Modded CTR Driveability?

[Caestus]

Generically speaking, I agree with the absolutely not part.

However, there is one caveat which I'd imagine most people will rationalize with the "its not a straight line car" mindset. And that is, or was in my case, that when you get to 380tq, traction becomes a huge issue. 1-3rd are damn near useless where-as stock you have much more grip. The counter-argument are things like "Use Hondata's traction control" or "dampen tq in low gears" however to me, it diminishes the purpose of the upgrades to a degree. Both for straight-line and cornering. For example, you're taking a corner in second gear, the more power you have you either can't use it (because it's limited by torque management or traction control) or you will cause oversteer as the power breaks traction.

It's really unfortunate given how well the platform response to mods. It's this very reason I traded in and moved on to an RS3 even though I miss the connection between car and road the Type R provided.

If only the Type R was AWD and had a DCT automatic. One can dream...

This guy lol...

Sponsored

 

[CTRDON]

Appreciate all for your comments. Owners real life experiences and impressions are always helpful, even if sometimes they contradict each other Different perspectives are what makes the world go around!

 

[Gforce81]

This guy lol...

Your contribution is commendable. How old are you, 12?

 

[Caestus]

Your contribution is commendable. How old are you, 12?

Your comments are not constructive in any capacity. You clearly just want a car that is fast in a line, and let's face it.... most modded Type Rs are still faster than your RS3 for considerably less money.

Your comments about an automatic is just a testament to the fact you suck at driving a manual transmission. There are some merits to AWD, to an extent, but this is not a rally car, this is a track car through and through. Additionally it is completely not needed in a CTR.

Acceleration 1-3 is beyond acceptable and is absolutely around 5 seconds 0-60. Braking distance is also amazing stock. These are things one wants in a car that can be driven daily. In an attempt to not derail the OPs thread, he needs to know your comments should be taken with less than a grain of salt. This car has absolutely ZERO issues with traction while driving. I will state there IS some wheel hop when you go from a dig, but this isn't a drag car, and realistically a 62a Rear Motor Mount will help all but eliminate the wheel hop. A little bit of wheel spin is also good for the stock internals, so all that torque doesn't get transferred to the rods.

To your comment about taking a corner in second gear..... one can easily take a corner at 40 MPH with absolutely zero issues in second gear and in fact it's incredibly fun to do so.

Now if the OP is considering transferring out of a SS 1LE, and it was modded, then the CTR may be a little slower, but I would wager is more enjoyable to drive every day.

Reply to this if you desire, however, I will not reply to you any further. Good day.

 

[AdamD19DFK8]

Your comments are not constructive in any capacity. You clearly just want a car that is fast in a line, and let's face it.... most modded Type Rs are still faster than your RS3 for considerably less money.

Your comments about an automatic is just a testament to the fact you suck at driving a manual transmission. There are some merits to AWD, to an extent, but this is not a rally car, this is a track car through and through. Additionally it is completely not needed in a CTR.

Acceleration 1-3 is beyond acceptable and is absolutely around 5 seconds 0-60. Braking distance is also amazing stock. These are things one wants in a car that can be driven daily. In an attempt to not derail the OPs thread, he needs to know your comments should be taken with less than a grain of salt. This car has absolutely ZERO issues with traction while driving. I will state there IS some wheel hop when you go from a dig, but this isn't a drag car, and realistically a 62a Rear Motor Mount will help all but eliminate the wheel hop. A little bit of wheel spin is also good for the stock internals, so all that torque doesn't get transferred to the rods.

To your comment about taking a corner in second gear..... one can easily take a corner at 40 MPH with absolutely zero issues in second gear and in fact it's incredibly fun to do so.

Now if the OP is considering transferring out of a SS 1LE, and it was modded, then the CTR may be a little slower, but I would wager is more enjoyable to drive every day.

Reply to this if you desire, however, I will not reply to you any further. Good day.

AWD is great and all, but it adds a lot of weight and drivetrain loss too. Though you surely don't need to be doing rally for it to be advantageous. I sometimes wish this had AWD but it would need much more power to make up the weight

I wouldn't say this has zero issues with traction though, it certainly does struggle a little bit when the road is not completely smooth or relatively flat at lower speeds, or especially wet, but it's easily mitigated with proper throttle control, plus waiting until you're near the Apex of the turn to roll into the throttle. Trail brake through the beginning of the turn to lighten the rear, rotate through, rocket out lol.

