fn2R 0-100km/h 6.7s

[bodaas]

click watch in high quality

watch the video and speedo :p

for those who still doubt to what honda claimed to be 6.6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H5I5L-miKA&feature=related

launch at 1km/h at video time 0:07/ 0:25

reach at 99km/h then 103 km/h at video time 0:13/ 0:25

104 km/h at video time 0:14/0:25


:thumbsup:

[yfin]

sorry mate - i still doubt it and i watched the video :p

People who have taken these to the strip - what have they achieved? Honda claims 14.8. That would be a more respectable test.

[damienm]

no way the FN2R does it in 6.6 my euro does it in a bit under 8 seconds n theres no way the FN2R felt more than 1 second faster to 100. I reckon its more like 7.0-7.5 seconds to 100

[aaronng]

I can't read the damn numbers in that fuzzy vid.

[aaronng]

no way the FN2R does it in 6.6 my euro does it in a bit under 8 seconds n theres no way the FN2R felt more than 1 second faster to 100. I reckon its more like 7.0-7.5 seconds to 100

You can't compare the Euro the the FN2R. The FN2R is lighter, has shorter ratios and could even have a lighter flywheel.

[bodaas]

I can't read the damn numbers in that fuzzy vid.

did you click high quality video?

you cant see the number, if you watch normal quality,

just look at the video time between 0:07 to 0:13 to 0:14, or use pause
and check the speedo, the video dont tell lies

i m bit sceptical too
but there are more article was saying that they had tested and prove it

so its up to the driver

[bodaas]

hmm .. but then again its all depend on so many factors to reach its 6.6 sec claim.. such as uphill or downhill road, road conditions, weather temperatures, number of passanger on the car, tyre conditions, driver ability .. bla bla etc etc

honestly.. sometime i feel my car is fast at a time and launch unexpectedly quick especially in cold weather and night but then again sometime is a bit sluggish during a hot summer day ..hell its almost the same as my previous ride which is a wrx ( sometime is violently quick sometime so sluggish) o well ..

[aaronng]

did you click high quality video?

you cant see the number, if you watch normal quality,

just look at the video time between 0:07 to 0:13 to 0:14, or use pause
and check the speedo, the video dont tell lies

i m bit sceptical too
but there are more article was saying that they had tested and prove it

so its up to the driver

Found it, thanks. The high quality thing appears only after the whole video is loaded on my retarded browser. It looks like 0:07 to 0:14. And even with that, the speedo could still be under reading and is also refreshed very slowly. I'd believe 7.0 to 7.x 0-100km/h time. If it was a 0-60mph time, then yes, it could be high 6.x.

[damienm]

You can't compare the Euro the the FN2R. The FN2R is lighter, has shorter ratios and could even have a lighter flywheel.

ive had the chance to drive the FN2R as my mate owns one and we often swap our cars so im familiar with how they both feel and just watching the speedo climb to 100, the FN2R doesnt feel significantly faster than the euro.

[aaronng]

ive had the chance to drive the FN2R as my mate owns one and we often swap our cars so im familiar with how they both feel and just watching the speedo climb to 100, the FN2R doesnt feel significantly faster than the euro.

Use a stopwatch next time. It is difficult to compare using feel when one car has a responsive needle speedometer and the other has a laggy digital speedo.

[damienm]

Use a stopwatch next time. It is difficult to compare using feel when one car has a responsive needle speedometer and the other has a laggy digital speedo.

haha yeh ive timed it but i just didnt want to give the impression that i was street racing. The FN2R shouldnt be considered a type R its just too heavy for a Type R it made a consistant 7- 7.5 0-100. Ive run the euro against the type r n the euro was only left behind by half a car length. I know that its also the driver but yeh theres no way its 6.6 seconds for the civic

[bodaas]

i just check this one out, very interesting article

type R vs clio sport

http://www.teamhondaturkey.com/forum/karsilastirmalar/2007_typer_vs_2007_clio_sport-t8704.0.html

honda claimed 6.6, they got 6.76s and 0-400 14.94

renault claimed clio to be 6.9, they got 7.41 and 0-400 15.28

not bad for heavy type r, weight reduction would get even better

there are some more about type R vs other, i just forgot the link, they got the same result just close to 6.7 6.8 6.9, well yeah, round up to 7 s ,
what honda claimed is right, i guess, it depends on the driver

[Philip Lee]

The FN2R shouldnt be considered a type R its just too heavy for a Type R

FN isn't too much heavier than FD (which everyone agrees is a true type r).

if u take the lower spec FN (which isn't available here and no i'm not talking about the special lightweight version), it's only like 20kg heavier than a FD.

the lower performance dues more to the engine and chassis.

