2006 Civic Type-r

smash

Just looking at the specs on it.

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/civic_type-r.asp

Only 200bhp - would have thought it was higher than this.

kluivert

Are you serious. IMO for a N/A engine thats very good.

Thats the same as the Golf GTi and the GTi has a turbo.

Think about adding a turbo to the 'R and watch her move.

The new Civic's are i-VTEC engines, great piece of engineering.

MPG should be far better than any other hot hatch out there.

pburns

200 bhp is plenty on a small fwd hatchback. Torque & MPG are more important day-to-day.

drdre

the new civic looks disgusting.and 200bhp, .
i would prefer a new shape integra type r or even a gti or of course the opc.
200bhp seems really scabby

kc66

That car looks like it has been crashed head on. Its ugly.

kluivert

Get a grip will ya all you conservative types.

200bhp from a N/A engine K20A I-VTEC engine is cracking.

No other similiar car can produce that power output with a urbo or supercharger attached.

If you see the Civic if person it looks alot better than on the website.

Give me the 1.8 Civic Black with Cream Leather any day.

weemcd

i like the look of the car actually, i think its perfect aside from that dam 80's piece of sh!t-plastic spoilerish thing. looks AWFUL.

200bhp is pleanty for fwd cars, as tiff himself said 200 is the sweet spot for a small fwd car anything more and its torque steer - population you. also very impressive considering the lack of a turbo

smash

drdre wrote:

200bhp seems really scabby

That's what I was thinking.... they could have given it a more powerfull engine to give it a bit more of a kick.

bazz26

Didn't the outgoing Civic Type R have 225bhp or is it the Integra?

drdre

steve06 wrote:

That's what I was thinking.... they could have given it a more powerfull engine to give it a bit more of a kick.

yeah and also the shape looks weird.i still love the new integra shape and its got more bhp over 220bhp.

unkel

Isn't the engine exactly the same as was in the outgoing type-R since 2001?

As others said, very impressive for N/A and about the max most FWD cars can handle. Mind, both max power and max torque are only reached at very high rpm. Great on a racing circuit, but pretty useless in day to day driving

seanybiker

Awww lads the new civic is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen on the road. there manky. Granted Im a bike rider, which means I'd piss most cars off the road anywyas lol. but the new civic is cat looking. Import an ould mustang for yourselfs.

kluivert

bazz26 wrote:

Didn't the outgoing Civic Type R have 225bhp or is it the Integra?

Thats the DC5 2L i-VTEC

drdre

kluivert wrote:

Thats the DC5 2L i-VTEC

i love the dc5, i seen a lovely one in sandyford with carbon fibre exterior.and white body colour:eek:

jayok

Jeez, some people are never happy.

200PS or 197 BHP is the output power from the 8th Gen Civic Type-R. No matter what you think from an NA engine that is impressive. The GTI only achieves that with a turbo. What most people don't understand is that the Type-R is about the driving experience - not max power. Therefore power to weight, response, balance etc all come to the fore.

The DC5 Integra, yes has more power than the Civic Type-R but is also a heavier car and need this. Really what are you going to do with 240BHP at the front wheels of the Civic? Not a whole lot with control that's for sure.

Another key advantage with the iVTEC engine is that it isn't actually lumbered with a turbo. Honda haven't been keen on turbos for petrol due to lag and heavy fuel consumption as such they focused on delivering more power through RPM than force. I mean if you really want Turbo buy a diesel.

NeMiSiS

Was thinking o buying a 02 - 03 Type R, anything I should be .. wary of ?
TK

layke

unkel wrote:

Isn't the engine exactly the same as was in the outgoing type-R since 2001?

As others said, very impressive for N/A and about the max most FWD cars can handle. Mind, both max power and max torque are only reached at very high rpm. Great on a racing circuit, but pretty useless in day to day driving

No they changed engines when they ruined the sleek and sexy look of the civic in 2002 with that pug ugly monstrosity that lasted till 2005. 2006 has the same engine but now they have brought back the type-r.