The only time I'm really in 2nd gear is when I'm first setting off, if I'm going 35-40ish I'll just stay in 3rd as it still pulls very well at that rpm and won't lose time with shifting. 3rd gear is the perfect gear it seems for tight twisty spirited driving.

 

[JohnEBlaze]

Generically speaking, I agree with the absolutely not part.

However, there is one caveat which I'd imagine most people will rationalize with the "its not a straight line car" mindset. And that is, or was in my case, that when you get to 380tq, traction becomes a huge issue. 1-3rd are damn near useless where-as stock you have much more grip. The counter-argument are things like "Use Hondata's traction control" or "dampen tq in low gears" however to me, it diminishes the purpose of the upgrades to a degree. Both for straight-line and cornering. For example, you're taking a corner in second gear, the more power you have you either can't use it (because it's limited by torque management or traction control) or you will cause oversteer as the power breaks traction.

It's really unfortunate given how well the platform response to mods. It's this very reason I traded in and moved on to an RS3 even though I miss the connection between car and road the Type R provided.

If only the Type R was AWD and had a DCT automatic. One can dream...

While the R would benefit from AWD it would be sacrilege to do so and go against the very reason why the Type R line was created.

 

[Gforce81]

Your comments are not constructive in any capacity. You clearly just want a car that is fast in a line, and let's face it.... most modded Type Rs are still faster than your RS3 for considerably less money.

Your comments about an automatic is just a testament to the fact you suck at driving a manual transmission. There are some merits to AWD, to an extent, but this is not a rally car, this is a track car through and through. Additionally it is completely not needed in a CTR.

Acceleration 1-3 is beyond acceptable and is absolutely around 5 seconds 0-60. Braking distance is also amazing stock. These are things one wants in a car that can be driven daily. In an attempt to not derail the OPs thread, he needs to know your comments should be taken with less than a grain of salt. This car has absolutely ZERO issues with traction while driving. I will state there IS some wheel hop when you go from a dig, but this isn't a drag car, and realistically a 62a Rear Motor Mount will help all but eliminate the wheel hop. A little bit of wheel spin is also good for the stock internals, so all that torque doesn't get transferred to the rods.

To your comment about taking a corner in second gear..... one can easily take a corner at 40 MPH with absolutely zero issues in second gear and in fact it's incredibly fun to do so.

Now if the OP is considering transferring out of a SS 1LE, and it was modded, then the CTR may be a little slower, but I would wager is more enjoyable to drive every day.

Reply to this if you desire, however, I will not reply to you any further. Good day.

You're making a crap ton of assumptions about me and what I am looking for. None of which is relevant to the OP's request for feedback, so perhaps you should stick to your lane and stop being a prick. My feedback is just that - MY FEEDBACK.

p.s. if you think most modded Type R's are faster than my RS3, you sir, are the definition of ignorant. My bolt on tuned RS3 runs 10's so feel free to come to the track anytime.

 

[boosted180sx]

Your comments are not constructive in any capacity. You clearly just want a car that is fast in a line, and let's face it.... most modded Type Rs are still faster than your RS3 for considerably less money.

you are underestimating a RS3 if you think a modded CTR will be faster in a straight line. They will demolish CTRs

with that said, traction is only really an issue in 2nd once tuned. From 3rd gear and up, you shouldn't have many issues as long as your on some good summer tires. First gear will spin even when stock so thats kind of a wash.

to answer OP's question, no it really doesn't affect the driveability of the car. You can tune the throttle response to your liking too if you feel its too sensitive.

 

[Gforce81]

you are underestimating a RS3 if you think a modded CTR will be faster in a straight line. They will demolish CTRs

with that said, traction is only really an issue in 2nd once tuned. From 3rd gear and up, you shouldn't have many issues as long as your on some good summer tires. First gear will spin even when stock so thats kind of a wash.

to answer OP's question, no it really doesn't affect the driveability of the car. You can tune the throttle response to your liking too if you feel its too sensitive.

