Evo magazine review, R takes the win

Driveitlikeuboughtit

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Threads
84
Messages
876
Reaction score
588
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2018 CW CTR
Country flag
"One of the great attractions of the Civic is that it has such depth of ability that it can be so many different things to different people. Want to push it to the limit for a great lap time? ‘Game on,’ says the Honda. Want to be a bit of a hooligan on the brakes to get the tail moving? ‘No problem,’ it says, and precise lines become more expressive. New to track driving and want to develop your skills? ‘I’ll look after you,’ pipes up the R, ‘make you look great, and still thrill you.’ And all of this is achieved with pious abstinence when it comes to tyre and brake wear, a highly desirable quality it shares with the GT3, Elise and Caterham. Earlier I’d done the sandwich run in it, and there was plenty of room for pasties of dubious merit and massed chocolate bars. It did that well, too, you see.

When Dickie says, ‘If Porsche did a hot hatch I think it would feel a lot like this,’ he’s not the only one to utter that thought out loud. It really is that good."




"...of all the cars here, the Honda is the one that dropped our jaws the lowest. Its breadth of ability is simply staggering, as it slips effortlessly from hassle-free commuting machine to all-out track-attack monster with little more than a press of a button. In the wet its pace was incredible (not much here was quicker), its ability to find grip bordering on witchcraft.

Yet this unflappability doesn’t come at the expense of fun: the Type R is able to get expressive with a lift of the throttle here and a dab of the brakes there. Then there’s the way it operates – beautifully calibrated damping, meaty brake feel and that lovely, wrist-flick gearchange – and its tireless appetite for lapping.

The 911 is the dream choice, but in the real world the Civic wins hands down. It’s a staggering achievement and arguably the performance bargain of the decade."
 
Last edited:

wildbilly32

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Threads
34
Messages
926
Reaction score
911
Location
Kneebraska
Vehicle(s)
05 Porsche C4S 19 CTR #24184 19 Volvo XC40 R
Country flag
Beat the designated Porsche track weapon the GT3! This was a track test and my guess is it would destroy a GT3 on the street for comfort, mileage and the ability to carry extra people/luggage. No comparison and I own a Porsche. WIN...Honda!
 

wishistillhadmyITR

Senior Member
First Name
d
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Threads
1
Messages
67
Reaction score
41
Location
SOCAL
Vehicle(s)
F87 M2 (former 00' EBP Si, PYITR 0081, Evo VIII, IX, 15' WRX STi, Focus RS))
Country flag
Beat the designated Porsche track weapon the GT3! This was a track test and my guess is it would destroy a GT3 on the street for comfort, mileage and the ability to carry extra people/luggage. No comparison and I own a Porsche. WIN...Honda!
Just to be clear, the track was wet pretty much the entire time. And, Evo had gripes with the inability to buy the GT3 compared to the ready availability to the CTR. Quibbles not over outright performance...

Regardless, another notch on the CTR belt to be proud of.
 


theclutch

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
A few
Country flag
I think this speaks for itself at the Nurburgring... It's negligibly as fast as a 997 GT3 at that big of a track!!!

7:42 Porsche Cayman GT4 (981) Christian Gebhardt Apr-15 Sport Auto (5/2015), Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2. [170][171][172]
7:42 Porsche 911 GT3 (997) Walter Röhrl Automobil (05/2006), Sport Auto (05/2006)[citation needed]
7:43 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (997) 'Motor' magazine[citation needed]
7:43.8 Honda Civic Type R (FK8) Apr-17 Official test conducted by Honda. FWD lap record holder as of April 2018.
7:43.7 Nissan GT-R Sascha Bert Nov-10 Auto Bild Sportscars (11/2010)[citation needed]
7:44 Audi R8 Coupé 5.2 FSI quattro Sport Auto (09/2009), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[177]
7:44 Pagani Zonda S 7.3 (2002) Horst von Saurma 2002 Sport Auto (2002), Michelin Pilot Sport.[178]
7:46 Porsche 911 GT2 (1999) Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2001)[citation needed]
7:46 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 570-4 Superleggera Horst von Saurma 2007 Sport Auto (09/2007), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[187]
7:46.7 Porsche 718 Cayman S (982) Christian Gebhardt Sep-16 Sport Auto (10/2016), Pirelli P Zero N1.[188][189]
7:47 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (996) Horst von Saurma 2004 Sport Auto (3/2004), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[190]
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
I think this speaks for itself at the Nurburgring... It's negligibly as fast as a 997 GT3 at that big of a track!!!

