Wheels Magazine Civic Type R review

**yfin** · 25-07-2007 02:04 PM

The latest Wheels Magazine has a road test of the CTR. The Civic Type R does well and wins the test overall (includes manual Golf GTI).

But the performance figures are very dissapointing for the Civic if you compare to Honda's claim of 6.6 for 0-100kph.

The CTR achieved 0-100 in 7.8 seconds and a quarter of 15.5. Rolling 80-120 was also nothing special at 4.8 seconds.

I know that Honda has a job to do in marketing the Civic but this is WAY off the claimed times. These are Accord Euro times - not Type R times.

**gnx1987** · 25-07-2007 04:30 PM

is this the august issue?

**VTECACCORD** · 25-07-2007 04:31 PM

ugly car = ugly times

**aaronng** · 25-07-2007 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by yfin

The CTR achieved 0-100 in 7.8 seconds and a quarter of 15.5. Rolling 80-120 was also nothing special at 4.8 seconds.

I know that Honda has a job to do in marketing the Civic but this is WAY off the claimed times. These are Accord Euro times - not Type R times.

Accord Euro got 15.8s quarter mile and 80-120 of 5.5s (Nathan Ponchard, 5ºC, dry at Oran Park). The CTR still faster than the Euro. Who was the test driver, what was the track temperature and was it wet or dry? That could explain why the 0-100 time was the same as the Euro.

**PaZzMaN-R** · 25-07-2007 05:15 PM

its not a real type r so those times are not that dissapointing. its also not common for these types of tests to be BS! it could be joe shmo driving the car.... to many variables.

who cares about its straight line times, its not what honda is about and if thats all you care about go drive a holden.

**yfin** · 25-07-2007 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by aaronng

Accord Euro got 15.8s quarter mile and 80-120 of 5.5s (Nathan Ponchard, 5ºC, dry at Oran Park). The CTR still faster than the Euro. Who was the test driver, what was the track temperature and was it wet or dry? That could explain why the 0-100 time was the same as the Euro.

I don't have the article with me now. The VW GTI manual got 0-100 in 7.3 so that gives you an idea of where the CTR sits. I am pretty sure VW claims 7.1 and 6.9 for the DSG so it is not far off. The temp was 16 from memory.

Originally Posted by PaZzMaN-R

who cares about its straight line times, its not what honda is about and if thats all you care about go drive a holden.

How about you go and drive a Kia if you don't care about straight line times.

This is a Type R and Honda says it does 0-100 in 6.6. This is a credibility issue for Honda. Why claim a time in all the advertising if in the real world it is much slower than that.

**bennjamin** · 25-07-2007 05:44 PM

the higher honda times are due to the meters-above-sea-level. (according to the article). A NA motor works harder the higher up you go

The turbo'd engines were not as adversely affected as the lil honda donk.

**aaronng** · 25-07-2007 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by yfin

I don't have the article with me now. The VW GTI manual got 0-100 in 7.3 so that gives you an idea of where the CTR sits. The temp was 16 from memory.

Was the GTI the DSG or the manual? If it was the DSG, then that takes away the possibility of driver error, making that 7.3s the best possible time. The CTR's 7.8s could have been marred by driver error. If it was 16ºC, then the Euro at 5ºC also had a slight advantage due to the colder air.

**gnx1987** · 25-07-2007 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by bennjamin

the higher honda times are due to the meters-above-sea-level. (according to the article). A NA motor works harder the higher up you go

The turbo'd engines were not as adversely affected as the lil honda donk.

Yeah sounds like your reading out of the june issue and I slightly recall there being a mention of the location of the testing being somewhere pretty high up.

**PaZzMaN-R** · 25-07-2007 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by yfin

How about you go and drive a Kia if you don't care about straight line times.

This is a Type R and Honda says it does 0-100 in 6.6. This is a credibility issue for Honda. Why claim a time in all the advertising if in the real world it is much slower than that.

please dont direct your frustration with honda at me, i certainly did not publish those time nor did i do the 0-100km/h test.

i dont think i have ever seen a test done by any car magazine that matches that of the claimed time.

once again its not a TYPE R by performance specification, rather by name.... unfortunatly.

**sitta** · 25-07-2007 05:57 PM

Anyway the honda should win the loudnest contest that engine's sound at 8000rpm is so good it sounds like a racing car and turns me on!!!

**yfin** · 25-07-2007 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by aaronng

Was the GTI the DSG or the manual? If it was the DSG, then that takes away the possibility of driver error, making that 7.3s the best possible time. The CTR's 7.8s could have been marred by driver error. If it was 16ºC, then the Euro at 5ºC also had a slight advantage due to the colder air.

It was the manual aaron

Originally Posted by PaZzMaN-R

please dont direct your frustration with honda at me, i certainly did not publish those time nor did i do the 0-100km/h test.

i dont think i have ever seen a test done by any car magazine that matches that of the claimed time.

once again its not a TYPE R by performance specification, rather by name.... unfortunatly.

I don't agree with what you are saying. I read car magazines every month. Lots of car tests beat or match the times quoted by the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by bennjamin

the higher honda times are due to the meters-above-sea-level. (according to the article). A NA motor works harder the higher up you go

The turbo'd engines were not as adversely affected as the lil honda donk.

Are you you looking at the current issue? The article I was looking at is the latest issue - must have been released in the last few days.