anyone got a copy of the autocar test for the CTR??

[Nick_Micouris 0]

Hi guys

Every time I see my girlfriend's brother he lays abuse on my C and he crops up with the fact that the CIVIC Type R will crucify my VR6 be it in a straight line or round a track.... :!:

He doesnt think that the C feels as quick but I keep trying to explain that the C is VERY torquey at all speeds/gears and that the reason the CTR feels so much quicker is that it surges as it reaches 6,500+ RPM (ie, being floored!)

Does anyone here have any personal experience driving both? I have never driven a CTR and they do nothing for me but I am curious. If anyone has the autocar test then I can compare the accelerations between gears etc (using the excellent Autocar road test of the C in comparison). I always thought that the C was marginally better.

I want to lay this pathetic talk to rest. :lol:

I shouldnt let it bother me but I am a proud man and tired of pub talk nonsense!! :roll:

Cheers

Nick

[vr6storm 0]

yip nick....i've got the autocar roadtest of the CTR somewhere.........give me yer postal address again mate and i'll get a colour copy of that and the Corrado VR6 roadtest so you can show him the true facts :wink:

[G-Lader 0]

was behind one of these in my wifes 16v mk2 on a long strech at the start of a dual carriageway and the thing just took off and kept going.........shat all over me,knew they are supposed to be quick but this thing was like a rabbit !

Suspect they dont have the torque of the VR6 but get them up in the revs and I would have thought they would beat the C...........got a silly gearchange on the dash though so looses a few points for that surely!

[dr_mat 0]

There was a CTR on the same track day as me, me in my VR6..

He wasn't leaving me for dead, but yeah, along the straights his spare 35 bhp was quite visible... :?

It's possible there were a few horses left under my bonnet, but given the mileage of the engine I'm not gunning it to the redline every time any more, thanks..

BUT re the CTR - When I caught him off-power-band however, I'd sail past him, cos lets face it he's only got a 2.0 .. :)

[Pete 0]

Well I can certainly help here!!!

 

I picked up my brand new CTR on March 1st this year... and sold it in October for a VR6!

 

The CTR is a fantastic piece of machinery, but it's souless.

 

The C [Like my old Rover 200 BRM] has character and feels cool even in traffic. The Civic feel like a Civic IYKWIM.

 

In terms of pace its to and fro.

 

The CTR has similar drag pace to the VR6, but I am SURE the VW is faster. The C's power delivery is lazy by comparison to the CTR, but in the CTR you NEED the revs to make progress and you only have 6-8k to do it.

 

On a track your mate is right, I think the CTR is awesome [did Castle Combe in the summer - it was ace] but on give and take roads, the C will stuff it no problem, cos in the CTR you think too much about how your driving driving it instead of just driiving it!!!

 

The CTR has much better outright grip and the brakes are the best I've ever seen on a road car - even better than my mates Boxster S!!!

 

BUT! the VR6 has better steering, chassis flow, and you feel more part of the action, as you sit too high in the CTR albeit in nice bucket seats. The VR6 seats hold you better round the kidneys.

 

Don't knock the gearstick though guys, its really phenomenal so close to the wheel, and the box itself is probably the best in the world.

 

I sold it cos it was not fun enough and cost too much. My VR6 has 105% of the pace, 90% of the handling, 70% of the brakes, 120% of the comfort, 100% of the looks, all for 35% of the price!!! :D Cheap speed is what I like!!! :shock:

 

Find a qtr mile and try them both together, you will lose. Catch a CTR on a dual carraigeway though and you will mangle it, trust me! 8)

[Nick_Micouris 0]

so - I guess when you balance it all out they are much of the sameness in speed. He cant be right in saying that the CTR would destroy the VR. I know he does it to wind me up - envy is a very bad thing. :lol:

On paper I have seen the C rated as slightly better, didnt realise that the CTR would be better around the track because all I have ever heard was that they werent happy with the handling - hence the updates to the chassis in the new model.

[dazzyvr6 0]

youve got to drive the type r on the limit all the time for it to be quick

[Sandy 0]

Very true overtake :lol: CTR's quite easily in my G60 even better when the driver's trying to show of to his lady passenger. Ah wee wave then bye bye !!!

 

HEE HEE

 

Sandy

[dr_mat 0]

Big advantage of the CTR is that it's a honda. In 8 years time you won't be replacing door handles, mirror glasses, starter motors, headlight switches.. yada yada..

Even with it's 8.5k rev limit the engines will probably outlast most of the VR6s on the road.. :(

[Pete 0]

The CTR handling is great on a track cos its so flat and grippy.

 

The tail swing round a bit too fast for my liking but oonce you know it's coming it's OK.