7:42 Porsche Cayman GT4 (981) Christian Gebhardt Apr-15 Sport Auto (5/2015), Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2. [170][171][172]
7:42 Porsche 911 GT3 (997) Walter Röhrl Automobil (05/2006), Sport Auto (05/2006)[citation needed]
7:43 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (997) 'Motor' magazine[citation needed]
7:43.8 Honda Civic Type R (FK8) Apr-17 Official test conducted by Honda. FWD lap record holder as of April 2018.
7:43.7 Nissan GT-R Sascha Bert Nov-10 Auto Bild Sportscars (11/2010)[citation needed]
7:44 Audi R8 Coupé 5.2 FSI quattro Sport Auto (09/2009), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[177]
7:44 Pagani Zonda S 7.3 (2002) Horst von Saurma 2002 Sport Auto (2002), Michelin Pilot Sport.[178]
7:46 Porsche 911 GT2 (1999) Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2001)[citation needed]
7:46 Lamborghini Gallardo LP 570-4 Superleggera Horst von Saurma 2007 Sport Auto (09/2007), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[187]
7:46.7 Porsche 718 Cayman S (982) Christian Gebhardt Sep-16 Sport Auto (10/2016), Pirelli P Zero N1.[188][189]
7:47 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (996) Horst von Saurma 2004 Sport Auto (3/2004), Pirelli P Zero Corsa.[190]
These times are not really comparable. I don't think the CTR time you list is fake, but it was done in super-ideal circumstances. It's better to compare times done by independent tests with each other. The 7:42 in the GT4 was done by sport auto with their driver. The same driver did an 8:06 in the CTR. So the relevant CTR time to compare with most of the times you list is 8:06. That's still amazing for a 320 hp FWD car that costs 35k.
 

remc86007

Senior Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
550
Reaction score
409
Location
Jacksonville, FL
Vehicle(s)
2018 Civic Type R
Country flag
I understand your point, but I personally am not very interested in how a car performs in non-ideal conditions with a potentially inferior driver. If other manufacturers take issue with how their car compares to the CTR or any other car, they should test their car in ideal conditions with the best driver they can find. In my mind the relevant time is the very best a car can physically do trying to control for every variable (including drivers skill) as much as possible.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
I understand your point, but I personally am not very interested in how a car performs in non-ideal conditions with a potentially inferior driver. If other manufacturers take issue with how their car compares to the CTR or any other car, they should test their car in ideal conditions with the best driver they can find. In my mind the relevant time is the very best a car can physically do trying to control for every variable (including drivers skill) as much as possible.
A time that can't be compared to any other time isn't useful.

I care about how much faster car A is around a track than car B. I also care about knowing what the best time I can hope for is, compared to a top level driver. Porsche factory times are usually only few seconds quicker than independent magazine times. The factory CTR time is 23 seconds faster than the independent magazine time. Take that for what you will. Like you, I'm also not concerned with inferior drivers, but the driver for sport auto is certain tip top tier. Sport auto times are the most useful and relevant times if you are concerned with the two bits of information in the beginning of this paragraph. Also, in my experience with some very talented amateurs at track days, the relative ranking of cars from sport auto times is pretty accurate.
 


theclutch

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Location
MA
Vehicle(s)
A few
Country flag
These times are not really comparable. I don't think the CTR time you list is fake, but it was done in super-ideal circumstances. It's better to compare times done by independent tests with each other. The 7:42 in the GT4 was done by sport auto with their driver. The same driver did an 8:06 in the CTR. So the relevant CTR time to compare with most of the times you list is 8:06. That's still amazing for a 320 hp FWD car that costs 35k.
On that note, I wouldn't call Walter Röhrl and Horst von Saurma "inferior" drivers and coincidentally both driving in "inferior" conditions. I added those additional cars for more data points. All those cars and drivers all hovering in the 7:40s range are superior drivers in superior cars... The CTR is in damn good company.

