2017 Civic Type R Reviews Compilation

[invader]

Sponsored

 

[Chee_hu]

LMAO I'm so convinced by the review that I'm going to be selling the car NOW.....NOT!

Edit: he's reviewing without having driven the car yet because they're "not currently available" hahahah what a joke. He talks more about how Honda has sucked for the past decade or two. He really has nothing good to say about Honda besides how they shined back in the 90's.

 

[IamMrRoy]

He's just mad he didn't get his invite to Dresden in time to go for the launch. I'm sure it crossed in the post. Mate.

 

[Banshee]

He's a current racer - and such a Honda fan!

BTW, off-topic, but if you want to watch Brian drive well, these 40 seconds from a year ago are well worth watching. (Nobody was hurt - I was in the pace car.)

That will make you pucker...

 

[boosted180sx]

I'm waiting for savagegeese's reviews

 

[invader]

 

[DevonK]

^ The above review is thorough and worth the time. Also good - this one:

 

[iforyou]

Car and Driver's Instrumented Test of the New Civic Type R:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-type-r-test-review

Highs:
Grip for days, excellent composure and civility, heavenly seats and shifter.

Lows:
Looking at or being seen in it, irksome infotainment interface, less-than-thrilling engine note.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 21.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 6.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 108 mph
Top speed (drag limited C/Dest): 170 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 142 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.02 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA combined/city/highway: 25/22/28 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg
C/D observed 75-mph highway driving: 29 mpg
C/D observed highway range: 350 mi

Pretty damn impressive acceleration figures for a FWD car! That quarter mile trap speed as far as I know is higher than the likes of Focus RS, WRX STI, and Golf R. This proves that it's got some real power and that the 290-300whp dyno figures are for real.

 

[Kullervo]

Yowza. I expected Car and Driver to be effusive in their praise, because they love the way Hondas feel, even if the raw numbers don't show it.

But those are some incredibly impressive numbers they wrung out of it.

 

[Boostlag]

108mph is quick.

 

[DevonK]

Interesting that the rolling start 5-60 time is .9 sec slower than the 0-60. That's the kind of difference that you would expect to see more with AWD and RWD vehicles, and indicates that Honda's done a great job of getting that power down through the front wheels on launch without undue traction loss.

 

[DevonK]

Going by the numbers at 0-60.com, that 13.5 sec iC/D time is .3 sec slower than the Focus RS and .5 sec slower than the DCT Golf R. And (surprisingly given their power differences) it's only 1.2 seconds faster than a manual BRZ.

So: great performance but nothing unexpected.

(Edited to correct CTR time.)

 

[baldheadracing]

Interesting that the rolling start 5-60 time is .9 sec slower than the 0-60. That's the kind of difference that you would expect to see more with AWD and RWD vehicles, and indicates that Honda's done a great job of getting that power down through the front wheels on launch without undue traction loss.

I dunno - I'd say that the 4.9 second time has a lot to do with driver skill and probably very warm tires, especially as the Honda Euro CTR 0-100kph factory spec time is 5.7 seconds.

With C&D times, I usually look at the 60mph-100mph time (6.6 seconds) relative to the 5mph-60mph time (5.8 seconds) as the more interesting statistic, as the closer these times are to each other, the more well-balanced/geared the car usually is.

 

[Kullervo]

Going by the numbers at 0-60.com, that 13.2 sec is identical to the Focus RS and .2 sec slower than the DCT Golf R. And (surprisingly given their power differences) it's only 1.5 seconds faster than a manual BRZ.

So: great performance but nothing unexpected.

1.5 seconds is all day in the quarter.

The BRZ weighs nothing and is rear drive; its performance should be decent in this regard with (read: despite) its output.

I don't even care about accelation times from a standing start (like, at all), but these numbers are surprising from a front-drive, to say the least.

 

[DevonK]

I dunno - I'd say that the 4.9 second time has a lot to do with driver skill and probably very warm tires, especially as the Honda Euro CTR 0-100kph factory spec time is 5.7 seconds.

With C&D times, I usually look at the 60mph-100mph time (6.6 seconds) relative to the 5mph-60mph time (5.8 seconds) as the more interesting statistic, as the closer these times are to each other, the more well-balanced/geared the car usually is.

C/D does have good test drivers, their times are always among the best, and I don't doubt conditions were ideal. But I wouldn't put too much weight on the factory-specified Euro CTR time for comparison, a lot of manufacturers list very conservative times for legal reasons.

Sponsored