Car and Driver Instrumented Test Performance Results for Civic Type R

[kritz]

Do you have links to show the Mustang GT with performance package pulls 1.02g on the skidpad?

Here is a link from C/D of the Mustang GT with the performance package 0.95g:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-instrumented-test-review

Without the performance pack, C/D got 0.83g:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-gt-automatic-test-review

Here's another Mustang GT with Performance Package pulling around 0.95g:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-mustang-gt-long-term-test-wrap-up-review

In all cases, I see them doing 12.9 to 13.0 at 112-113mph, auto or manual. Do you have a link showing 118mph trap speed?

As we can see in the above links, you can configure a Mustang GT to $45k. The CTR only comes in one flavor and it's $34k. I think we can only talk about MSRP as every dealer will give you different discount. And discount also depends on supply and demand.

Mustang GT Premium: $38k
Performance Pkg: $3k
Recaro Seats: $1.5k
GPS: $800
Total: $43.5k

I'd imagine someone looking for a hot hatch probably want something that is decently fast, comfortable, and practical. The latter is especially important for people that just plan to have one car for the family. In this case, the cargo space in the CTR is 26 cu.ft with all seats up, and 46 cu.ft with second row seats down. For the Mustang, it has a decently sized trunk at 13.5 cu.ft, but that's nowhere near the Civic's.

There's plenty of room in the Mustang if you're a gerbil.

Sponsored

 

[tacthecat]

And under 30.

 

[heavyD]

Let me just put my two cents out.

I don't believe a true car enthusiast should purchase a car just for its C&D performance figures.

In the past, I just wanted to go fast-- anything that could get me there was good.
If the magazines corroborated how quick a car was, then I was all for it.
I started trusting more about what people wrote online than I actually did based on my own driving experiences.

Similarly, I think we place too much value on how much lap times and 0-60s really mean to us.

The CTR is more involving in an intrinsic level than a Mustang or Camaro ever will be.
Too much power, and you ruin the balance. Too much weight, and it feels like you're piloting a boat.
And while I may not be a fan of the excessive styling, I'm glad Honda decided to focus on keeping the car light/nimble and purist in nature.

I sold my Focus RS for a reason. At the end of the day it was still a Ford, even if it was made in Saarlouis.

Am I missing something? The car has a Ford badge and I don't recall it being advertised as anything but a Ford. It's worth noting that these launch CTR's seem to have a fair bit of issues from engine harness replacement, 2nd gear grinding, poor infotainment systems, bad paint, etc. IMO the days of Honda quality being better than the rest of the industry are long gone as their new cars are no better made than most cars available today. GM, Ford, Hyundai, etc aren't spitting out the junk they used to in the 90's as everyone makes a fairly decent and reliable car these days and there's not a big difference in quality from car to car these days.

 

[iforyou]

I'd like to think that with more features and technologies pack into modern cars these days, chances are, even the traditional more reliable brands will run into more issues, Honda included.

Also, I'd also imagine that with internet forums these days, consumers are more likely to learn of an issue for any car brand, again, Honda included. This is especially true when you look at a troubleshooting subforum of any car forums. They will almost always make a car looks worse than it really is. Everyone that has a problem goes there to complain. Consistent with every forum.

It's also important to note that first model year cars tend to suffer from more reliability/quality issues. Honda or not. You get to drive a brand spanking new car, but you also take the risk of having a less reliable car in general.

 

[kritz]

I thought the VW people all got banned here.

 

[GSquared]

Dealer invoice was $36500, I paid $100 over invoice, then got a $500 rebate. Making the price $36100 for a GT premium with performance package. And no, your CTR will not out corner a performance pkg equipped GT. They have the same skid pad G force.. you will get better mileage though. No doubt about that. I get 25+ highway, but only about 12mpg when out playing.....

Not to rain on your out-cornering parade, but the difference in this 2015 GT Performance package and the CTR track time is pretty large. Times here.

I'm not sure how you think this thing won't out corner a Mustang. It makes up those 20+ seconds somewhere and it sure isn't the straights.

Plus the Mustang is about 600lbs heavier and has just about zero back seat for people with kids, families, cargo, etc.

I'd rather pay that money for an aggressively styled and engineered lightweight hatch than a heavy fastback with a V8 that can beat it 0-60 or in the 1/4.

 

[Solis#1730]

Interesting stats here

 

[Liebestraume]

Am I missing something? The car has a Ford badge and I don't recall it being advertised as anything but a Ford. It's worth noting that these launch CTR's seem to have a fair bit of issues from engine harness replacement, 2nd gear grinding, poor infotainment systems, bad paint, etc. IMO the days of Honda quality being better than the rest of the industry are long gone as their new cars are no better made than most cars available today. GM, Ford, Hyundai, etc aren't spitting out the junk they used to in the 90's as everyone makes a fairly decent and reliable car these days and there's not a big difference in quality from car to car these days.

Yeah, the Focus RS has a huge heritage as an European tuner car. USDM was also produced and manufactured in Germany.
It's as little as an American car as Ford ever made.

