To be honest, I think you'd be better going to Honda for the servicing on a reasonably recent car. Will help resale value. I always find that Honda main dealers are quick flexible on their pricing, and will try to come close to local specialists.
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
tell me about fn2 civics
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
Would hardly say the engine is gutless, the whole point is you need to rev it hard. A Focus ST in comparison is easier to drive but its a much lazier drive whereas the FN2 is a lot more rewarding to drive but does require more work.
Would recommend trying to find one with a LSD if you can get one within budget as they transform the car in the twisties.
I have had my FN2 since release in 2007 and still love it (although its 315bhp now due to a supercharger).
Would recommend trying to find one with a LSD if you can get one within budget as they transform the car in the twisties.
I have had my FN2 since release in 2007 and still love it (although its 315bhp now due to a supercharger).
Please elaborate on this statement....
How is an ST any easier to drive than a Type R? Unless the Type R's accelerator is like pushing down on a brick....
Also how is the Type R more rewarding??
He is basically saying that the Type-R has to be kept on the boil by stirring the gearbox almost constantly, trying to stay in the relatively narrow band of VTEC that gives you the turn of speed you'd expect from a "hot" hatch.
The ST is a lot more relaxed in terms of power delivery, there is ample power pretty much any gear, anywhere (as long as the turbo is spooled), and enough torque that you don't necessarily have to change gear in order to get a decent amount of acceleration (ie accelerating from 50mph in 4th or 5th).
Both are fast hatches when driven in anger, but the ST will always be the more relaxed power delivery car.
The reason (I assume) he is referring to the Type-R being more rewarding to drive is that it's inherently more involving, so you feel like you've worked harder for the performance.
I'd prefer the ST.
The FST will pull very hard from low down in the rev range, the Civic you have to work it harder for its performance which from a drivers point of view is more rewarding. Keeping the engine on boil while you're flicking down some A roads is more enjoyable than sitting in 4th letting the turbo do the work for you. But different people have different driving styles so it's subjective IMO. The drawback for me in the FST is the terrible fuel economy plus it didn't really excite me to drive. Saying that, I'm no fan of the FN2 either but if I had to chose I'd get the Honda.
Still confused as to how an ST is "easier" to drive than a Type R. Physically both cars will probably require the same amount of energy to drive? The Type R might require a down shift when going up a hill, this isn't really labour intensive...
"More rewarding", I guess this is opinion based
"More rewarding", I guess this is opinion based
What point?
The one you missed
But going back to your original quesiton the CTR isn't physically harder to drive than a ST but in order to get the most from the car, especially on back roads, you will need plenty of gear changes and lots of revs which is far more fun but more work. As a driver I find this much more "rewarding" when having to actually drive the car.
pretty much. Some love it, some hate it.
Not so much hate it, as don't see the point.
You can still drive a car that has a lazier power delivery, hard. It just means that should I not feel like pretending to be Senna, I can still make swifter (and more effortless) progress than I could with the power delivery of say a Civic Type-R.
I'm not doubting that some people utterly love the way the Type-R drives, but there is a pretty big difference between hating something and not seeing the need for something!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,987
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Have you not driven fast cars?
I certainly find a 3.0 V6D Jaguar XJ 'easier' to drive than an S2000.
The one you missed
But going back to your original quesiton the CTR isn't physically harder to drive than a ST but in order to get the most from the car, especially on back roads, you will need plenty of gear changes and lots of revs which is far more fun but more work. As a driver I find this much more "rewarding" when having to actually drive the car.
Still not getting this, if you had of said:
A Mercedes S class is easier to drive than a Type R - FACT
A Caterham is more rewarding to drive than a Type R - FACT
Saying a Type R is more rewarding because you HAVE to rag the living life out of the engine to get any performance doesn't mean it's any more rewarding than an ST, which can also be ragged in the same manner. They are both 'Hot Hatches', with different types of power delivery that is all
How on earth is this possibly relevant? We are comparing 2 hot hatches, and then you come along and compare a 2.0 N/A sports car to a large diesel 4 door saloon!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,987
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
One doesnt make you wince when you rev it out a bit too far and induce a asthma attack on the engine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,987
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
How on earth is this possibly relevant? We are comparing 2 hot hatches, and then you come along and compare a 2.0 N/A sports car to a large diesel 4 door saloon!
Because they are pretty much the same in terms of straight line speed. Ive simply had to use such a divide in attempt to illuminate that light bulb in your head. It failed? Or you havent driven fast cars?
Did you measure the calories consumed?
But I'm trying to understand how a Civic Type R is "more rewarding" and "harder" to drive than a Focus ST. All it requires is the correct gear, hardly requiring mental or physical attributes of a fighter pilot
Both are hot hatches with very similar performance figures. An XJ 3.0V6D will of course be easier to drive than an S2000, I'd much rather take an S2000 on the back roads though.