[bodaas]

haha yeh ive timed it but i just didnt want to give the impression that i was street racing. The FN2R shouldnt be considered a type R its just too heavy for a Type R it made a consistant 7- 7.5 0-100. Ive run the euro against the type r n the euro was only left behind by half a car length. I know that its also the driver but yeh theres no way its 6.6 seconds for the civic



btw..half a car length between type r and accord euro at what speed or distance you talking about.. if you measured at 0-100 km/h ..then how did you measured it?..:confused:

[damienm]

btw..half a car length between type r and accord euro at what speed or distance you talking about.. if you measured at 0-100 km/h ..then how did you measured it?..:confused:

the 0-100 was measured with a stop watch but although it isnt accurate, i doubt itll break into the 6 seconds range. im not sure about the distance we ran for but i topped out 3rd in the euro which is 4th gear in the type r

[ekhybrid]

bodass why are u so caught up with 0-100km?

[Euro08Jaz]

no one like to be called a liar i suppose

[Nesquickie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqKLU92ISmY another video you guys might be interested in 0-100 in 6.2secs claim

[sitta]

cant really see.. might be a slight downhill

[nny911]

i swear just take it to the drag. time it . there u go

[VT1-R]

0-100 in 6.7s if slightly modded with bolt ons.. stock tto achieve that is unlikely unless going down a nice downhill or super driver...

[bodaas]

no one like to be called a liar i suppose

just be more specific

honda and magazine review claimed it high 6s
so they are liar

[Euro08Jaz]

lol very true, but im not calling anyone a liar unless the've had a fair opportunity to recreate the times

[Nepolian]

Im suprised that nobody on OH has bothered to take their FN2R out to WSID?

[LD_Mart]

When TDI did all there testing with the different mods quickest they could get was 7.2 for there stock FN2

[bodaas]

anyway i just want to say this

hopefully my thread does not encourage fn owner or other peoples to try this at home

if you do, then you deserve to be call "hopeless"

personally, i dont want to prove "myself" whether or not my car can do 6.7s, because the truth is out there,
i rather read the fact or review, because this guy know what they doing, their profession,
like euro08jaz said, they are liar, thats fine
i respect your opinion, i have nothing to argue with

so yeah, hopefully my thread doesnt effect other peoples to do stupid thing :thumbsup:

[GupZ]

anyway i just want to say this

hopefully my thread does not encourage fn owner or other peoples to try this at home

if you do, then you deserve to be call "hopeless"

personally, i dont want to prove "myself" whether or not my car can do 6.7s, because the truth is out there,
i rather read the fact or review, because this guy know what they doing, their profession,
like euro08jaz said, they are liar, thats fine
i respect your opinion, i have nothing to argue with

so yeah, hopefully my thread doesnt effect other peoples to do stupid thing :thumbsup:


Support ;)

[DreadAngel]

Oh FFS shove the magazine stats somewhere and lets see what everyday drivers can achieve, doesn't matter shit what BMI achieved or Motor or Wheels, etc... Pro Racing Drivers or experienced Motor Journos...

Lets see you take your FN2R down to WSID and run the 1/4, then we'll see what your car can achieve with your average Joe.

[Euro08Jaz]

hey im not calling anybody a liar, someone was asking why you were so hung up on the 0-100 and i meant that you intended to prove yourself as people didnt believe you.

dont go quoting me out of context.

[preludacris]

i'm pretty sure aus spec fn2R's are slower, mainly because its the GT edition which has all the curtain air bag, climate control etc standard.

the regular version fn2r in UK (non gt spec) is ~70kg lighter i believe.


So i don't think Honda is lying when they say 6.6 seconds. But there is no way they could do that with an extra 70kg on board.

we can all notice the difference when we have a 70kg passenger in the car right?

[UNLS1]

fn2r sounds like its goin faster then it actually is.

[curik]

I would not question the claimed 6.7s at all, and I believe it. However, it's a matter of consistency. Out of 10 0-100 runs I'd say there might be 1-2 under 7s runs. So conclusion is it's achievable, but not easy and a tad optimistic. Whereas if you drive like a golf gti, lot's of people can do better than the claimed 7.2s without much effort.