But even so, my car was practically a lemon.
You think 2nd gear grinding and poor infotainment systems are bad?
Try having the clutch getting stuck on you in traffic and being unable to get it back up. (http://www.focusrs.org/forum/154-focus-rs-troubleshooting/18194-clutch-pedal-sticking-floor-16.html)
You'll find my post somewhere in there.

If you haven't owned a Focus RS, I strongly suggest you not comment on one.
Stick to your Golf R, it's a mighty fine car.

 

[boosted180sx]

Still waiting for lap times at a local track to have something to compare it to over those nurburgring times

 

[planedoc]

There's plenty of room in the Mustang if you're a gerbil.

Agreed, the back seat is not functional. It is a two seater for all practical purposes. There are lots of links out there showing 12.7 118mph, but only for a perf pkg car, that is in a 93 octane state. The car loses 0.1 sec / octane point. Most articles are written in California, which is a 91 octane state. If the car doesn't have the perf pkg, it doesn't have the 3.73 gears. It won't get into the 12's with the 3.31 or 3.55's All the CTR ratings are for 93 octane as well. So please don't compare a 93 octane test to a 91 octane test. And please don't compare a stock GT to a performance pkg car, and I won't compare a CTR to an SI. Hey, they both say Civic on them....

 

[planedoc]

from a performance pov of course i expect the GT to be faster, way more HP and Tq, but i doubt it has the same skidpad #'s.....but imo a CTR will always be worth more than any mustang GT with whatever pkg, first b/c its a honda, much better reliability and much much higher resale value..period. next ford sells about 103k mustangs per year, thats about 8500 a month, that's more than all of the CTR's made for 2 whole years. i happen to have an s2000 from 2004, that is almost 13 years old and its still worth about $20K, i wonder how much you GT will be worth in 13 years hmmmmm.. and the S2k is not anywhere near as limited as the type-R is.

Idk, my car, that I paid $36100 for in December 2014, blue books for $34800 now. I don't think $1300 depreciation over 31 months is that bad.

 

[Liebestraume]

Idk, my car, that I paid $36100 for in December 2014, blue books for $34800 now. I don't think $1300 depreciation over 31 months is that bad.

Once again, why are you on a Type R forum if you have no interest in the CTR?

Let me put it bluntly, no one cares about your Mustang.

Show me one link where your 6 speed 5.0 PP trapped at 118 MPH or higher.
Stop spewing nonsense, even C&D only got 12.9 112 mph on their long-term tester (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-mustang-gt-long-term-test-wrap-up-review). That's with the PP.
They're always generous when it comes to the manual too.

I'll reiterate one last time: If you're trapping 118-120 mph, you're generally running 11.8-12.2 1/4th miles.
Your 5.0 can dream about those times.

Blue book isn't anything, you'll never get anywhere near that value in an actual trade-in or even PP.
Go get an instant cash offer from KBB, take it to the dealerships partnered with KBB and they'll still lowball the hell outta you.

Just stop posting here and save yourself some face.
You're the reason Mustang owners get bad rep. We get it, you think your car is the best.
But you might want to take a look at what section of the forum you're in.

 

[iforyou]

Yup, C/D's mustang gt has performance pkg with 3.73 rear axle:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-mustang-gt-long-term-test-wrap-up-review

And yup, it pulls 0.96g.

I also went to kelly blue book, chose a 2017 (yes, 2017, not 2014, or 2015), Mustang GT manual WITH performance pack. I put the mileage as 1000 miles, yup, 1000 miles, not 10000 miles. For condition, I chose EXCELLENT.

I see $32k for that. So a 2015 model somehow is $34.8k? And I'd imagine a 2015 Mustang GT has more than just 1000 miles?

 

[GSquared]

And please don't compare a stock GT to a performance pkg car, and I won't compare a CTR to an SI. Hey, they both say Civic on them....

Is this a joke? I linked to times from a 2015 performance package which was over an 8 minute lap time. There are dozens (60+) of cars between your performance mustang and the track time of the CTR. I'm comparing just as you wanted here. Not a EcoBoost Mustang (the real comparison considering the turbo 4) and the CTR, but a full on GT PP vs the CTR and it still lost by a large margin. I linked to real proof of the times, so far I haven't seen a link with proof from anything you have stated.

Also did a KBB on the Mustang, 2015, PP, 5000 miles. 31,400 for the 6mt in Excellent condition.

 

[Liebestraume]

Is this a joke? I linked to times from a 2015 performance package which was over an 8 minute lap time. There are dozens (60+) of cars between your performance mustang and the track time of the CTR. I'm comparing just as you wanted here. Not a EcoBoost Mustang (the real comparison considering the turbo 4) and the CTR, but a full on GT PP vs the CTR and it still lost by a large margin. I linked to real proof of the times, so far I haven't seen a link with proof from anything you have stated.

Also did a KBB on the Mustang, 2015, PP, 5000 miles. 31,400 for the 6mt in Excellent condition.

I'm telling you, he's just baiting us :<

Guy's spewing nonsense out of his arse.
As soon as I saw him post 118 mph trap, I knew he was full of it.

A buddy of mine was happy to get 26.5k for his PP 5.0 during trade-in.

Sponsored