint in one way or another somewhere down the line.
The biggest disappointment has been the design of the Civics from the year 2000 to the current sedan.To me,the current sedan looks like a Korean airport rental car to others it looks great,but as long as they're happy with their car ,good on them!
At the end of the day,I am a Honda fan and Honda is still one of the greatest car companies in the world -although I may not always see eye to eye with them on some things.:)

One more thing- the Autospeed article talks about the Eunos 30X with a 2.5 litre V6 non standard engine,the original had a 1.8L V6 99kw,159 NM in 1996.
(I know the point he was trying to make) In 1996 the Honda Civic Vtir had 118 KW and 150 NM from a 1.6L engine-of course if one fitted a 2Litre it would have
better acceleration etc that's why I feel the reviewer comes across like a juvenile with a liking to "hotting" up cars.

mpd076-chuck
30-09-2007, 08:07 AM
To those who have a CTR, I'm sure it is a fun car and it's well equipped.

Julian Edgar has not done himself any favours by lauding the Epica. However, I understand his sentiment regarding the CTR. Let me explain.

In 1999 I bought a DC2R. Back then competition was either a 200sx or a WRX. I preferred cheaper insurance so went with DC2R.

In June 2001 spec's for the JDM DC5 came out and many DC2R owners were keen to upgrade. Subsequently we got a watered down version and felt ripped off. The AUDC5R is still a good car and many DC2R owners did change over. In 2002-3 the 200sx was gone/going but competition was still coming from WRX and now Clio Sport. There were other cars like MX5 and 206GTI but I don't think they were as stiffer competition.

Fast forward to 2007 - GTI, MPS, Megane, Cooper S, VXR, XR5. How great it is to have so much choice! Now we know Honda's N/A philosophy and the FN2 engine and gearbox are gems. However, I have waited 6 years for Honda to release the next Type R, and it has almost the same power specs as the DC5R of Sept 2001. Power isn't everything, especially when you drive a Honda, but in 6 years we have received a funky exterior and better equipped car, no performance gains.

To many people that may be OK, or the way it should be.
However, I'm keen for Honda to release an entry level performance car that can mix it with the best of them, because we know they can build it.

To those have an FN2, please don't take this personally, it may not be the outright fastest but it looks like a fun drivers car :thumbsup:

Tofu
30-09-2007, 08:59 AM
when i went to test drive the CTR the sales person told me for those that have a DC5R may find the CTR more torquey...but for those with a DC5S will find the CTR's power and power delivery very similar to the TypeS.

and so after the test drive, i wasn't all that impressed especially needing to pay another $10k to buy the CTR from my TypeS, no thanks.

yfin
30-09-2007, 11:26 AM
Reading through the blog it is good to see the author responding to comments by the public... But Ken the CTR owner is really overstating things! It is a good car but not that good. Apparently the new CTR is the best FWD handling car ever. No other FWD can do better! Rubbish. And it doesn't have 'outstanding performance' if the straight line times it has achieved are anything to go by.
....
Ken said,

on September 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Me: “I’ve had the 07 CTR FN2 for 2 months now and who cares if it’s not as fast as a turbo and whatnot.”
Julian: Well, when it’s supposed to be a performance car, lots of people.
Me: If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Me: “I have enough money to buy a new car every 2 months if I wanted to.”
Julian: Fantastic. So, what were your assessment criteria for new cars and why did you pick the Honda then?
Me: Looks, outstanding performance, features, looks, superior Honda brand relative to others, vtec (because turbo is for the naturally weaker car who needs a snap-on appliance for the purpose of answering to any Honda’s vtec) and looks.
Me: “The CTR is targeted at the sophisticated market who don’t believe in buying old cars and modifying it.”
Julian: Well, not according to Honda, who make a major point that they had Honda Type R enthusiasts in so that they could look at their cars’ modifications! (This is before Honda settled on the specs of the current Type R)
Me: I refer to the old, modified Hondas. Not the new one. So when the ‘new’ CTR becomes ‘old’ in 5 years time, I would have gotten a new car anyway.
Me: “And the CTR blows the whole competition to a million pieces on looks.”
Julian: From some angles, perhaps, From other angles it looks awful - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Me: I disagree. Oh, and the 3MPS? Disgusting - No poetry can describe that obese, dopey looking scrap metal only barely worthy of a car. Focus? One word says it all, it’s a Ford. Golf GTI? Ok, way better looking than 3MPS or Focus, but they ran out of paint to finish off the bumper. Astra VRX? Not bad either, but my sister can ride her tricycle faster on the track because at least she doesn’t have to worry about handling.
Me: “So forget the ‘lack of’ and ‘not as good as’ speeches, the Civic Type R is in a class of its own, a class where no turbocharged cars deserve to be in.”
Julian: Can you explain that in more detail? Like, what are the attributes of this class? Performance - no. Handling - no. Price - no. Equipment - no. Looks - maybe. Sound - maybe. Redline - yes.
Me: Price - I don’t mind the price. I wished it was more so as to further restrict ram-raiders from ruining the image. Sound - don’t like it there’s always the MP3 player. Handling - no other FWD car can do any better. Equipment - you need to read the brochure. Performance - must I say more? Turbo is the answer to vtec, a form of steroids for the weak to boost performance. Say, hypothetically, snapping on a turbo onto the CTR - good luck keeping up. But to use forced induction is against Honda’s philosophy. What philosophy does MPS have? None. MPS is a rookie.