[moons]

So.. a rather large car company most people on here seem to worship blindly, just happen to have got the 0-100 times wrong in the FN2 PR material by over a second.

And, they have decided to keep it wrong for over a year now.

That makes almost as much sense as people believing there is an actual Type R philosophy and its not marketing spin.. hang on.

LOL.

[preludacris]

mate, i think you will notice, the majority of us do not worship honda blindly. in fact, imo a good percentage of us users, respect and enjoy other car makes aswell. in my experience, a lot more than other car make forums.

anywho. i agree, that the 6.6 second time, should not be used in Australia. Unless Aus are also offering the edition without curtain airbags etc as standard, then they shouldn't be marketing the performances specs from it.

[sitta]

anywho. i agree, that the 6.6 second time, should not be used in Australia. Unless Aus are also offering the edition without curtain airbags etc as standard, then they shouldn't be marketing the performances specs from it.

i agree good point

[m0nty ITR]

I've never seen people go to the lengths that FN2 owners would to convince people that their car isn't slow.

[LD_Mart]

my fn2 is slow...im not trying to convince anyone it is fast..
i love it though...pretty economic on the fuel and is nippy enough to have go
when it needs to..

[bodaas]

i m not really convince anyone to believe

i post the video, so you can watch it, this guy could do such perfect launching

but i still feeling sceptical too, because i always comparing this car performance to xr6t, ford claimed xr6T close to the same figure,

so i believe now 0.2 0.3 0.4 s, make such big different

many people can call this car slow,
to me its got better performance as xr5T, dc5r, sportivo, liberty turbo, mr2, cx9, close to 350z and there are more

anyway, its all up to driver, road condition, weather etc etc

also, lets have conversation only, but please dont try this at home heheh

[yfin]

but i still feeling sceptical too, because i always comparing this car performance to xr6t, ford claimed xr6T close to the same figure,


You will not find a more different car to the Civic Type R than the XR6T. The way they make their power is very different. Huge low down torque vs power at top of rev range. You can't really compare them - and I don't see how they are similar in performance numbers either.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/MiniSite/MiniSiteArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=51245&vf=28&MiniSiteID=8

[m0nty ITR]

many people can call this car slow,
to me its got better performance as xr5T, dc5r, sportivo, liberty turbo, mr2, cx9, close to 350z and there are more



Where'd you get these 2 from? The CX9 is a 7 seater 4WD and the Z chomps an FN2.

[yfin]

Where'd you get these 2 from? The CX9 is a 7 seater 4WD and the Z chomps an FN2.

I agree. Some real testing facts. Wheels August 2007. Times tested with VBOX. Note the speed indicated at 100kph - so a CTR driver reading the speedo thinks they are going faster than the "actual" road speed.

Track: Tooradin Airport
Temp: 8 degrees
Driver: Maurie Piatt

CTR
Speed at indicated 100kph: 92
0-60kph: 3.7
0-80kph: 5.3
0-100kph: 7.8
0-120kph: 10.3
0-140kph: 14.0
0-160kph: -
0-400m: 15.5 @ 148kph

80-120: 4.8 seconds

************

Another - Motor Magazine - September 2007.

0-100km in 7.7 sec
0-400m in 15.5 @ 148.4kph
0-1000m in 28.1 sec @ 189.7kph
80-120 (3rd) 4.8 sec
100km - 0 in 37.8 metres
Lap time 1:14.49 (Wakefield)
Apex speed 80.67km

[bodaas]

You will not find a more different car to the Civic Type R than the XR6T. The way they make their power is very different. Huge low down torque vs power at top of rev range. You can't really compare them - and I don't see how they are similar in performance numbers either.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/MiniSite/MiniSiteArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=51245&vf=28&MiniSiteID=8

i am talking about the previous model, ford claimed high 6s

[DreadAngel]

launching start for the first 0.1 secs before the VQ35HR rips your ass open lol

[aaronng]

i am talking about the previous model, ford claimed high 6s

Previous XR6T was a had a real life 0-100km/h of 5.9 seconds though

[aaronng]

i d say 350z close to fn2 launching start, that my opinion, but hey you dont have to agree with that
Have you gone against a 350z? If the 350z launches like how you launch the FN2R, it will be ahead of you for quite a bit. If it didn't launch as hard, he'd be pulling you in as soon as you have to shift into 2nd gear.