Just to correct your stats, Christian Gebhardt did the old CTR FK2 at 8:15 and the Focus RS at 8:06.
 

remc86007

Senior Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
550
Reaction score
409
Location
Jacksonville, FL
Vehicle(s)
2018 Civic Type R
Country flag
After perusing the list again, I have a new theory: Maybe the Sport Auto guy can't drive FWD? Just kidding. Most of the cars on the list are RWD or AWD.

I don't know how Sport Auto does their testing, but having watched Honda's Civic Type R Nürburgring video, it was clear to me that that dude had hundreds of FWD laps. He pushed the limits of the car in ways that I don't think I would ever feel comfortable doing. It is entirely understandable that someone without hundreds of laps in FWD cars would fall a bit behind.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
On that note, I wouldn't call Walter Röhrl and Horst von Saurma "inferior" drivers and coincidentally both driving in "inferior" conditions. I added those additional cars for more data points. All those cars and drivers all hovering in the 7:40s range are superior drivers in superior cars... The CTR is in damn good company.

Just to correct your stats, Christian Gebhardt did the old CTR FK2 at 8:15 and the Focus RS at 8:06.
Oops, I did remember the 8:06 RS time, thanks for the correction. The FK8 did do a 8:01 with sport auto while they posted 7:40-7:50 times for a lot of the cars you list (making those cars 11-20 seconds faster than a CTR). Likely the 8:01 CTR time was in Christian's hands, but I'm not sure.

"The CTR is in damn good company" is a false, or at best misleading, statement if you are talking about 7:40-7:50 cars. The CTR is not in the company of the 7:40-7:50 cars. To say that it would have to be driven under the same conditions as the other 7:40-7:50 cars and post a sub 7:50 time.

Sport auto tests the GT4 as 19 seconds faster than the CTR under similar conditions (7:42 vs. 8:01). Every other test that has included both the GT4 and a CTR has shown the former car to be significantly faster. Motor Trend (Randy Pobst) did a 1:37 at Laguna Seca in a GT4 and a 1:44 in a CTR. Car and Driver did a 2:54 in a GT4 at Virginia International Raceway and a 3:03.9 in the CTR. Every track day I've gone to has the GT4 4 or 5 seconds faster around a 2 minute track than the CTR (which would translate to about 20 seconds faster at the 'ring, a roughly 8 minute track). Are you suggesting that the CTR can post similar times to a GT4 and for every example I have given that they just weren't driving the CTR well enough?

I don't care that much, but I kind of care about the scientific literacy of the general populace :) Each of these tests is an experiment to measure an unknown quantity. There are parameters that effect the outcome, like weather and driver. Some of these parameters might be considered cheating, like turning up the turbo boost, changing the suspension from stock, or modifying the tires some way for a hero lap (special heating or shaving). I don't want to say the Honda factory CTR time is BS or cheating, but however they got their lap time so low doesn't translate to any magazine test or lap time achieved by actual owners. It's basic scientific/engineering procedure to throw out an outlying data point. Every other test has the GT4 at least 4 seconds per two minutes of track time faster than the CTR except for the Honda factory CTR time, therefore, that factory time is the one to throw out for any reasonable comparison.

It doesn't mean we can't enjoy watching Honda's 7:43.8 and wonder what witchcraft they performed to get it, but it's meaningless for comparison with other cars. 8:01 is a time comparable with other cars and it's damn impressive! (EDIT: from tire differences described in the next two posts, a good comparable ring time for the CTR is likely around 7:53 if it was on Michelin Cup 2 tires, which many of the 7:40-7:50 cars use, so the factory CTR time of 7:43.8 is still an outlier, but by about 10 seconds, not 18 seconds)

Honda Civic 10th gen Evo magazine review, R takes the win 27882763419_4f0d5849b5_o
 
Last edited:

Gansan

Senior Member
First Name
Glen
Joined
Sep 13, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
392
Reaction score
396
Location
San Diego, CA
Vehicle(s)
1999 NSX, 2018 Civic Type R
Country flag
Oops, I did remember the 8:06 RS time, thanks for the correction. The FK8 did do a 8:01 with sport auto while they posted 7:40-7:50 times for a lot of the cars you list (making those cars 11-20 seconds faster than a CTR). Likely the 8:01 CTR time was in Christian's hands, but I'm not sure.