 

Tell your GF's bro he's talking pants. A VR6/CTR will be neck and neck in a drag [the wide tyres and low torque help the CTR post scorching times off the line], but the in-gear times for the VR6 will crush the CTR.

[Majik 0]

One Point your forgetting guys is that the vr6 is a ten year older design than the current CTR, a fair comparison would be something like Focus RS, R32, S3 and the likes. Having said that i embarassed a couple of CTR's in my Tomcat turbo :)

Big advantage of the CTR is that it's a honda. In 8 years time you won't be replacing door handles, mirror glasses, starter motors, headlight switches.. yada yada..

Honda's have their fare share of problems too a common one is the fuel pump relay on 90's civics and crx.

[Nick_Micouris 0]

Pete, I appreciate your first hand advice. I knew I wasnt going mad. I think its great that after 10 years the VR still pulls healthy punch to its rivals. The Civic OUGHT to be better given the fact that it has time and development on its side. Would be great to see what Autocar got from their test on the CTR because I am sure they rate the C better through the gears etc. EVO certainly do. They managed a 0-60 in 6.2 in the CVR and 6.8 in the CTR....

[Leonard 0]

Was going to replace my VR6 with Type r when they first came out. But after a test drive just couldn't justify the extra outlay. Performance wise they were more or less exactly the same, but I knew the fact that the Civic needs thrashing everywhere to make good pace would just end up pissing me off.

I have driven more or less every new sporty hatchback as it has come out Cupra, S3, RS etc and still have the Corrado nuff said.

[Pastymuncher 0]

Nick,

 

Maybe the way to deal with your girlfriends brother's wind-up attempts is to point out that while you're sure that the CTR is a lovely little car, if you like that sort of thing, the real deciding factor on the road with two models closely matched (yet different, if you know what I mean) is going to be driver ability, so talking about torque, power bands, etc is a waste of time, but you're happy to do it if it's therapeutic for him. You could then point out that it can't be a coincidence that the better driver of the two of you has chosen the Corrado. Cream rises to the top. :wink:

 

You've been lovely, I'm here 'till Thursday, Goodnight.

 

David

[Pete 0]

Was going to replace my VR6 with Type r when they first came out. But after a test drive just couldn't justify the extra outlay. Performance wise they were more or less exactly the same, but I knew the fact that the Civic needs thrashing everywhere to make good pace would just end up p***ing me off.

 

That's EXACTLY how I felt about it!

[Pete 0]

Autocar review of 2004 CTR

 

The most remarkable thing about the Honda Civic Type-R is the most remarkable thing about the new, sexed-up 2004 model. And, considering that we’re talking about a £16,000 hot hatch, it is remarkable.

 

Quite simply, this slightly gawky looking Japanese three-door possesses one of the most exhilarating and satisfying drivetrains of any car currently on sale, irrespective of price. With due allowance for size and power, its 197bhp 2.0-litre, four-cylinder VTEC engine is right up there with the power units of the Ferrari 360M, Porsche 911 GT3 and BMW M3 CSL.

 

Every time the induction howls. Every time the fabulously fast, short-throw, close-ratio six-speed ’box – arguably the best on the planet – slam-dunks the revs back into the heart of the powerband. It’s close to perfection and achieves a purity of purpose that makes anything with a paddle shift, even BMW’s SMG, seem clumsy and faintly ridiculous.

 

Yet to pitch the Civic Type-R as a bit special – rather than the hot hatch of the century – is about right. It’s because, until now, that sensational drivetrain has been balanced by less than inspirational styling and a chassis that has lacked the conviction and edge of the performance.

 

The good news is that, as a consequence of Honda’s 2004 Civic range makeover, timed to pre-empt the new Volkswagen Golf and Vauxhall Astra, the Type-R finds itself comprehensively tweaked: outside, inside and under the skin. It even includes a little honing of its best feature – a lighter flywheel and clutch assembly reducing inertia, improving throttle response and shaving 0.2sec from the 0-62mph time (now a claimed 6.6sec).

 

All three-door Civics get new front and rear styling, retuned suspension, damping and steering, brighter projector-style headlights with a wider beam spread and a space-saver spare wheel to liberate 55 litres more boot space. Visually, Honda has made a fair fist of injecting extra interest. At the front, the new headlights make the biggest splash, while round the back, new tail light clusters look smarter and provide equally clear-cut differentiation for the new model.

 

Routine stuff, all well conceived and executed. A tougher challenge for Honda’s engineers was to improve steering response, linearity and on-centre feel and, in particular, to sharpen the Type-R’s tautness and precision. In pursuit of these aims, all models get stiffer steering and suspension mounting points, a new variable-ratio steering rack, increased steering caster angle and recalibrated spring, damper and anti-roll bar settings.

