Weighing up pros and cons: AUDM DC2r/DC5r versus AUDM S15 200sx

[r3ckless]

With respect to the relevant posters, what I find a little curious is the criticism of the S15's "turbo lag" and yet, there is no corresponding balancing comment on "Vtec lag".

Similarly, the comment about the S15's apparent lack of "top end pull" is not fairly balanced with any comment about the Type R's lack of bottom end and mid range pull (where we tend to do most of our driving).

The S15 runs a relatively small T28 turbo, which makes boost from as early as 2,000rpm.

Type R's don't come into the aggressive cam profile until around 5,500rpm and beyond (and that's where you need to keep the tacho if you really want to get moving).

Now, given that the intended use here is for a daily driver, where would you tend to spend more of your time - at 2000rpm or 5,500rpm?

Granted we are on a Honda forum but a bit of balance never hurts!

To inject a more balanced perspective between the cars, have a look at what NRMA had to say:

https://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xc...002_1000km.htm

Some excerpts from the review:

"Midrange urge [from the Type R] is respectable enough, though the Nissan 200SX is strongest in the three way contest and the Subaru WRX is also more emphatic from 4000 rpm. Both are also quicker than the Integra from 0-100 km/h."

"The Integra Type R is probably as competent as a front-drive sports car can get. Nissan's rear drive 200SX and Subaru's all-wheel-drive WRX, however, are less expensive, superior on the road and easier to live with."

Some excerpts from the review:

"Extracting 147 kW from a 2.0 litre naturally aspirated four is a technical marvel. The Nissan's 200SX and Subaru's WRX need high boost turbos to achieve 147 and 160 kW respectively."

"The I-VTEC 2.0 litre is very economical given its output, using 7.0 litres/100 km on the highway and 11.3 litres/100 km around town."

On the note of a "daily driver" as the above poster mentioned, I particularly like the second quote. What performance sports car can deliver the same power output, yet have a much lower fuel consumption.

Having said that, I think its easy to see from all the above posters that the debate between a Type R vs a S15 is that for any future Type R/S15 owners, see what you really want out of the car, I only an Integra myself, and I must admit, ever since it became purely a weekend car, I am bored of it and have been trolling around on othe forums seeing what else is available on the market at present.

Yes the DC5, in my eyes is a great all around car. Its got the 2 door look, but can easily fit 4 people. Its got a decent power output, yet will give me a fuel consumption of 9.0L/100km. Again it is just a 2 door, but has a massive boot. Having said this, as I use it as a weekend car, all of these features are becoming obsolete to my situation.

I am still unsure of what/where I want to go, but that will all be left for another day as i'm hungry and going down to get some ice cream. kthnxbye

[cyber_scriber]

On the note of a "daily driver" as the above poster mentioned, I particularly like the second quote. What performance sports car can deliver the same power output, yet have a much lower fuel consumption.

I agree that if you'll be doing a lot of K's on the daily grind, then fuel economy does come into consideration. You'd be surprised though at the S15's fuel economy. Bear in mind that it is a relatively light weight and small displacement turbo charged engine. Here are the official Government fuel economy figures for both cars:

a) Type R - 9L/100klm city cycle; 7.2L/100klm highway cycle
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bi...vehicleid=6921

b) 200sx - 10L/100klm city cycle; 7.0L/100klm highway cycle
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bi...vehicleid=7147

There's not much in it and in fact, according to the official figures, the 200sx is actually more fuel efficient on the highway. I'm guessing this is to do with gearing (i.e. the Type R has very short gearing so you rev higher at highway speeds) and the 200sx's more efficient torque delivery and the fact that it's often off boost at highway speeds.

Now of course, the official Government figures won't represent what we'll get in the real world. However, they are performed under controlled conditions and are useful for comparative purposes.

I think the real cost killer will be insurance. RWD + turbo usually means high premiums so that is a minus for the 200sx. This may be balanced out somewhat by the higher Type R / Honda servicing costs.

Honda should certainly be commended on making an NA engine with a very high power output for the engine size. Whilst it may deliver "the same [power] output", I think the fact that we need to consider is that it is making nowhere near the same torque output. For a daily driver and for better driveability, torque is very important and this is why the Type R is a far more frenetic car to pilot in traffic.

it is just a 2 door, but has a massive boot. Having said this, as I use it as a weekend car, all of these features are becoming obsolete to my situation.

I am still unsure of what/where I want to go, but that will all be left for another day

If you like the Type R philosophy and have no requirements for a boot, perhaps something from the Lotus range?

[Mikecivic78]

I agree that if you'll be doing a lot of K's on the daily grind, then fuel economy does come into consideration. You'd be surprised though at the S15's fuel economy. Bear in mind that it is a relatively light weight and small displacement turbo charged engine. Here are the official Government fuel economy figures for both cars:

a) Type R - 9L/100klm city cycle; 7.2L/100klm highway cycle
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bi...vehicleid=6921

b) 200sx - 10L/100klm city cycle; 7.0L/100klm highway cycle
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bi...vehicleid=7147

There's not much in it and in fact, according to the official figures, the 200sx is actually more fuel efficient on the highway. I'm guessing this is to do with gearing (i.e. the Type R has very short gearing so you rev higher at highway speeds) and the 200sx's more efficient torque delivery and the fact that it's often off boost at highway speeds.

Now of course, the official Government figures won't represent what we'll get in the real world. However, they are performed under controlled conditions and are useful for comparative purposes.

I think the real cost killer will be insurance. RWD + turbo usually means high premiums so that is a minus for the 200sx. This may be balanced out somewhat by the higher Type R / Honda servicing costs.

Honda should certainly be commended on making an NA engine with a very high power output for the engine size. Whilst it may deliver "the same [power] output", I think the fact that we need to consider is that it is making nowhere near the same torque output. For a daily driver and for better driveability, torque is very important and this is why the Type R is a far more frenetic car to pilot in traffic.



If you like the Type R philosophy and have no requirements for a boot, perhaps something from the Lotus range?

Another good post scriber!

Moderators, give this guy some rep pls!!!! I dont have enough rep power to lift him above noob status. To be honest, many people do not give out rep when it's due. I ALWAYS rep useful posts, but as I only have 15 QPs, I can't affect other peoples status.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and he doesn't deserve credit.... but could someone look into it?