You hit the nail on the head. While designers want to build the car "we" want, it's the accountants that put the brakes on almost everything. Seth and I have a friend that does product planning for Infiniti and he says his job can be frustrating because the car you build is not what makes it to showrooms. We are the minority and manufacturers don't make a lot of money selling product to us.

 

Man, I have to respectfully disagree there. Lets snapshot compare now to around fifteen years ago with Japanese manufacturers.


Mazda: While I'd argue the old Miata is better than the newer one, and there's nothing that is in the league of the RX-7 as a tuner car, at least Mazda hasn't given up on fun cars. Although the RX-8 has recently given up the ghost, it was an entertaining drive. The Miata is still with us, and due for an exciting redesign. The Mazdaspeed 3 isn't my favorite FWD car out there, but at least its boosted and has a real limited slip differential.

Mitsubishi: While the Evo VIII and IX are missed, let's go back to 1999. The Evo X singlehandedly destroys the 2G DSM and the 3000GT VR-4 in all things performance and tenability. The handling of the Evo is otherworldly compared to those two cars as well. I know it's on its way out, so Mitsubishi could be the next manufacturer to fall from grace. Hold on to ALL those used Evos, people!

Nissan/Infiniti: The 240SX non-boosted, though entertaining and with a grand aftermarket, proved they didn't want to give us a real version of the car back then. The 300ZX TT is outclassed in every instrumented aspect of performance by the 370Z, and that's not even counting the R35 GTR, which I'd mark as the greatest production Japanese performance car ever. Nissan's star is on the rise, and they're better than ever!

Subaru: Subaru meant boring in the late nineties. The 2.5 RS looked the part, but it's 160HP engine guaranteed that it couldn't dance. The WRX, STI, and BRZ have made the car very exciting. Like the Evo, the older cars were arguably better, but this coming WRX looks like it could be the best the USA has ever seen on its shores.

Toyota/Lexus: I'm probably going to get rocks thrown at me for this, but I think the Mk VI Supra is the most overrated car ever. Yes, the engine is amazing. But the chassis isn't that exciting, and hasn't aged well. It's fame is better than its pedigree. The MR2 is definitely missed, and I'll go on record as one of the few that really liked the Yamaha powered Celica GT-S. It was a great light front wheel drive car! The thing to realize with Toyota is that they've really come back from their total death (read: where Honda is now) of just 10 or so years ago. We've got the FR-S now, the IS-F was great, and the LFA was a world beater. Even if you only count the FR-S, at least Toyota is trying.

Honda/Acura: How can a company that literally ruled the import performance scene 12-16 years ago literally fall over and die like that? The ITR in and of itself was incredible. The Civic Si, the Integra/RSX, the NSX, the S2000.. Heck, even the Prelude was respectable for it's time. Honda motor swaps, potential, lightweight cars, I could go on and on because the aftermarket was legendary. The S2000 is dead. The Integra and RSX are dead. The NSX has been dead but should be back eventually. The Prelude is dead. And the Si has been neutered of its fire breathing high revving K20, saddled with a boring K24 with a lot less time on the VTEC lobe and less aftermarket potential. The 2014 Si now looks like the bulbous Accord, and the entire Acura line is infected with laserbeak grills. Honda is dead.

 

I hear what people are saying about manufacturers catering to the majority but I'll never understand people who like to drive boring cars.

 

Here's a good video given the current discussion.

 

Why can't people have it both ways?

I own an Evo and a Prius.

It's my own personal cap and trade.

 

I owned both a a 98 Integra Type R and a 93 hatch with a 98 JDM ITR motor and I've been thinking about building a Civic Kseries hybrid.

I;d be interested in a new Civic Type R as a daily driver.

 

It does makes more sense to me if you have both, especially if the boring car is really good on gas .

I just don't understand people who have a $300+ car payment and they drive a base model car. At least get some leather or a sunroof or something

 

my old teggy gsr is more fun than the newer si's.

 

I'm not sure about this boosted CTR.

We're talking about 300 horsepower in a FWD car with a 7k redline. So my assumption is that makes a healthy amount of torque too.

I had a brief fling with a GTI last year due to its ability to swallow a fully assembled road bike, return good fuel economy, and the fact that it came standard with a pretty nice interior. All those checkboxes ticked, however, the first time I tried to make full use of the power accelerating out of a corner proved it was time to throw the rest of the whole list in the trash. And modified? Man, forget it. Point + accelerate = push and scrub speed.

Performance front wheel drive cars these days are mostly an oxymoron. I know the Ford hatch sisters aren’t as bad as the GTI stock, but they can’t even fully utilize the power they come with, much less some extra through mods, and factory limited slip differentials these days have been traded for “e-diffs”, which is just the cars ABS system applying the brake to the spinning wheel. That’s not transferring torque, that’s hindering it.

While I'm sure the R will come with a proper diff since even the Civic Si does, there is a limit to what you can do with front wheel drive.

To see what makes a truly exceptional front wheel drive car, the ingredients that made the ITR so great are essential: a light curb weight, a true limited slip differential, an engine that makes less (read: manageable for FWD) torque, but permits good horsepower through rev capacity.

 

I wouldn't go that far. The K20 07-11 cars are a lot more exiting than the B18C1, and they have a great limited slip, whereas the GSR was open differential. I have a couple friends with ~08 era CSI sedans, and they are a blast to drive. You can go in way hotter than you should be able to in a FWD car, and maintain traction and control throughout the entire turn at speed.

Different strokes for different folks, man.

 

Most people view their cars in the same way they view their appliances - as long as it starts and gets them where they're going, it's fine.

 

Emissions issues aside, this logic is exactly why Honda *should* bring a vehicle like the CTR. They've already done the safety testing and whatnot, so bringing the high end derivative wouldn't require much work - unless it can't meet US emissions. But that doesn't make much sense either, since Japan's emissions rules are stricter than the US (stricter than CARB even, I believe). The CTR is low volume so it shouldn't hurt their CAFE.

There's two possibilities in my mind... one is that Honda doesn't think people will pay $30k+ for a CTR, or two, they want to keep their "green" image (which is BS anyway) and having "sports cars" doesn't jive.

 

No double wishbone, no care.

 

exactly, I think part of our different viewpoints is likely due to me feeling nostalgia from cars of back then.

 

Honda has really fallen off in recent years after the deletion of the RSX type s. The civic is heavy as hell and slow as heck too. Its a shame because back in the integra type r days they owned the import world.