True on the torque, mine only hits it's power band at about 4,500 rpm and then shoots to 7k (and then further down the red line). But what makes a civic quick and reliable is the weight it has, there it's light so it works out.

However put one passenger in there and you'll notice a huge difference in your acceleration.

jayok wrote:

Jeez, some people are never happy.
The DC5 Integra, yes has more power than the Civic Type-R but is also a heavier car and need this. Really what are you going to do with 240BHP at the front wheels of the Civic? Not a whole lot with control that's for sure.

One of my mates have done this and he has an LSD, which you most sorely need. Without it the car is all over the road. Other then that being in it as both passenger & driver it took a little getting used to. However once I settled in it became quite a nice driving experience.

Mc-BigE

i would prefer the new Audi S3 coming out the end of this year

same 2.0 turbo engine as the golf gti but tuned to 270bhp (this is the latest figure being mentioned - seems high for a 2.0 litre)

Permanent 4wd
Civic -type R beater.


http://cars.msn.co.uk/carnews/audis3spiedmar06/

sneakyST

yeah and it will cost 3 bizillion yoyo when VRT man get his hands on it;)

jayok

layke wrote:

No they changed engines when they ruined the sleek and sexy look of the civic in 2002 with that pug ugly monstrosity that lasted till 2005. 2006 has the same engine but now they have brought back the type-r.

Well there's a BIG difference between the D16A in the 6th gen Type-R and the K20 in 7th Gen. So I wouldn't even try to compare. Yes the 6th Gen 1.6 put out 185 BHP but you need to push this to 8,000 RPM before anything really started. It was also as safe as driving around in a crisp bag. Wouldn't recommend anyone buy one!

One of my mates have done this and he has an LSD, which you most sorely need. Without it the car is all over the road. Other then that being in it as both passenger & driver it took a little getting used to. However once I settled in it became quite a nice driving experience.

In a 7th Gen CTR? Wasn't aware LSD was available.

Mc-BigE wrote:

same 2.0 turbo engine as the golf gti but tuned to 270bhp (this is the latest figure being mentioned - seems high for a 2.0 litre)

Permanent 4wd
Civic -type R beater.

Yawn - another overpriced, underspec'd German barge (aka the mid-life crises 05 Golf GTI that is becoming as common as muck at the mo). As an overweight car with the 4WD sapping power it'll need that 270 BHP just to get off the lights. Only Audi's to impress me is the RS stuff. Civic Type-R beater - maybe but they aren't really in competition. Probably better compared to a Imprezza - actually that's an insult to the Imprezza

Mc-BigE

jayok wrote:

Yawn - another overpriced, underspec'd German barge (aka the mid-life crises 05 Golf GTI that is becoming as common as muck at the mo). As an overweight car with the 4WD sapping power it'll need that 270 BHP just to get off the lights. Only Audi's to impress me is the RS stuff. Civic Type-R beater - maybe but they aren't really in competition. Probably better compared to a Imprezza - actually that's an insult to the Imprezza

Overpriced- definitely but the civic r won't be cheap! (But it will feel it:D )
Underspec'd- disagree with you there, should have all the goodies the civic will have.

Have you ever driven a Quattro? I know what car I’d prefer in a corner:)

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

jayok wrote:

Well there's a BIG difference between the D16A in the 6th gen Type-R and the K20 in 7th Gen. So I wouldn't even try to compare. Yes the 6th Gen 1.6 put out 185 BHP but you need to push this to 8,000 RPM before anything really started. It was also as safe as driving around in a crisp bag. Wouldn't recommend anyone buy one!




In a 7th Gen CTR? Wasn't aware LSD was available.



