Why does everyone say the Type R is slow?

[JESFromASC]

So, I have owned both. The 17 CTR and owned it for 2 plus years and now own a 19 Mustang GT. The CRT is not slow but, it depends where and how you are comparing it. We all see the talk and hear the opinions. So in My group of friends we have either had or have a 17, 18, and 19 CRT all at same time. The 18 owner sold his CTR and Bought a 19GT PP1. SO at the time we had a 17 and 19 CTR and a 19 Mustang GT PP1 and we all raced and did back roads (Mountains of North Carolina) and everything together and tested things out against each other. So here is what we all found in our group. The CTR simply never got ahead of the GT off the line. Even my CTR with full bolt ons and a throttle controller and a tune I could never get My buddies GT off a line. His GT has the A10 Auto for reference. AT rolls the owner of the 19 CTR and the Mustang (they were both more into racing then I am) the GT would stay ahead almost every time. Through 20,30,40 50 and 60 rolls. You have to remember thought we are comparing two totally different cars and this is just short street races where a Mustang is better equipped to handle bursts of speed. As for back roads.. the difference was not so night and day as most CTR owners would have you think. With a few adjustments to the Mustang it stayed right with the CTR no problem. and we have a road here that is a compact version of the tail of the dragon its is 3.9 miles up a mountain side with 59 turns. So was a fairly good comparison drive.

On a track well that is where the CTR was built and tested. The CTR is slow as frozen snot first through 2nd. Its third gear where it takes off. It has a higher top end then a Mustang and the two are so close on a track that it would come down to driver skill. Why do I say close? well not the this last Lightning lap but the previous one with the CTR the CTR came in just under the Mustang and the Camaro in lap time. Yes yes the mustang and camaro are way more powerful cars and I would expect them to win but, considering what the CTR is and the fact that is was just a hair behind those other cars is VERY impressive. it is not slow by any means. And I would say depending on the driver the time were so close that the CTR could very well beat them.

The problem with the CTR is that is was a track developed car designed and tested for and on tracks where it is very fast and very impressive for a FWD 4 banger but not for a daily road car... which it is sold as. It is very slow off a start just like a indy car. the gearing snt for take off but for speed (which kicks in at 3rd gear). The issue is that the general public buys the car and then expects daily driving to be race worthy and are disappointed when the car simply is not the crack neck car they expected off dead stops. IN the real world there is not much change to throw down 80 mile per hour and taking corners on two wheels so lots of people get disappointed and end up trading in the CTR as we have seen with tons of trade ins. This is not a stop light to stop light car, nor is it a neck cracker during launches. Most regular peoples only experience with the car are gonna be daily and in that context no the CTR is not a fast car. Hell I had several MInivans and station wagons out do me at stop lights. I dont track cars so for me the fast CRT was not in my life. My only fun comes stoplight to stoplight where I live and in that way the CTR is slow. This is when big v8s come in. They are stop light to stop light cars which 90% of america is part of and not track people. This is why the CRT is said to be slow because most people don't get to experience in the way it was developed and in an area it shines. They just see their asses handed to them at stop lights and daily driving( I was there too) and think (like I did) man this is suppose to be a fast car.

These are my opinions and mine alone you may not agree with them but hey that's why they are opinions LOL.

OH side note I see lots of talk of I beat this car or that car with the CRT ( I too was bragging when I beat cars with mine ) But typically you will see it was a 2015 or 2008 or some older car. year to year equals the CTR just wasnt meant to be a car that fat fast at a take off. If you watch most youtube comparisons the CTR was always the slowest starter. But once it hit third it made up massive ground. All be it typically to late to win short sprints.

The long and short is its a track car made to hit high speeds over long runs it is not a short distance sprinter. And daily driving life is short sprints and in that it is a slow car. relatively speaking.

You never cease to amaze Harlaquin --- 3 complete coherent paragraphs! Holy Crap. You da man. As always thanks for taking the time I always appreciate your take on things. Well said. John

Sponsored

 

[wildbilly32]

Mustang GT 460 hp 420 torque 3700 lbs

DUH!

Which would you expect to be faster...?