I appreciate the unbiased, logical thought process here.

I love the type R but also accept it's shortcomings.

 

[Gforce81]

While the R would benefit from AWD it would be sacrilege to do so and go against the very reason why the Type R line was created.

Perhaps. The same could be said about the new Vette. But I bet once the fan base realizes the superior performance of a mid-engine setup they will get over it pretty quickly.

IMO, humbly, Honda needs to adapt. The same logic applies to why they went turbo vs. staying NA which no type R owner is complaining about, are they?

 

[tinyman392]

Perhaps. The same could be said about the new Vette. But I bet once the fan base realizes the superior performance of a mid-engine setup they will get over it pretty quickly.

IMO, humbly, Honda needs to adapt. The same logic applies to why they went turbo vs. staying NA which no type R owner is complaining about, are they?

So the Vette went from FR to MR due to two major reasons, one was very clearly stated, the other is hidden a bit. The first obviously was the traction limited portion where the Vette was unable to put more power down without moving the motor to the back. The second is an offshoot of that which reduces the power train power loss by about 5%. So in the new Vette, while a 500 HP motor would output 450 HP to the wheels, in an FR setup it would probably only output 425. Both of these are required for Chevy to hit that claim of a sub 3 second 0-60 time. On top of this, the removal of a driveshaft results in a net loss in rotational mass as well (which is what causes the advantage in power train loss). The Vette literally saw little to no losses going from FR to MR in performance no matter how you looked at it.

Let’s turn our attention to the Type R. It is too is traction limited in the first two gears. So what would happen if you wanted to fix this by going AWD (cheapest option without requiring a new chassis). Well unlike the Vette that sees gains in power, it would actually cost the Type R. The current generation CTR has been seen doing 300 on the dyno which equates to about 330 to the crank (10% power loss). AWD systems are known to reduce power by upwards of 20%, so that engine in an AWD format would actually reduce the power output of the Type R substantially down to about 260-270 HP. Imagine your Type R in heat soak mode, except worse, all the time (technically the loss from heat soak is better than the loss from AWD), but it gets worse because that's the car not heat soaked, it still can get heat soaked!. Then we add in the weight gains of 100-150 lbs of rotational mass (what causes the additional power losses) as well as the clutches/electronics/system to allow the AWD to work (for the even bigger power loss). What you gain from this is traction and a non-brake-based torque vectoring. What this means is that the car will be faster off the line, but worse in just about every other aspect of the car. Mainly it’ll accelerate off a roll worse, it’ll brake worse, and be tougher to corner (though the improved torque vectoring may help with the cornering). The Type R, to be converted to an AWD format, would add cost, complexity and an overall loss in performance IMO. The way Honda set up the Type R (suspension, torque vectoring, etc.) was their way of adapting the Civic chassis to the best of their abilities.

Unless you’re strictly looking for off the line acceleration in low gears (mainly 1st and part of 2nd) AWD makes no sense to add to the car performance-wise. If you’re trying to improve performance anywhere else then the removal of the AWD system is advantageous.

 

[Gforce81]

So the Vette went from FR to MR due to two major reasons, one was very clearly stated, the other is hidden a bit. The first obviously was the traction limited portion where the Vette was unable to put more power down without moving the motor to the back. The second is an offshoot of that which reduces the power train power loss by about 5%. So in the new Vette, while a 500 HP motor would output 450 HP to the wheels, in an FR setup it would probably only output 425. Both of these are required for Chevy to hit that claim of a sub 3 second 0-60 time. On top of this, the removal of a driveshaft results in a net loss in rotational mass as well (which is what causes the advantage in power train loss). The Vette literally saw little to no losses going from FR to MR in performance no matter how you looked at it.