aaronng
30-09-2007, 09:09 PM
Ken sounds like a typical VTEC fanboy... :thumbdwn:

Omotesando
30-09-2007, 09:20 PM
I understand the point you are making but,the Type R phliosophy is really anything that Honda wants it to be and will change it as much as it feels fit to do so.
I work in the car industry and it really is about sales and lowering costs.Honda Australia doesn't need to bring out the Type R or the JDM Type R to survive ,blandness sells ,just ask Toyota.


Well I do see your point that blandness still does sell cars, Toyota DID sell a lot of bland cars, although the mentality lately has changed completely.

If blandness will continue to sell to the new generation of ppl, then why did Toyota invented the TRD Aurion? Why bring out the Lexus F-seris? Why invest millions into Formula 1 only to have their bottoms kicked by all other European teams?

Mazda 3 and 6 and probably a lot of other Mazdas don't even drive that well but look how many more cars they're selling lately? It sold well because it had style, flair and character. Especially the non-performance models. Yet, they still brought out the performance MPS versions.

Different cars appeal to different markets. If the CTR is designed and being sold to appeal to the performance enthuasists then ultimately it has failed to perform. I thought about buying a DC5R or a DC5S. I did not even think once about getting this Civic even though I am a big fan of the EKs and even EPs.

Of course, each to their own... if it really is that bad, then why is it selling like hot-cakes? Obviously many ppl are happy about it. I just think personally, it needs a lil bit more to make it attractive for that price, that's all! :honda::honda::honda:

fasthonda
30-09-2007, 09:46 PM
.................................................. .................................................. ........................Of course, each to their own... if it really is that bad, then why is it selling like hot-cakes? Obviously many ppl are happy about it. I just think personally, it needs a lil bit more to make it attractive for that price, that's all! :honda::honda::honda:

I hear what you're saying,believe you me,I had looked at the GTI,Megane RS and Focus XR5( My dad worked for Ford,he probably could've got it for $37,000 on the road.)But,eventhough those cars were faster, had more torque and basically the same price etc.,as the CTR I just felt that the CTR was better in other areas besides, they weren't a Honda and yes, I am a passionate Honda fan something that I feel in these forums is almost ridiculed or frowned upon:(

aaronng
30-09-2007, 10:25 PM
If I was shopping now, I'd take the XR5 over the CTR, seriously.

All those using the excuse "it is a Ford" just can't think of a bad point on the XR5 and have to fall back to the old name-calling.

Philip Lee
01-10-2007, 10:05 AM
if you stack up a FD2R against a 3MPS, i think the "performance" will show just as poorly as FN2R (well slightly better). all the points of the article raised for the FN2R will more or less apply (except the chassis). ie. weak power/torque etc. and yet if it ever comes here, it'll probably be more expensive than all it's so call rivals. but yet every "experts" will have no problem with its lack of grunt......

i think Honda is targeting the FN2R with Golf GTI, in Europe at least which is the brenchmark for hot euro hatch (let's face it, 3MPS doesn't register under the radar there). it's matching the GTI very closely in terms of price and equipment. while performance is delivered in a different way (NA vs FI). while it lacks some torque (around 80nm) but it has a sweet high reving engine and sweet gearbox whereas the GTI delivers low down grunt + high tech box. FN2R is never a true type R, it was never set out to cos GTI, which is its target is not a stripped down track car.

also "power is nothing without control", if you prefer to have the computer to limit output for you cos the chassis can't cope with all the "excess" power, then type r is not for you. figures alone just don't do me, driving is much more than power figures and lap times and 1/4 miles drag.

Chris_typer
01-10-2007, 10:45 AM
If I was shopping now, I'd take the XR5 over the CTR, seriously.

All those using the excuse "it is a Ford" just can't think of a bad point on the XR5 and have to fall back to the old name-calling.