Yawn - another overpriced, underspec'd German barge (aka the mid-life crises 05 Golf GTI that is becoming as common as muck at the mo). As an overweight car with the 4WD sapping power it'll need that 270 BHP just to get off the lights. Only Audi's to impress me is the RS stuff. Civic Type-R beater - maybe but they aren't really in competition. Probably better compared to a Imprezza - actually that's an insult to the Imprezza

and unlike all German cars... the civic will work all the time...

Big Balls

jayok wrote:

Yawn - another overpriced, underspec'd German barge (aka the mid-life crises 05 Golf GTI that is becoming as common as muck at the mo). As an overweight car with the 4WD sapping power it'll need that 270 BHP just to get off the lights. Only Audi's to impress me is the RS stuff. Civic Type-R beater - maybe but they aren't really in competition. Probably better compared to a Imprezza - actually that's an insult to the Imprezza

You clearly haven't driven the GTI, a barge it ain't.

I can't believe you have the balls to come on and slate a car like the S3. It came with full leather Recaros, climate, 18s and 225bhp in the latter models all back 5 years ago in 2001.

So how you can assume the new model will be underspecced I do not know.

I might point out as a GTI owner that it has more torque than the new Type R and a lot of that is produced a LOT earlier than the Civic will do.

After 18,000 kms, my front tyres at €240 a corner are gone, I dunno how/why manufacturers are putting much more than 220 bhp ish into FWD hatches as it just ruins them.

jayok

Big Balls wrote:

You clearly haven't driven the GTI, a barge it ain't.

Actually I have and it's all about the experience. The GTI is a wonderful car, nice with good low end torque, but it just doesn't handle or give you the thrill of like a Type-R. I am sorry, but it just doesn't. The GTI is about giving you comforts (leather seats, cruise, etc) and the poke. The Type-R is about the driving. *IF* I wanted a straight line car for motor way cruising then yes, I'd look at a GTI. Around town, twisty bends it just doesn't feel as sure-footed. Now the Type-R is noisy, rev's to high-heaven, minimal spec (no a/c as standard) but handles like a train on rails and when push the VTEC really lets you feel alive. I just done see the same thrill from the GTI. The Type-R is a drivers car the GTI is a family car with a good bit of poke. Hence its proving popular with thirtysomethings (can get insurance and kids in)

I can't believe you have the balls to come on and slate a car like the S3. It came with full leather Recaros, climate, 18s and 225bhp in the latter models all back 5 years ago in 2001.

So how you can assume the new model will be underspecced I do not know.

As I said the S3 just isn't special enough to warrant it. I am NOT comparing this to a Type-R as they just are in the same class (S3 is higher).

Re the new model - it's to keep the base cost down.

I might point out as a GTI owner that it has more torque than the new Type R and a lot of that is produced a LOT earlier than the Civic will do.

After 18,000 kms, my front tyres at €240 a corner are gone, I dunno how/why manufacturers are putting much more than 220 bhp ish into FWD hatches as it just ruins them.

The GTI has more torque because of the use of the Turbo. This is great for boosting low end torque but comes at the cost of rev limits, weight, and fuel consumption. Again it's about experience - if I wanted low end torque I'd buy a diesel. The "R" in Type-R is for Racing this is what you are buying.

I supposed what I am really trying to say is that the GTI and Type-R server different purposes. Each to their own. If you want a comfortable daily-runner, with the good bit of lift when you need it buy a GTI. If you want the noise, and bone shaker experience and indeed thrill of driving buy a Type-R - each to their own.

Zascar

I've just bought a 2002 Civic Type R and I am 100% delighed with my purchase. Mine has a little work done to it so it is pushing 220BHP and believe me this is a quick car. The balance is incredible you can chuck it round corners unline any other car I've driven. Its very comfortable yet still has the racing feel. Unlike the Golf GTI which is like an arm chair with a turbo.