Let’s turn our attention to the Type R. It is too is traction limited in the first two gears. So what would happen if you wanted to fix this by going AWD (cheapest option without requiring a new chassis). Well unlike the Vette that sees gains in power, it would actually cost the Type R. The current generation CTR has been seen doing 300 on the dyno which equates to about 330 to the crank (10% power loss). AWD systems are known to reduce power by upwards of 20%, so that engine in an AWD format would actually reduce the power output of the Type R substantially down to about 260-270 HP. Imagine your Type R in heat soak mode, except worse, all the time (technically the loss from heat soak is better than the loss from AWD), but it gets worse because that's the car not heat soaked, it still can get heat soaked!. Then we add in the weight gains of 100-150 lbs of rotational mass (what causes the additional power losses) as well as the clutches/electronics/system to allow the AWD to work (for the even bigger power loss). What you gain from this is traction and a non-brake-based torque vectoring. What this means is that the car will be faster off the line, but worse in just about every other aspect of the car. Mainly it’ll accelerate off a roll worse, it’ll brake worse, and be tougher to corner (though the improved torque vectoring may help with the cornering). The Type R, to be converted to an AWD format, would add cost, complexity and an overall loss in performance IMO. The way Honda set up the Type R (suspension, torque vectoring, etc.) was their way of adapting the Civic chassis to the best of their abilities.

Unless you’re strictly looking for off the line acceleration in low gears (mainly 1st and part of 2nd) AWD makes no sense to add to the car performance-wise. If you’re trying to improve performance anywhere else then the removal of the AWD system is advantageous.

Unfortunately, you're making a TON of claims based off no real data. You keep referencing heat soak, which frankly has nothing to do with the FWD vs. AWD debate; that's a direct result of the fact that the type R comes with an intercooler which is too small. It simply needs a larger intercooler to not experience dimished returns in terms of power.

My response before was in reference to the "spirit" of the type R being FWD for the audience it service hence the analogy to the Corvette community.

Of course there would be trade-offs. Depending on what your goals are or what you're looking for, they may be more in your direction or less. The type R has great handling, no doubt about it, it's what I loved most. But take a Golf R for example; AWD and DSG it simply responds infinitely better in terms of accelleration. My point is, and my dream would be, that the type R would could combine the handling and accelleration of the two.

This is simply something I'd love to see. I do not claim it to be the best nor what others would want. Just what I envision would be awesome...for me.

 

[tinyman392]

Unfortunately, you're making a TON of claims based off no real data. You keep referencing heat soak, which frankly has nothing to do with the FWD vs. AWD debate; that's a direct result of the fact that the type R comes with an intercooler which is too small. It simply needs a larger intercooler to not experience dimished returns in terms of power.

My response before was in reference to the "spirit" of the type R being FWD for the audience it service hence the analogy to the Corvette community.

Of course there would be trade-offs. Depending on what your goals are or what you're looking for, they may be more in your direction or less. The type R has great handling, no doubt about it, it's what I loved most. But take a Golf R for example; AWD and DSG it simply responds infinitely better in terms of accelleration. My point is, and my dream would be, that the type R would could combine the handling and accelleration of the two.

This is simply something I'd love to see. I do not claim it to be the best nor what others would want. Just what I envision would be awesome...for me.

My reference to heat soak was in comparison to the power loss due to heat soak (I believe it was PRL that measured it out to 20-25HP lost when the ECU pulls power to maintain temps). You lose less power due to heat soak on the stock R than you would if you were to covert the Type R to an AWD setup. Many of us know what the heat soaked R feels like, so I gave that comparison. None the less, we're still talking 255-265 HP vs about 290-300, AWD vs FF (at the wheels from a 320-330 HP motor).

You bring up the Golf R, which is an interesting thought since the Golf R is slower than the Type R from a dig (it's close) and completely off of a roll (quarter mile). Type R is also much faster than the Golf R in most every metric out there. The Golf R, however, gives an idea of what would happen if you turned the Type R into an AWD platform (motors are about the same power). The only positive you get out of that is the ability to do AWD torque vectoring vs brake-based torque vectoring and off of a dig (which is lost if you compare the two cars). There is that other gain where the Golf R is the easiest car to drive since you can just floor it and go; you can't do that with the Type R otherwise you run into some issues.

This is a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too. You have to choose, and in the case of Golf R vs Type R, the Type R kind of outdoes the Golf in just about every aspect, even in a quarter mile off of a dig. The only advantage the Golf R might have is in first gear off of a dig.