Thats true..and I'm not saying the XR5 is a bad car but the CTR is overall a much more enjoyable car to drive. When I went searching for a new car I test drove alot of cars: the Mazda 3 MPS, XR5, Gti, Audi A3 and the CTR...overall I was most impressed with the CTR and GTi...yes the MPS is a quick car and I'm not denying that it isnt but when you take into all the other features of the car such as steering/control and looks, the CTR performs and looks much better. The XR5 although being a nice car..after talking to many people in the car industry they said that the car wouldn't hold its value in the future..so that was enough for me not to spend 30k. The Audi A3 was just too slow and finally was left with the GTi and CTR...and although the GTi being a nice car, I personally thought the CTR looked better. But i suppose everyone has there own opinions..all the cars have there qualities it just depends on what your prepared to spend and what qualities your looking for in a car..may it be purely performance or comfort..or whether you want a balance..and when I chose the CTR i thought it had a good balance of everything...and as some poeple in the forum have already said "you can't please everyone."

Hopefully in the future Honda does release some new cars to cater for the people who were disappointed with the Type S and CTR..

slipangle
01-10-2007, 10:50 AM
Ken says;

Me: “The CTR is targeted at the sophisticated market"

Quite amusing. If he's representative of the type of sophisticated market that find the FN2R appealling then Honda marketing and product planning have hit the nail right on the head.

aaronng
01-10-2007, 01:45 PM
The XR5 although being a nice car..after talking to many people in the car industry they said that the car wouldn't hold its value in the future..so that was enough for me not to spend 30k.
The "won't hold value" argument doesn't stop people from buying Audi S3s or BMW 5-series. ;)

Chris_typer
01-10-2007, 02:20 PM
The "won't hold value" argument doesn't stop people from buying Audi S3s or BMW 5-series. ;)

Yeh thats true aswell but i suppose wen u look at what ur gettin..kind of out weighs how much u might lose in the future...its only an XR5 so people spending that sort of money dont have the luxury of probably losing that much on a small car...but you could use the same argument for the bmw and audi..

aaronng
01-10-2007, 05:23 PM
In the end, you have a budget of what you can afford on a car. If it was me, paying $35k for an XR5 and then getting say in worst case, 60% resale value after 3 years is still better than tightening my belt and excluding wine/beer/some other luxury from my life to spend $42k now and get 70% resale value. If I do sell the car off after 3 years, I get $21k for the XR5 and $29.4k for the CTR. A $8.4k bonus you say? Remember, going for the CTR means spending $7k up front, so the difference is only $1.4k. Plus I would have missed out on heaps of wine in the first few months of my CTR purchase. :)

In the end, I'd just get the car I want/like that is in my budget range. I don't fault people for going for the FN2R. It's a fine car and if it suits their tastes, then all is good. I'm sure there is no way in hell I'll be able to persuade a potential CTR buyer who loves the CTR interior to change his/her mind for an XR5 after they get a glimpse of the gaudy seats and interior. :) So there is no point forcing someone's opinion onto others. In the end, it is just an opinion, just like this Autospeed blog.

Chris_typer
01-10-2007, 06:10 PM
Yeah fair enough comment.

yfin
06-11-2007, 05:59 PM
The full Autospeed review is out now:

http://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/A_109041/article.html

Some interesting comments - particularly confirmation that the speedo is optomistic

quote:

(Incidentally, on initial acquaintance, the Type R can feel quick. At full throttle there’re hugely loud induction and exhaust roars, and the speedo is optimistic - 7 per cent in the case of the test car. So beware the short dealer test drive!)

FN2TypeR
06-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Who cares! My FN2R was love at first sight. Type R branding was just a bonus.

All those power and torque figures just make the car go quicker by a couple of seconds.

"Oh my god bro, like fully, I beat this Type R by like 5 car lengths. It was fully sick" - small penis.

fasthonda
06-11-2007, 08:34 PM
Who cares! My FN2R was love at first sight. Type R branding was just a bonus.

All those power and torque figures just make the car go quicker by a couple of seconds......................

It's more likely just a couple/few tenths of a second.To this reviewer,if it's not a turbo it's no good.I read the preliminary review in late September when this thread started.I could say a multitude of things about this particular review but,why bother ? anyway ,guess what I'm driving now? I think my two test drives convinced me that the CTR was for me and I have to say that had I bought the GTI (a very fine car) I think I would not have been as happy as I am with the FN2R- it's a special car and it's a HONDA.:)

FN2TypeR
06-11-2007, 08:48 PM
It's more likely just a couple/few tenths of a second.To this reviewer,if it's not a turbo it's no good.I read the preliminary review in late September when this thread started.I could say a multitude of things about this particular review but,why bother ? anyway ,guess what I'm driving now? I think my two test drives convinced me that the CTR was for me and I have to say that had I bought the GTI (a very fine car) I think I would not have been as happy as I am with the FN2R- it's a special car and it's a HONDA.:)

Amen to that! Good choice on the FN2R. No regrets. As long as it makes you grin, no amount of reviews is going to wipe that away. My grin widens each and every day I stick my key in the hole.

danno
06-11-2007, 08:55 PM
yup... power is not everything (but does count for something). prefer CTR over MPS any day!

yfin
07-11-2007, 06:06 AM
It's more likely just a couple/few tenths of a second.