"The CTR is in damn good company" is a false, or at best misleading, statement if you are talking about 7:40-7:50 cars. The CTR is not in the company of the 7:40-7:50 cars. To say that it would have to be driven under the same conditions as the other 7:40-7:50 cars and post a sub 7:50 time.

Sport auto tests the GT4 as 19 seconds faster than the CTR under similar conditions (7:42 vs. 8:01). Every other test that has included both the GT4 and a CTR has shown the former car to be significantly faster. Motor Trend (Randy Pobst) did a 1:37 at Laguna Seca in a GT4 and a 1:44 in a CTR. Car and Driver did a 2:54 in a GT4 at Virginia International Raceway and a 3:03.9 in the CTR. Every track day I've gone to has the GT4 4 or 5 seconds faster around a 2 minute track than the CTR (which would translate to about 20 seconds faster at the 'ring, a roughly 8 minute track). Are you suggesting that the CTR can post similar times to a GT4 and for every example I have given that they just weren't driving the CTR well enough?

I don't care that much, but I kind of care about the scientific literacy of the general populace :) Each of these tests is an experiment to measure an unknown quantity. There are parameters that effect the outcome, like weather and driver. Some of these parameters might be considered cheating, like turning up the turbo boost, changing the suspension from stock, or modifying the tires some way for a hero lap (special heating or shaving). I don't want to say the Honda factory CTR time is BS or cheating, but however they got their lap time so low doesn't translate to any magazine test or lap time achieved by actual owners. It's basic scientific/engineering procedure to throw out an outlying data point. Every other test has the GT4 at least 4 seconds per two minutes of track time faster than the CTR except for the Honda factory CTR time, therefore, that factory time is the one to throw out for any reasonable comparison.

It doesn't mean we can't enjoy watching Honda's 7:43.8 and wonder what witchcraft they performed to get it, but it's meaningless for comparison with other cars. 8:01 is a time comparable with other cars and it's damn impressive!
It should be noted that for the Ring attempt, Honda specified they ran Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires which of course are the same tires used by many of the cars on the list. The Motor Trend and Car and Driver tests run the OEM SportContact 6. That easily accounts for a significant part of the difference in performance gap to the other cars. I don't consider it cheating since they specified what they ran, plus all track rats know that tires are disposable items. I consider the 'Ring time more an indication of what the chassis can do with the more track oriented Michelins, but I am glad they went with the slightly less aggressive, more durable tires as OEM. That way if you are going for lap times you can easily change them out as you wish.
 

yargk

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Threads
21
Messages
499
Reaction score
359
Location
SF bay area
Vehicle(s)
'18 Civic Type R, '16 GT4, '19 GSW 4motion 6mt
Country flag
It should be noted that for the Ring attempt, Honda specified they ran Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires which of course are the same tires used by many of the cars on the list. The Motor Trend and Car and Driver tests run the OEM SportContact 6. That easily accounts for a significant part of the difference in performance gap to the other cars. I don't consider it cheating since they specified what they ran, plus all track rats know that tires are disposable items. I consider the 'Ring time more an indication of what the chassis can do with the more track oriented Michelins, but I am glad they went with the slightly less aggressive, more durable tires as OEM. That way if you are going for lap times you can easily change them out as you wish.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case. Conti 6 to Cup2 is worth about 2 seconds per 2 minutes, so that might make a comparable CTR ring time of 7:53ish. And then if the Motor trend and Car and Driver times were adjusted, then the CTR might do 1:42 at Laguna and 3:00 at VIR with Cup2s (vs. CTR 1:44 and 3:03 with conti 6s // GT4 did 1:37 and 2:54 times on cup2s)
Sponsored

 
Last edited:


 


Top