[yfin]

Rolling acceleration is where the Civic Type R is really hurt and that is where day to day driving is. eg 80-120 in 4.8 seconds is an example of the lack of torque. Lots of cars will thrash that and pass the Civic like it is standing still. And i am not saying that to be smart - it is just a weakness in the Civic that you need to work around. Even the base model "taxi" Falcon XT is 80-120 in 4.8 seconds so I personally don't see a contest between many of the cars you list "Xr6t, Xr5T, liberty turbo, 350z..."

The CTR will claw a lot back on the track though...

[bodaas]

ford claimed previous xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:


Have you gone against a 350z? If the 350z launches like how you launch the FN2R, it will be ahead of you for quite a bit. If it didn't launch as hard, he'd be pulling you in as soon as you have to shift into 2nd gear.

you almost got that right, pretty close

[yfin]

ford claimed xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:
you almost got that right, pretty close

lol if that is the case then Ford is being very fair with its quoted 6.6 time on the old 240kw model.

Unlike the CTR, where the testers are struggling to achieve Honda's claimed 6.6 seconds. To achieve Honda's time the moon has to align with Uranus, the driver needs to weigh less than 55kg, temperature needs to be 2 degrees, and the launch blessed by the Pope.

[m0nty ITR]

Unlike the CTR, where Honda claimed 6.6 seconds. To achieve Honda's time the moon has to align with Uranus, the driver needs to weigh less than 55kg, temperature needs to be 2 degrees, and the launch blessed by the Pope.

I like those odds. :p

What's the roll down percentage on the speedo of the FN2? Most cars these days show 8% higher than actual speed.

[aaronng]

ford claimed previous xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:

Ford quoted 6.6s, but the car gets 5.9s. Honda quoted 6.6s, but the car can only do 6.7 if you follow the 100km/h number on the speedo, which actually means 0-92km/h in 6.7s, not 0-100,

[yfin]

What's the roll down percentage on the speedo of the FN2? Most cars these days show 8% higher than actual speed.

I don't think 8% is the norm at all - I think it is ridiculously off for such a modern car.

So FN2R indicated 100kph = travelling at 92kph

Compared to cars I have had:

1991 Honda Civic indicted 100kph = travelling at 97kph
Accord Euro indicated 100kph = travelling at 96kph
Holden VE SS indicated 100kph = travelling at 97kph
Ford FG XR6 Turbo indicated 100kph = travelling at 99kph

[bodaas]

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

[m0nty ITR]

On Volkswagen you can display actual via the climatronic unit. At 120km/h on the speedo this morning I was doing 108km/h on the climatronic unit. Makes a big difference between aruns when you travel the F3 every day.

[yfin]

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

November 2002 was a long time ago, many revisions to the XR6T in that time - do you really want to compare your new car to something 6 years old? That test was even before the 6 speed manual gearbox! And even with the 5 speed manual in 2002 they say it was a gentle launch to get 6.6 seconds. And hand timing - old school unreliable test anyway.
Giving it just a gentle launch with two people onboard we hand-timed a 0 - 100 km/h sprint in 6.6-seconds. With a bit of practice, though, we reckon the XR could crack 6-seconds flat - seriously cookin'.

[yfin]

On Volkswagen you can display actual via the climatronic unit. At 120km/h on the speedo this morning I was doing 108km/h on the climatronic unit. Makes a big difference between aruns when you travel the F3 every day.

how does it work out the actual? Is that via sat nav? GPS really is the best way.

[aaronng]

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

With a "gentle launch" and 2 ppl. Imagine if it was the auto with a full bore launch. :)

[DreadAngel]

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

Correction, thats only one of many publications...

[DreadAngel]

lol if that is the case then Ford is being very fair with its quoted 6.6 time on the old 240kw model.

Unlike the CTR, where the testers are struggling to achieve Honda's claimed 6.6 seconds. To achieve Honda's time the moon has to align with Uranus, the driver needs to weigh less than 55kg, temperature needs to be 2 degrees, and the launch blessed by the Pope.

In otherwords only the Vaticans have achieved this monumental achievement ;)

[fasthonda]

Rolling acceleration is where the Civic Type R is really hurt and that is where day to day driving is. eg 80-120 in 4.8 seconds is an example of the lack of torque. Lots of cars will thrash that and pass the Civic like it is standing still. And i am not saying that to be smart - it is just a weakness in the Civic that you need to work around. Even the base model "taxi" Falcon XT is 80-120 in 4.8 seconds so I personally don't see a contest between many of the cars you list "Xr6t, Xr5T, liberty turbo, 350z..."