The MPS is faster than a couple/few tenths of a second compared to the CTR. I think you are overselling the CTR if you think they are that close in a straight line.

At the end of the day this is just a review, take out of it what you want. The CTR is not a "weak" car as they have said- but Honda has pitched this car at a level where it will be compared against faster rivals. They targetted that maeket so they need to be prepared for the criticism if the car is not as fast as the competition. In this case the author even says it is not as fast as the Mitsu 380. Not that anyone would buy the 380...

ginganggooly
07-11-2007, 09:24 AM
Fanboys will always seek to justify their purchase, as witnessed in this thread. The minute anyone comes up with such pearlers as, "I am a passionate Honda fan something that I feel in these forums is almost ridiculed or frowned upon:(", you know that you can take anything else they say with a grain of salt.

Brand loyalty is stupid, plain and simple.

Philip Lee
07-11-2007, 09:53 AM
after reading the review for FN2R and then the review of DC5R, it is very obvious that the market has moved on.

both reviews decribed the Type Rs as the same type of cars. ie. moderate output, excellent feedback, stiff ride and works well on smooth road. while the DC5R was compared with WRX and 200SX and was the definite FF king. the FN2R has became an also-ran.

i'd assume that if Autospeed reviews a FD2R, they would also come up with similar conclusion. however most people would just brand it as track tuned special and give it a god-like status, while the fundamental design are pretty similar.

i am not sure now whether it is good that Honda should stick to that "Type R philosophy" because obviously it is not competitive in terms of performance. but my question is "where to from here" for Honda. without FI, the gap is only going to be wider. Honda can only milk the goodwill from the name of Type R up to a certain extend.

"But if you want a car that handles well, goes strongly, is comfortable and effective, forget the Type R – there’re now just too many cars that do so much more."

the 1st car came to my mind is Golf GTI. it's an awesome car but i personally value driving experience higher than outright power so i'll get a Type R in early 08. but i concern for the future of Type R in general.

Philip Lee
07-11-2007, 09:56 AM
Brand loyalty is stupid, plain and simple.

i absolutely agree. but if Honda has strong loyalty, good for them. there must be some reasons why this is they case (rightly or wrongly) and i guess people's perferences are different in choosing products that are right for them.

ginganggooly
07-11-2007, 10:15 AM
i absolutely agree. but if Honda has strong loyalty, good for them. there must be some reasons why this is they case (rightly or wrongly) and i guess people's perferences are different in choosing products that are right for them.

People have different tastes; which i respect.

I guess my pet peeve is people who view the world with <insert brand here> coloured glasses. Classic example is the tool in question "ken", claiming no FWD handles better than the FN2R. All this type of behaviour does, is foster mediocrity in new releases; if consumers view new releases with a healthy amount of objective skepticism, you'll find that manufacturers would churn out more technically elegent creations... as opposed to things which leverage off past successes, but retain little spirit of the original concept.

I'm sure the FN2R is a good car in it's own right, it's just a shame when people fall victim to the marketing hype...

Philip Lee
07-11-2007, 10:25 AM
People have different tastes; which i respect.

I guess my pet peeve is people who view the world with <insert brand here> coloured glasses. Classic example is the tool in question "ken", claiming no FWD handles better than the FN2R. All this type of behaviour does, is foster mediocrity in new releases; if consumers view new releases with a healthy amount of objective skepticism, you'll find that manufacturers would churn out more technically elegent creations... as opposed to things which leverage off past successes, but retain little spirit of the original concept.

I'm sure the FN2R is a good car in it's own right, it's just a shame when people fall victim to the marketing hype...

but these people are still in the minority. Manufacturers will only acts on 2 main reasons: sales volumn and competition.

ginganggooly
07-11-2007, 10:30 AM
but these people are still in the minority. Manufacturers will only acts on 2 main reasons: sales volumn and competition.

The painful truth.

aaronng
07-11-2007, 10:50 AM
Brand loyalty is stupid, plain and simple.
There are many other things in life, not only cars, that are influenced by brand loyalty. I don't think that brand loyalty is stupid. But I do think that brand loyalty is stupid if you IMPOSE IT on someone else. :)

Philip Lee
07-11-2007, 10:51 AM
well unfortunately despite on what they claims about passion etc, it is still a business that they're running and they have shareholders to report to.