 

[jayevo23]

So, I have owned both. The 17 CTR and owned it for 2 plus years and now own a 19 Mustang GT. The CRT is not slow but, it depends where and how you are comparing it. We all see the talk and hear the opinions. So in My group of friends we have either had or have a 17, 18, and 19 CRT all at same time. The 18 owner sold his CTR and Bought a 19GT PP1. SO at the time we had a 17 and 19 CTR and a 19 Mustang GT PP1 and we all raced and did back roads (Mountains of North Carolina) and everything together and tested things out against each other. So here is what we all found in our group. The CTR simply never got ahead of the GT off the line. Even my CTR with full bolt ons and a throttle controller and a tune I could never get My buddies GT off a line. His GT has the A10 Auto for reference. AT rolls the owner of the 19 CTR and the Mustang (they were both more into racing then I am) the GT would stay ahead almost every time. Through 20,30,40 50 and 60 rolls. You have to remember thought we are comparing two totally different cars and this is just short street races where a Mustang is better equipped to handle bursts of speed. As for back roads.. the difference was not so night and day as most CTR owners would have you think. With a few adjustments to the Mustang it stayed right with the CTR no problem. and we have a road here that is a compact version of the tail of the dragon its is 3.9 miles up a mountain side with 59 turns. So was a fairly good comparison drive.

On a track well that is where the CTR was built and tested. The CTR is slow as frozen snot first through 2nd. Its third gear where it takes off. It has a higher top end then a Mustang and the two are so close on a track that it would come down to driver skill. Why do I say close? well not the this last Lightning lap but the previous one with the CTR the CTR came in just under the Mustang and the Camaro in lap time. Yes yes the mustang and camaro are way more powerful cars and I would expect them to win but, considering what the CTR is and the fact that is was just a hair behind those other cars is VERY impressive. it is not slow by any means. And I would say depending on the driver the time were so close that the CTR could very well beat them.

The problem with the CTR is that is was a track developed car designed and tested for and on tracks where it is very fast and very impressive for a FWD 4 banger but not for a daily road car... which it is sold as. It is very slow off a start just like a indy car. the gearing snt for take off but for speed (which kicks in at 3rd gear). The issue is that the general public buys the car and then expects daily driving to be race worthy and are disappointed when the car simply is not the crack neck car they expected off dead stops. IN the real world there is not much change to throw down 80 mile per hour and taking corners on two wheels so lots of people get disappointed and end up trading in the CTR as we have seen with tons of trade ins. This is not a stop light to stop light car, nor is it a neck cracker during launches. Most regular peoples only experience with the car are gonna be daily and in that context no the CTR is not a fast car. Hell I had several MInivans and station wagons out do me at stop lights. I dont track cars so for me the fast CRT was not in my life. My only fun comes stoplight to stoplight where I live and in that way the CTR is slow. This is when big v8s come in. They are stop light to stop light cars which 90% of america is part of and not track people. This is why the CRT is said to be slow because most people don't get to experience in the way it was developed and in an area it shines. They just see their asses handed to them at stop lights and daily driving( I was there too) and think (like I did) man this is suppose to be a fast car.

These are my opinions and mine alone you may not agree with them but hey that's why they are opinions LOL.

OH side note I see lots of talk of I beat this car or that car with the CRT ( I too was bragging when I beat cars with mine ) But typically you will see it was a 2015 or 2008 or some older car. year to year equals the CTR just wasnt meant to be a car that fat fast at a take off. If you watch most youtube comparisons the CTR was always the slowest starter. But once it hit third it made up massive ground. All be it typically to late to win short sprints.

The long and short is its a track car made to hit high speeds over long runs it is not a short distance sprinter. And daily driving life is short sprints and in that it is a slow car. relatively speaking.

Really appreciate your insight and this makes alot of sense.

 

[mvela]

I wonder if maybe Honda could install a slightly lower final gear in the new CTR it would help this problem out. I mean they lowered it in the new Si to give it slightly better acceleration. This trick will work in the type R as well. Maybe that’s all the CTR needs to give it that extra edge people are looking for

 

[AdamD19DFK8]

It's pretty quick once you have a tune and breathing mods. First is pretty worthless and short, but with second if it's dry and vsa is completely off (or with a higher hondata tc slip % and minimum speed) it hauls to 60. This car is stupid easy to carve through corners and drive fast and very forgiving. You can kick the rear out surprisingly easily and it being fwd makes it very easy to control, just a slight counter steer and increase throttle. Yes it can understeer, but when you let off the gas or tap the brakes it will swing right around.

To me drag isn't racing, more of how much money and tuning can you throw down a straight line. It's very fun no doubt, but pales in comparison to the rush/fear of cutting through a corner at the limit of blasting around or wrapping around a tree.