Mc-BigE

jayok wrote:

Actually I have and it's all about the experience. The GTI is a wonderful car, nice with good low end torque, but it just doesn't handle or give you the thrill of like a Type-R. I am sorry, but it just doesn't. The GTI is about giving you comforts (leather seats, cruise, etc) and the poke. The Type-R is about the driving. *IF* I wanted a straight line car for motor way cruising then yes, I'd look at a GTI. Around town, twisty bends it just doesn't feel as sure-footed. Now the Type-R is noisy, rev's to high-heaven, minimal spec (no a/c as standard) but handles like a train on rails and when push the VTEC really lets you feel alive. I just done see the same thrill from the GTI. The Type-R is a drivers car the GTI is a family car with a good bit of poke. Hence its proving popular with thirtysomethings (can get insurance and kids in)


As I said the S3 just isn't special enough to warrant it. I am NOT comparing this to a Type-R as they just are in the same class (S3 is higher).

Re the new model - it's to keep the base cost down.



The GTI has more torque because of the use of the Turbo. This is great for boosting low end torque but comes at the cost of rev limits, weight, and fuel consumption. Again it's about experience - if I wanted low end torque I'd buy a diesel. The "R" in Type-R is for Racing this is what you are buying.

I supposed what I am really trying to say is that the GTI and Type-R server different purposes. Each to their own. If you want a comfortable daily-runner, with the good bit of lift when you need it buy a GTI. If you want the noise, and bone shaker experience and indeed thrill of driving buy a Type-R - each to their own.

All good points, I suppose I should drive a Type-R before I dismiss it, but I would imagine that needing to rev the engine hard every time you want to push it must be bad for the engine and gearbox and overtime might get frustrating.

NeMiSiS

V-Tec engines are designed to be reved hard, you aint doing anything to it, that it wasn't intended to do.. just make sure and keep oil in it though..

Zascar, I'm half thinking of getting the same myself
TK

Mayshine

Mc-BigE wrote:

All good points, I suppose I should drive a Type-R before I dismiss it, but I would imagine that needing to rev the engine hard every time you want to push it must be bad for the engine and gearbox and overtime might get frustrating.

Hence the reason we see so many Hondas breaking down on the side of the road. :rolleyes:

Mc-BigE

Mayshine wrote:

Hence the reason we see so many Hondas breaking down on the side of the road. :rolleyes:

Yes, saw top gear a few years ago and JC was on about the reliability if VTEC engine in the S2000 that there has been very little complete engine failures in all VTEC engines in the world, is this true?

mayshine, I was mainly referring to the revving of the engine hard to get power. compared to a car that has low end torque, to me that sounds frustrating to constantly "ring the cars neck" to get all the power.

as I said I’ve never driven a vtec, but I had a 2.7 bi-turbo S4 up to a few months back (no it didn't break down!...yet) and that car revved to 7500rpm but never needed to go above 5 or 6K to get enough power to take on most.
not a fair comparison but just comparing a high rev n/a car to a turbo car.

jayok

Mc-BigE wrote:

Yes, saw top gear a few years ago and JC was on about the reliability if VTEC engine in the S2000 that there has been very little complete engine failures in all VTEC engines in the world, is this true?

Actually there has been no warranty VTEC failures recorded by Honda!

as I said I’ve never driven a vtec

Its just one of those things you have to do - just once

Mayshine

To be honest Mc-BigE, before I got my honda I would have said the same as you, but then I drove one, and then I bought one

Its hard to describe because every other car you have ever driven just doesn't really seem to enjoy being redlined, then you get in the honda (s2000 in my case) and the bast*rd car just keeps telling you to rev it. It enjoys it and therefore you start to enjoy it too.

Then there is that noise. Its fantastic.

It appeals to a certain type of driver (an not a lazy one, that is for sure) but if you are not that type of driver, then I would agree with you that revving it for power could be frustrating.

However if you are that type of driver then you will enjoy the purity of a normally aspirated engine, the crisp linear throttle inputs, the engineering skill in delivering that amount of power without resorting to forced induction well then you'll enjoy a vtec engine. Its why BMW M cars and Ferraris and 911 GT3s and some others are special also. Honda have managed to give you that special feeling (in terms of engine) that you usually have to pay much more for

Big Balls

Zascar wrote:

Unlike the Golf GTI which is like an arm chair with a turbo.