Honestly, the best way to add AWD to the Type R would actually be to convert it to a Hybrid setup where you have electric motors power the rear wheels. This type of setup would still cost weight, but wouldn't come with the cost of power (would actually add power) and you'd gain all the goodies of an AWD system (traction, torque vectoring, etc.). Granted the cost of such a system would probably raise the price of the car 10k vs 2k. This sort of AWD system is preferred in LeMan (for these reasons) even by the likes of Audi in their R18 (electric powers fronts since motor is in back) and Nissan (front engine front wheel drive setup, electric KERs system was planned to power the rear).

Edit: My main point of my post, was that Chevy had every advantage of switching to an MR setup vs an FR. Honda does not have such luxuries going FF to AWD as it would be an overall loss vs a total gain.

Edit 2: while we're braking tradition, why not have Honda pull a Renault and shove the motor in the back? Granted this would render the car completely impractical

 

[Caestus]

you are underestimating a RS3 if you think a modded CTR will be faster in a straight line. They will demolish CTRs

with that said, traction is only really an issue in 2nd once tuned. From 3rd gear and up, you shouldn't have many issues as long as your on some good summer tires. First gear will spin even when stock so thats kind of a wash.

to answer OP's question, no it really doesn't affect the driveability of the car. You can tune the throttle response to your liking too if you feel its too sensitive.

What you are saying is accurate based on the context I provided. I should say from a 40 roll CTRs are just as fast as RS3s From a dig... RS3s will destroy the CTR. The other guy was being a PreMedona.

However, anyone buying a CTR for drag racing doesn't understand the car and for some.... that's the gratification they need.

I agree with your sentiment that traction from 3rd and up is fine, I would also say that from a 40 roll in second traction is equally as fine.

Thank you for being construtive in your answer/reply. I agree a modded CTR does NOT affect the drive-ability of a CTR

 

[Caestus]

So the Vette went from FR to MR due to two major reasons, one was very clearly stated, the other is hidden a bit. The first obviously was the traction limited portion where the Vette was unable to put more power down without moving the motor to the back. The second is an offshoot of that which reduces the power train power loss by about 5%. So in the new Vette, while a 500 HP motor would output 450 HP to the wheels, in an FR setup it would probably only output 425. Both of these are required for Chevy to hit that claim of a sub 3 second 0-60 time. On top of this, the removal of a driveshaft results in a net loss in rotational mass as well (which is what causes the advantage in power train loss). The Vette literally saw little to no losses going from FR to MR in performance no matter how you looked at it.

Let’s turn our attention to the Type R. It is too is traction limited in the first two gears. So what would happen if you wanted to fix this by going AWD (cheapest option without requiring a new chassis). Well unlike the Vette that sees gains in power, it would actually cost the Type R. The current generation CTR has been seen doing 300 on the dyno which equates to about 330 to the crank (10% power loss). AWD systems are known to reduce power by upwards of 20%, so that engine in an AWD format would actually reduce the power output of the Type R substantially down to about 260-270 HP. Imagine your Type R in heat soak mode, except worse, all the time (technically the loss from heat soak is better than the loss from AWD), but it gets worse because that's the car not heat soaked, it still can get heat soaked!. Then we add in the weight gains of 100-150 lbs of rotational mass (what causes the additional power losses) as well as the clutches/electronics/system to allow the AWD to work (for the even bigger power loss). What you gain from this is traction and a non-brake-based torque vectoring. What this means is that the car will be faster off the line, but worse in just about every other aspect of the car. Mainly it’ll accelerate off a roll worse, it’ll brake worse, and be tougher to corner (though the improved torque vectoring may help with the cornering). The Type R, to be converted to an AWD format, would add cost, complexity and an overall loss in performance IMO. The way Honda set up the Type R (suspension, torque vectoring, etc.) was their way of adapting the Civic chassis to the best of their abilities.

Unless you’re strictly looking for off the line acceleration in low gears (mainly 1st and part of 2nd) AWD makes no sense to add to the car performance-wise. If you’re trying to improve performance anywhere else then the removal of the AWD system is advantageous.

This.


Too many people are looking for off the line performance

I have seen tons of CTRs take Corvettes, Scattpacks, Camero SSs from a 40 roll on the regular. Took them to Gapplebee's actually.

Sponsored