yeah. that's all. LOL

 

Honda has clearly done something remarkable with the CTR. It will set a new standard for what people expect from a sports car. It really raises the bar across the board. Well done Honda.

Anyone that just can't get over the fwd should keep an eye out for the S2000 replacement http://www.thesupercarblog.com/next-...tent-drawings/

 

that looks nowhere near affordable LOL

we'll see. i do like the CTR, though.

 

yeah, but it'll never replace the evo. well maybe the evo x but not the 8/9. if you want scalpel precise handling there's just no replacement for the evo 8/9


haha, just channeling my inner kaj

 

ooooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmm

 

I still think the DC2 ITR was the best and most fun performance FWD sold in the US by a landslide, and it's almost 20 years old. Honda has the engineering mojo and made the new car great as well. It's clearly in a different league than the old one.

I don't really have a problem with it beating an M3 on a really tight ~45 second course, either. Autocross type tracks have always favored small cars.

Since the car is already available for purchase in some parts of the world, we know a few things about it: It has 306hp, 295lb ft tq, and weighs 3031 lbs in UK configuration. It's also good for a 13.8 second quarter mile run at approx. 105mph. It's crazy stiff in the rear, in spite of the fact it doesn't use a rear sway bar, and has a torsion rear beam.

The power:weight is clearly better than Evo/STI, so no problems there from me. Where I don't buy some of these factory Nordschleife hype times are the tires used, weight modifications, and means they got there. Power means something on big tracks like the 'Ring. And assuming both cars are at home and excel on a racetrack with turns, a 3000lb 300hp FWD that traps 105mph is not going to run the same time as a 3500lb 425hp RWD that traps 118mph. The new CTR doesn't repeal the laws of physics, no matter how much marketing hype is generated for it.

 

i agree. i used to OWN "faster" cars at Buttonwillow. the other drivers' faces were priceless LOL

 

tight tracks always favored small cars

the only reason it did good on the 'ring is that power to weight ratio (and maybe tires)


reading your post kinda sounds like you're making up excuses of why its faster than more expensive cars... like you're hating on the CTR... am I reading that right?

cause to me, its more like the best of both worlds... its fast on a tight track and its fast on a big open track, sounds like a win win to me

 

I own faster cars on the track all the time with my RSX... and thats no where near the best FWD car... I honestly mostly chalk this up to a slow car is easier to drive fast than a "fast" car... especially a powerful RWD car

 

re: weight modification
The removal of equipment such as air conditioning, the front passenger seat and audio equipment offset the additional weight of a full roll cage (installed specifically for safety reasons and not to add rigidity).
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/03/h...-record-video/

re: tires
During the test cycle, the development car used production-specification high-rigidity 19-inch alloy wheels. these were fitted with 235/35R19 road tyres being developed in conjunction with a major European tyre manufacturer especially for the new Civic Type R. The test cycle during which the 7 minutes 50.63 seconds lap time was achieved was part of the tyre's development and testing process.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/03/h...-record-video/

 

maybe the "test tires" just happened to be UTQG80 LOL. you know. for R&D :P

 

What does it matter if they were? The stock Evo 8/9 advans wore in record time. The RS has optional sport cups. Its still remarkable, especially for a 235 tire.

 

the cage might have been installed for safety reasons, but it still adds rigidity. You can't say its not for rigidity and have that magically go away... besides, plenty of cars go on the 'ring all the time without a cage, most track records are set without cages... I don't see why they needed one, or are they admitting that their car isn't as safe as the others capable of running similar times

as far as tires go, I'm honestly tired of the constant skepticism... Porsche puts r comp tires on their cars stock and no one complains. I really don't see why no one ever believes manufacturers that they use stock tires. especially in this case now, now that the CTR has been tested by independent establishments and is faster than a FREAKING M4!

 

Reading partially wrong.

Definitely agree small cars are faster on small tracks where agility and their lack of size rule.

On that 7:50 'Ring time, comparing the CTR against any of those laptimes listed a few posts back is meaningless. Different drivers, car setups, track conditions, etc. aren't taken into account. Going a step further, if you think a production CTR can beat a production 08 GT-R round the 'ring by 4 seconds (with the same pro-level driver, lapped back-to-back), please pass me what you're smoking.

To a lesser degree, the M3 has a lot better power:weight ratio than the CTR, and will handily whip it on a high speed track like the Ring.

I'm not hating on the CTR. I think it will be the best fwd ever. But I think some people here are inferring it's a giant killer. It's simply not going to hang with known great handling cars that slaughter it's power:weight on a high speed racetrack.

 

Results beg to differ:
BMW M4 7:52 (with rumor of a 7:50 run but no video confirmation)
Civic Type R: 7:50.63
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/19/b...burgring-time/
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/03/h...-record-video/