How can you expect people to take you seriously with stupid comments like that

jayok - you've made some good points but whether the GTI produces more torque with or without a turbo, it's still the all round quicker car.

Civics have always been known for handling well, no argument there.

But I've had plenty of 'thrills' whoring my yoke around country lanes and the odd blast on the M50 etc.

I don't really understand your "I'd buy a diesel if I wanted low down grunt" comment? Surely a petrol engine which pulls all the way to the red line (close on 105km/hr in 2nd gear in the GTI) WITH low end grunt is the best of both worlds?

I'm not in my 30s and I certainly don't have any kids.

jayok

Big Balls wrote:

jayok - you've made some good points but whether the GTI produces more torque with or without a turbo, it's still the all round quicker car.

Don't want to turn this into a Top Trumphs match but isn't the Golf 0-60 7.2 (or 6.9 with DSG) secs where as the Civic Type-R 6.6 secs? I'd imagine the 120kgs between the models has a lot to do with this*.

*Taken from

http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/volkswagen/volkswagen-golf-2.0t-gti-3dr.asp
http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/honda/honda-civic-2.0-i-vtec-type-r-3dr.asp

Big Balls wrote:

But I've had plenty of 'thrills' whoring my yoke around country lanes and the odd blast on the M50 etc.

I don't doubt this - I've said before the most fun I've had in a car was a 1.2 Punto with the "girlie button". It's all about the experience and I am saying that I find the overall experience with the Type-R is more engaging than the GTI. While not a "armchair with a turbo" it does remove you from the drive. This is by design and makes for a comfortable car, but when you really want to get into it, you need to hear the engine roar.

I don't really understand your "I'd buy a diesel if I wanted low down grunt" comment? Surely a petrol engine which pulls all the way to the red line (close on 105km/hr in 2nd gear in the GTI) WITH low end grunt is the best of both worlds?

Well I am basing again on my experience. This on the new Honda Civic diesel , 320 Nm of torque it pulls from 0-60 in 8.2 second! It is GREAT for overtaking - any gear and the car just keeps pulling. Much more so than I say the GTI. But this torque compares to the 280NM of torque from the GTI. Petrol and Diesel, apples and oranges. But as I said if I want low-end pulling power I'll buy a diesel.

I'm not in my 30s and I certainly don't have any kids.

Lucky you! But as someone who drives Dublin city and spots 3-4 of these daily, they seem to be driven by mid-30s people with baby seats up the back. But this is just a unfounded observation.

Big Balls

Without a doubt, there's far too many GTIs on the road now. I can only blame the fact that they got such a great review on pretty much every car magazine and TV programme. I did however have my first drive in one back in 2004 when they were rare on the ground and I wanted one from there on in.

I've done the whole diesel car thing, had one chipped to 177 bhp -ish and it had more torque but bhp still wins out in a lot of cases from my experience. I would have no doubt that the GTI would wipe the floor with that particular car in terms performance and handling. I've never had a problem overtaking in 6th in the Golf. Don't forget also, Honda are the crowd that said they'd never make a diesel engine!

With the 0-60 times for the CTR you're talking .3 of a second (and I stand to be corrected but your figures appear to be for the last model) but I'd put my neck on the block and say in gear times are quicker and the 147 top end mean overall it's quicker (the article you link to has a slightly less top end figure but VW quote differently).

I was talking to a Honda mechanic only the other night about the new CTR and he didn't know too much about it yet, I do think they're a nice car, the same can be said for the ST also but I just hate too see the average rice raver come on here and slate off the Golf because the MKIII and IV created such a negative stigma.

Henry Ford III

ST is a little quicker than either a GTi or a Civic type R. It also has 5 cylinders and growls

Not that any of that matters much tbh. If you drive any of these 3 cars anywhere near their limits, you'll either crash or loose you license.

