2006 Civic Type-r

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

Zascar

My type R sounds a lot better that that... I'll try to post a video later

Edit - sounds more like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7419001968267739755&q=Civic+Type+R

jayok

Actually Honda UK (www.honda.co.uk) have a sound file that you can play of the Type-R revving. Oooohhhhh man....

But please do let us know.

Big Balls

bspoke wrote:

I would fully expect to be pissed opn by any have decent Type r

Not so. The only reason you'd be "pissed on" is if you're a sh1t driver.

Zascar

Look up the stats, the Civic Type R is faster than the new golf GTI. Fact. it woud also be far quicker around a track. All this without a turbo. nuf said

Big Balls

Eh those stats (on the last model) show it to have the same BHP and LESS torque.

What the f**k does it matter whether it has a turbo or not??

Do you understand the term "pissed on"? To do so, the CTR would need around 240+ bhp plus.

Facts?? LOL

Zascar

I never said anything about "pissed on" - I just said it would be faster. Check the 0-60 figures

If the TypeR had a turbo, it would most certainly piss all over it then.

check out www.civictype-r.co.uk a few of the guys there have turbo'd civics there pushing 300bhp+

Big Balls

If me auntie was me uncle...

300bhp out of a FWD car.. must be great craic!

Zascar

I'd say the burn outs would be savage! You'd need an LSD really but it would still be a monster