The CTR will claw a lot back on the track though...

Not criticising the above comment, I feel that even if the JDM Type R was imported to Australia this is the type of comment that would surface time and time again.A Civic or even a Type R (JDM) Civic never has and probably will never match a turbo competitors in-gear acceleration.
So....I'm wondering....why all the disappointment with Honda not bringing in the FD2 if some of the comments clearly show that people are more interested in cars with "low down grunt"(turbos etc):confused:

[LD_Mart]

Just thought id throw in some figures

CPL Racing UK

0-100kph - 7.2
0-160kph - 18.3
Quarter mile - 15.6 @ 149.3km/h
50-110kph - 7.3
110-190kph - 20.4

************

Speed at indicated 100kph: 92
0-60kph: 3.7
0-80kph: 5.3
0-100kph: 7.8
0-120kph: 10.3
0-140kph: 14.0
0-160kph: -
0-400m: 15.5 @ 148kph

80-120: 4.8 seconds

************

Another - Motor Magazine - September 2007.

0-100km in 7.7 sec
0-400m in 15.5 @ 148.4kph
0-1000m in 28.1 sec @ 189.7kph
80-120 (3rd) 4.8 sec
100km - 0 in 37.8 metres
Lap time 1:14.49 (Wakefield)
Apex speed 80.67km

[bodaas]

November 2002 was a long time ago, many revisions to the XR6T in that time - do you really want to compare your new car to something 6 years old? That test was even before the 6 speed manual gearbox! And even with the 5 speed manual in 2002 they say it was a gentle launch to get 6.6 seconds. And hand timing - old school unreliable test anyway.
Giving it just a gentle launch with two people onboard we hand-timed a 0 - 100 km/h sprint in 6.6-seconds. With a bit of practice, though, we reckon the XR could crack 6-seconds flat - seriously cookin'.


i dont know what to say bro, i think i misunderstood you

i said this bfore

ford claimed previous xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:


i got the figures 6.6s from the car test review,which is wrong, because i read that part

Giving it just a gentle launch with two people onboard we hand-timed a 0 - 100 km/h sprint in 6.6-seconds. With a bit of practice, though, we reckon the XR could crack 6-seconds flat - seriously cookin'.
[/QUOTE]
so thats my correction

[fasthonda]

Below is a part copy of one of my previous posts under another topic.It shows the current issue of Motor with the following figures for the FN2 :-


0-100 km/h 6.99 secs.
0-400m 14.91 secs.

The main criticism was of course ,the weight of the FN2 which they mentioned induced understeer.

FN2 1345 Kgs
GTi 1250 Kgs
CLIO 1221 Kgs
MINI CS 1130 Kgs

[bodaas]

Have you gone against a 350z? If the 350z launches like how you launch the FN2R, it will be ahead of you for quite a bit. If it didn't launch as hard, he'd be pulling you in as soon as you have to shift into 2nd gear.

i prolly say 350z would started to move ahead quite a bit as soon as i shift 3rd to 4rd gear,

[ktvin09]

Some of you may be interested in the clip below, Fifth Gear 0-62mph (0-100kmh) lies:

http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?mnk=410&id=228&description=0-62+Lies

[fasthonda]

Some of you may be interested in the clip below, Fifth Gear 0-62mph (0-100kmh) lies:

http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?mnk=410&id=228&description=0-62+Lies

Good find!

The clip shows that it's not just Honda that gives out dodgy figures.
I think manufacturers must test their cars on some sort of dyno to get those 0-100km/h figures.:confused:

[LD_Mart]

awesome video good find...
haha mazda- the car was tested down hill

[m0nty ITR]

Good find!

The clip shows that it's not just Honda that gives out dodgy figures.
I think manufacturers must test their cars on some sort of dyno to get those 0-100km/h figures.:confused:

They don't put anywhere near as much thought and work into it as people would believe. Alot of it is just placement for marketing, making sure it sits in the right group in the market.

[Mugen_B16B]

dam i heard this car is faster then an ferrari enzo

[moons]

But slower than a FD2R, no doubt.

[Mugen_B16B]

no way u cant say that bout this guys car, its the quickest honda around, u better watch out or he spam u with esl pms

[johnnyluu]

what mods does bodass have that makes his car so quick?

[ktld]

lol sarcasm dude

[aaronng]

If you are just going to spam this thread with sarcasm, then it's closed.