Big Balls

I'm STILL waiting to see an ST here. I saw one two weeks ago in Edinburgh in the orange and it looked pretty special. I think blue is the best option though.

Henry Ford III

Mine is Performance Blue

It's heavy on fuel and fixed running costs (insurance and tax) are high, but it's an excellent drive.

The overtaking ability is amazing.

Mc-BigE

Henry Ford III wrote:

ST is a little quicker than either a GTi or a Civic type R. It also has 5 cylinders and growls

Not that any of that matters much tbh. If you drive any of these 3 cars anywhere near their limits, you'll either crash or loose you license.

0 to penalty points in 6.6 seconds!!:D

Big Balls

What's heavy? How many kms from a tank?

GTI does 450 kms out of a tank based on city driving.

Henry Ford III

30mpg on a longish run. 110 - 130kph perhaps. N routes and motorway.

It's much heavier around town. Low 20's.

Plug

I was watching top gear one night about the gti and they said that it's simply a better car than the type r:p

bspoke

Clarkson just doesnt like Hondas (wiht the exception of the S2K and the NSX) In England Hondas are generally driven by the blue rinse brigade so therefore have a bad name.

I would personally choose a golf gti over a type r honda, just prefer VW's, but I would fully expect to be pissed opn by any have decent Type r

bazz26

Plug wrote:

I was watching top gear one night about the gti and they said that it's simply a better car than the type r:p

Maybe the GTi is a better car, I don't know as I haven't driven either but I would not take Clarkson's word for it though to be honest.

Also take into account that the current Civic Type R has been around since 2001 whereas the GTi has also been around since 2005.

Plug

VW have plan's to release a 3.6 litre, 290 hp golf called the r36:eek: 0-60 in the high 5s I rechen:cool: Picture's of that and the 2007 gti, 228 hp.

Henry Ford III

Exhausts look rather chavtastic

jayok

Plug wrote:

VW have plan's to release a 3.6 litre, 290 hp golf

1600 extra cc and only 90 BHP extra (over the GTI) - that's pityful. Give Honda a 3.6 litre and see what they'll do with it. Actually, no that I think about it they wouldn't do anything as it's ridiculous to put in a car the size of a Golf.

Buy a BMW instead.

jayok

Henry Ford III wrote:

ST is a little quicker than either a GTi or a Civic type R. It also has 5 cylinders and growls

Funny, between, the GTI, Type-R and ST. I think I'd buy the ST far less common and there's just something about that much grunt...:D

Plug

A 316 will run about E36000 that's a rip off and that wouldn't come near the golf in term's of performance, I wounder how much one would cost to rivil it. VW never really bothered squezzing that much power from it, though I was amazed with the new golf gt, 170 hp from a 1.4.

jayok

Plug wrote:

A 316 will run about E36000 that's a rip off and that wouldn't come near the golf in term's of performance, I wounder how much one would cost to rivil it. VW never really bothered squezzing that much power from it, though I was amazed with the new golf gt, 170 hp from a 1.4.

When I mentioned BMW, I was thinking more along the lines of a 330 or 540 rather than the 316. It maybe €36k for a 316, but I think it the RS36 would cost a whole lot more than this.

Anyhow we are well off topic here.

NeMiSiS

http://www.runeb.org/www_docs/Jexoticasite/soundandvideo/TypeRsong.mp3
If it aint a Type R then it aint a Tight car
Wheh wheh wheh
TK

jayok

NeMiSiS wrote:

http://www.runeb.org/www_docs/Jexoticasite/soundandvideo/TypeRsong.mp3
If it aint a Type R then it aint a Tight car
Wheh wheh wheh
TK

I thought you were going to post the sound of VTEC engaging the power band. Take a look at this video, you can see what happen when it does (at 6K RPM). Now tell me this wouldn't bring a grin to your face

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4718707709785688727&q=Civic+Type+R