Dont believe those figures for a second..
The figures that they produced for the DC2R's 1/4 mile were dismal as well and werent anything close to low 14s as we all know they are capable of.
Originally Posted by Tofu
that is true..
Motor tested the TypeS to be 0-100 in 7.2s and 1/4 in 15.2s stock, and I've done better than their times.
These journalists need to learn how to drive.
I don't know why some people feel the need to defend the CTR at each occassion. This is now 2 Australian motor articles which are reporting similar times for the vehicle. That said - it is limited to the particular day of the test and those conditions. As you can see other cars have got better times too.
I am sure the CTR can do better but these are the times it recorded on that day. The motor was probably tight, blah blah blah. I am sure there are lots of situations where the CTR and the other cars can get a better time. But this is the time it recorded for this test in the same conditions as the other cars.
And the car was tested by an experienced racing driver. I don't have the article in front of me but I think his name is Ian Luffy.
I posted this in another CTR thread already, but I have been fortunate to tag along for 2 road tests (big me!) and I can tell you they do not go easy on the cars. They keep working on the car and try different methods within the time frame they have to get the best launch.
None of the car owners were able to match the times the journalists put down. Now they aren't the Best Drivers but they do go hard.
The CTR still did a respectable lap time, but how dearly would I love a current Honda model that could really mix it up with the fast guys! I guess it's frustrating when we know honda can do that but deliver something that's more aimed at being a Grand Tourer than all out ball tearer.
Last edited by mpd076-chuck; 17-08-2007 at 09:20 PM.
Reason: grammar
^^ exactly that is the time it got on that day with a good driver. You dont hear me complaining that the driver was crap because the SS got 14.1 over the 1/4 when last time Motor tested it they got 13.4. As long as the conditions were the same and the driver was the same that is a fair comparison of vehicles in the test.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .The CTR still did a respectable lap time, but how dearly would I love a current Honda model that could really mix it up with the fast guys! I guess it's frustrating when we know honda can do that but deliver something that's more aimed at being a Grand Tourer than all out ball tearer.
I totally agree.
Honda prides it's self on it's racing heritage and experience and yet,struggles to bring out a hi-performance car that should really be the class leader,instead you have cars like the Mini CS and Peugeot 207 GTI giving it a spanking
In the test they commented that :" its brillant drivetrain had to deal with such a heavy body." The CTR was 215kgs heavier than the Mini and 95 kgs heavier than the Peugeot GTI-how can the CTR compete with a substantially heavier body and no force induction?I realise that force induction is not part of the Type R philosophy however,as such is the case,we better get used to the Civic coming out in the tail end of performance tests.
The 15.5 secs for the 0-400m was actually quite good for the CTR and so was the 100-0 brake test.
The potential for better performance is available, but how do you get rid of 100kgs of excess weight
I would get a Pug 207GTI or an F1 R26 by Renault anyday over it. 3.X secs difference in lap time is almost an eternity.
The thing is, if Type R is really about racing then Honda ought to show other manufacturers they are as fast/faster than the competition. Naturally aspirated or turboed I do not care as long as the car has great balance.
HONDA really aren't very capable sometimes. Look at their dismal performances at F1. Barrichello came last in the last round. CTR also came last in the category. Lol. Even the Aurion beat it.
What constantly surprises me is how well the 350Z track edition fares during the tests over the years. Perhaps Honda might want to look towards that direction a bit. And give the cars more useable torque from factory, for christs sake.
Last edited by Omotesando; 17-08-2007 at 10:01 PM.
HONDA really aren't very capable sometimes. Look at their dismal performances at F1. Barrichello came last in the last round. CTR also came last in the category. Lol. Even the Aurion beat it.
What constantly surprises me is how well the 350Z track edition fares during the tests over the years. Perhaps Honda might want to look towards that direction a bit. And give the cars more useable torque from factory, for christs sake.
The thing is, this CTR was made to be a "cruiser" while (mis)using the Type R name. That's why Honda Japan didn't take the FN2R as the Type R like what they did previously with the UK-designed EP3R, instead opting to make their own Type R using the JDM Civic platform.
[S2000 rant]
I wish Honda came out with a rival to the 350Z. The S2000 doesn't count because that was made as the rival to the old Z3, SLK230 and old Boxster. It's time for a new model. 7 years is too long. It's like the NSX. By going too long without a new model, people will go for the newer and more "exciting" models. [/S2000 rant]
but anyway, back on topic..i went and bought the issue of Motor magazine with the BFYB and reading the article makes me wonder if because of this, sales (or resale value) of the CTR would suffer....
but anyway, back on topic..i went and bought the issue of Motor magazine with the BFYB and reading the article makes me wonder if because of this, sales (or resale value) of the CTR would suffer....
Possibly yes. I tell you what though - that Renault F1 R26 looks like a real cracker. It is a little more expensive than the CTR (around $45k) but it did pull out better lap and acceleration times than the 3MPS. Sounds awesome
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Q_ball
OZHONDA 4 LYFE!
Bookmarks