 

On the road the differences between the new Civic Type-R and its predecessor are immediately apparent. It feels harder-edged, more precise and more physical than the rather nervous and tip-toey previous Type-R, with modest body roll and genuinely keen turn-in. Ride comfort is firm, occasionally bordering on agitated, but the Type-R clearly does a better job of inspiring confidence in its driver than its predecessor. Get the entry right, step on the gas and the outcome is much more rewarding: fine grip, no torquesteer, a mild tendency for the nose to run wide that can be trimmed with the throttle and, ultimately, stonking exit speed.

 

It’s all relayed through steering that’s more meatily weighted – albeit with a pervasive sense of damping that filters out some of the feel. But even if you shut down the power on the limit mid-bend, only the merest tweak of corrective lock is required – and thanks to the Honda’s quick rack it’s more of an instinctive nudge.

 

Which leaves one question: does the Type-R’s chassis now match the talent of its phenomenal drivetrain? Not a chance. For that, it would need to handle like a 911 Turbo. But at least the two elements are on speaking terms, and it makes all the difference.

[Majik 0]

Nick, Ask your girlfriends brother, if he's car has been featured on top gear?........or will the CTR have a similar sort of feature.....dont think so.....Nuff said :D

[Nick_Micouris 0]

yeah nice one mate. The really annoying thing is that he doesnt have a CTR - he drove one once and then whenever anyone says anything good about mine he always (for some reason) pipes up and insists how a CTR will demolish the C!

I wouldny mind if he were talking about an M3, 911 etc - that's proper power, agreed :oops: silly silly

:lol:

[Pete 0]

Hee hee hee!!!

 

At least he never mentioned the Clio 172, if he did you could easily slap him! :D

[vr6storm 0]

Hee hee hee!!!

 

At least he never mentioned the Clio 172, if he did you could easily slap him! :D

 

funnily enough the roadtest nick is after pits the CTR against the clio 172 sport :wink:

[Nick_Micouris 0]

nice one, lol! :lol:

[vr6storm 0]

nice one, lol! :lol:

 

and fingers crossed i'll be getting it colour copied for you tomorrow :wink:

[Nick_Micouris 0]

you are the BEST :) :salute:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Big advantage of the CTR is that it's a honda. In 8 years time you won't be replacing door handles, mirror glasses, starter motors, headlight switches.. yada yada..

Even with it's 8.5k rev limit the engines will probably outlast most of the VR6s on the road.. :(

 

According to Top Gear, not one single VTEC engine Honda have ever made has gone wrong :shock:

 

They do have a steering rack issue though, which was apparent on the two I drove last year. It tugs and tramlines too much, making it difficult to drive smoothly at high speeds on bumpy B roads. Honda blamed it on the UK roads, and didn't feel obliged to correcting the problem, despite experts point to the rack. It was because of this I told Holden of Norwich to keep their CTR. And then I bought my VR, which on reflection was the better choice.

 

The Civic is good fun and very quick through the lower gears, but I couldn't live with the overly hard suspension, tramlining, bump steer and the terrible racket inside the cabin. And you think VR6s have a thirst for oil!

 

I was also underwhelmed by the acceleration and just put it down to hype. The alleged kick in the pants at 6K+ rpm wasn't apparent in the two I drove. The engine just got louder and coarser with no appreciable difference in acceleration.

 

The gearshift was about the only redeeming feature.

 

K

[Pete 0]

According to Top Gear, not one single VTEC engine Honda have ever made has gone wrong :shock:

 

They do have a steering rack issue though, which was apparent on the two I drove last year. It tugs and tramlines too much, making it difficult to drive smoothly at high speeds on bumpy B roads. Honda blamed it on the UK roads, and didn't feel obliged to correcting the problem, despite experts point to the rack. It was because of this I told Holden of Norwich to keep their CTR. And then I bought my VR, which on reflection was the better choice.

 

I was also underwhelmed by the acceleration and just put it down to hype. The alleged kick in the pants at 6K+ rpm wasn't apparent in the two I drove. The engine just got louder and coarser with no appreciable difference in acceleration.

 

The gearshift was about the only redeeming feature.

 

K

The engines do blow [i know of about 3 on CTR's], but Honda in about 12yrs of production, has never had a warranty claim on the VTEC mechanism. One CTR blew on a test drive when the drive selected 2nd on the motorway!!! Apparently the engine hit 23.5k rpm and was "in pretty good condition considering"!!!

 

The chassis is very twichy though, and the numb steering does not help.

 

The engine has nowhere near the kick of the old Interga, as the new i-VTEC has a more torquey and smooth delivery.