It is interesting doing some pulls on a stock tune then right to a 93 octane dp/fp tune. Such a huge difference in the feeling of tourque. Stock I ran with a buddies Challenger R/T and pulled on him with ease. Then again that has a good bit worse power to weight. Stock this didn't feel too fast, but it would keep pulling and increasing speed up past 100 which was impressive. Now I can do 85-140 in 10 seconds which seems pretty quick to me.

Getting moving off the line is undoubtedly slow, but once you're in second with proper throttle modulation and TC tuning (or vsa completely off so the throttle plate won't close and engine loses boost) it takes off.

That is if course unless it's raining, then you are boned. Sport and comfort mode would pull more consistently.

 

[mvela]

That wouldn't work for the Type R because the Type R is traction limited in 1st and 2nd. An even shorter gear would amplify that problem. The Si doesn't put enough power down to be traction limited on the stock tune.

The R would really need rwd or awd to have a significantly better launch but those would each come with their own set of new drawbacks if Honda did that.

So you are saying on a drag strip if you put racing slicks on the CTR with no chance of losing traction, then it would beat a Camaro SS or Mustang GT? I think it would still lose, which is why I think gearing could help.

 

[wildbilly32]

Ok no engineer here, but when I put A/S tires on my CTR that are 245-35-20's instead of the stock 30's gaining 0.48"of sidewall height it seemed to tame the first and second gear "HOLY S--T" full throttle issues. The circumference difference is 84" instead of 81". Wouldn't this change the effective final gear ratio?

BTW the sidewall height paid off today as I was parking and scuffed the outer curb. The tire slightly climbed the curb but absolutely no rim damage. Not sure I would have gotten away with that on the stock tires. I blame the remainder of flu symptoms for my stupid driving error.

 

[mvela]

Ok no engineer here, but when I put A/S tires on my CTR that are 245-35-20's instead of the stock 30's gaining 0.48"of sidewall height it seemed to tame the first and second gear "HOLY S--T" full throttle issues. The circumference difference is 84" instead of 81". Wouldn't this change the effective final gear ratio?

BTW the sidewall height paid off today as I was parking and scuffed the outer curb. The tire slightly climbed the curb but absolutely no rim damage. Not sure I would have gotten away with that on the stock tires. I blame the remainder of flu symptoms for my stupid driving error.

Actually by going with a larger diameter tire you are doing the opposite of lowering the final drive ratio. You would have to go with a smaller diameter tire to have the same affect as a shorter final drive ratio.

 

[Jwolf]

^^ this

it all depends on what your used to driving, and what you have driven in the past

after driving motorcycles and porches for years, the R IS SLOW!!

90% of people use the word fast incorrectly anyway. 100% of probabilities are made up on the spot also.

 

[redline]

No amount of tire on the ctr will ever out 60' a rwd auto car on the street or the strip. The ctr is quick or possibly even fast for what it was meant to do and that's carving corners.

 

[rnarains89]

I have yet to go up against any of the newer cars. Weirdly enough its been mostly built cars lol. All of these were done in mexico.

Who won the race with the TLX? Lol

 

[n2da2nd]

Straight line is boring! It's all about circuit for me when it comes to a real race. The word "fast" is really relative. To the owner of a 600HP car, yes the CTR is not fast. To me, my CIvic is fast......er than my Honda super cub 50cc I had in my country. To Honda fanboys, the Civic CVT is also fast. You get the point.

 

[redline]

Straight line is boring! It's all about circuit for me when it comes to a real race. The word "fast" is really relative. To the owner of a 600HP car, yes the CTR is not fast. To me, my CIvic is fast......er than my Honda super cub 50cc I had in my country. To Honda fanboys, the Civic CVT is also fast. You get the point.

I wouldn't call a straight line boring if you ever had anything making real power like 1000+ can be a handful to get it to do a to b pass in a straight line lol.

 

[wildbilly32]

Actually by going with a larger diameter tire you are doing the opposite of lowering the final drive ratio. You would have to go with a smaller diameter tire to have the same affect as a shorter final drive ratio.

So if this is factual what calmed the car down after installation of the 35 tires? Weight? What I mean by the Holy S--t!" response is the snap acceleration in first and second gears that tend to snap the tires loose. It still does it but not near as severely.

 

[Jwolf]

So if this is factual what calmed the car down after installation of the 35 tires? Weight? What I mean by the Holy S--t!" response is the snap acceleration in first and second gears that tend to snap the tires loose. It still does it but not near as severely.

Taller gears means slower acceleration. You've made them taller by increasing diameter, although I suspect some essence of placebo. As well, there could possibly be some traction control magic happening too due to less sticky tires.

/shrug

Sponsored