Re: high strength steel, it looks like the CTR does use 'slightly' more high strength steel.

2016 Civic: 59-percent high strength steels (14 percent ultra-high strength steel)
http://news.honda.com/newsandviews/a...spx?id=8706-en

2017 CTR: 61-percent high strength steel body structure (21-percent ultra-high strength steel)
http://news.honda.com/newsandviews/a...spx?id=9742-en

 

That's 50% more ultra!

 

yes the tire diameter does you are 100% right.
What i am saying is, mostly 20 inch wheels carries larger diameter tires from factories, since barely anyone goes under 40- 45 high with oem tires. We doesnt compare truck tires to sport car ones.
Also if you do less hight with tires, usually makes the tires more rigid side wall, therefore it is more precise feed backs and more stable handling

Like 45 vs 35 .

 

kinda depends on the size of the door openings...

 

Heres a listing of chassis & their torsional values. Unfortunately, our EvO is not listed.

Heres an example of the BMW 2 door vs 4 door: BMW E46 Coupe (w/folding seats) 12,500 Vs BMW E46 Sedan (w/folding seats) 13,000

There are other examples, such as the Ford / VW where the values are opposite the BMW (3 door stiffer than the 5 door)

http://youwheel.com/home/2016/06/20/...ehensive-list/

 

Structurally simpler, I'd guess. Once seam welding/bracing/roll cage/etc, then the advantage is a moot point, anyway.

Nothing is every "always".

 

Sam

Youre right. Its all about the Bee pillar

Heres a cut/paste from Mitsu on our CT9A:

The upper and lower body join, a major factor in overall torsional stiffness, has been strengthened with the addition of large reinforcements to inner and outer panels at the bottom of the B-pillar


Sorry, OT

Joe

 

very interesting that some 2 doors are stronger than their 4 door counterparts

 

Engineering Explained, in-car video.

 

Saw that video earlier. I think he does a pretty great job in this particular review. It seems fairly honest and he doesnt just write off the car because its FWD.

 

the hood scoop reminded me of the extinct evo x. :-)

 

I agree

The torque steer or lack there of is quite impressive.
I imagine this car is near the top of the performance category out of the box for a cheaper cost than its competition.

After market wise, FWD will be limited, unfortunately no way to get around that.
A pro to that is honda motors respond very well to modifications, I imagine it is a 370whp 390wtq engine with some tuning parts fairly easily.

 

don't want the car but I'm happy that it exists - can't wait for the comparos with the RS, STI, etc.

 

Hopefully Randy Pobst does a track review of it around Laguna Seca. Imo comparing his track times is as good of a comparison as you can get.

 

Now that I see the elimination of torque steer was accomplished mechanically, not electronically (especially using brakes or other performance-robbing methods), I feel a lot better about the car.
My first road course car was a Honda and I got into the "scene" after getting my *** handed to me by a Civic hatchback (though an '00 Mustang GT is a pig compared to almost... well... anything). So, I am biased and I don't mind that.
Still, the more I look into this car the more I like it. It's not the best looking car out there.. but that's subjective and a matter of opinion; I can deal with that. I was taking a hard look at the car, and I think there may be some days to subdue it's appearance a bit. If not, no biggie.
The only other complaint I hear from people is that it's FWD and I don't care about that either.

I'm really, REALLY liking this car. In two years I'll be looking for a new daily driver. They should have the bugs worked out of these by then. Or maybe I'll save some cash and buy the '17.