Type R Showdown
- Thread starter panthro
- Start date
Not being funny but the dc5 would never be a concern, came out when 2001? so its on way out soon. And Honda UK arnt gonna care, sooner dc5 goes out the better for them as it was never officially imported into uk. hurt ctr sales to much apparently.
andi said:
Big mis conception with diesels is bhp, ok they have none but im quite happy with near 250 pounds foot torque.
I had civic type r's as company cars for 6 months mate i can atleast comment on them. Ive had DC2 personally and preferred it to ep3s. Both cars have a harendous prob with grippin g the road and as i found understeer is imense. None of which youll find in the new civic, but untill the new type r, the 1.8 petrol is shocking, so has to be diesel.
Figures are great but mean nout in the real world.
LMFAO, diesel civic !> integra type-r. lol. ahh the mear thought is making me chuckle.
controversial? it's plain retarded
[edit] after seeing your previous post. it would seem stupid to dismiss the thought seeing as though you have driven both dc2 and civic type-r. however i'd be inclined to say that it was your driving style that brought out your understeer view of the integra (not digging at you at all if that how it sounded, as obviously i have no idea how you drive), as everything i've read on the integra is that it is very neutral and balanced and even has a tendancy to oversteer. every single car ever will oversteer if you simply enter a corner to fast and the car isn't correctly balanced.
the new civic must be a serious performer if you reckon the diesel will show an integra a clean pair of heels.
however i shall wait for some direct comparison before taking it as word. as it just seems unrealistic to me
controversial? it's plain retarded
[edit] after seeing your previous post. it would seem stupid to dismiss the thought seeing as though you have driven both dc2 and civic type-r. however i'd be inclined to say that it was your driving style that brought out your understeer view of the integra (not digging at you at all if that how it sounded, as obviously i have no idea how you drive), as everything i've read on the integra is that it is very neutral and balanced and even has a tendancy to oversteer. every single car ever will oversteer if you simply enter a corner to fast and the car isn't correctly balanced.
the new civic must be a serious performer if you reckon the diesel will show an integra a clean pair of heels.
however i shall wait for some direct comparison before taking it as word. as it just seems unrealistic to me
Last edited:
Torque or no torque, your trying to claim a 140bhp diesel civic is faster than a lighter 220bhp Integra off the line, despite manufacturers figures claiming a fairly large 2 second + gap...
Torque tends to make a car feel quicker, but still, 80bhp difference will need a fair bit of torque to make up..
Torque tends to make a car feel quicker, but still, 80bhp difference will need a fair bit of torque to make up..
Well either Honda are vastly underselling this new motor or its your butt dyno thats swaying your decision. True torque gives the feeling that you are accelerating harder, but all the specification points to a slower car.
Civic 2.2 CTDI vs Integra 1.8 Type R
0-62 8.6 vs 6.2
BHP 140ish vs 195
Weight 1284kg vs 1197kg
Torque 251lb vs 130lb
Civic 2.2 CTDI vs Integra 1.8 Type R
0-62 8.6 vs 6.2
BHP 140ish vs 195
Weight 1284kg vs 1197kg
Torque 251lb vs 130lb
most people will agree, im a big fan of diesels... but im not insane enough to believe a diesel civic could beat an integra....
Maybe for about 1 second from the initial pull off until the teg got into vtec.. but after then you would be left well behind....
you need to understand that the power figures on diesels need to be understood better... yes, at the flywheel you have all that torque... but because each gear has to cope with 6000 rpm less, the gears are probably twice, if not 3 times as long as the ITR's.. meaning that all the torque is lost through the gearing...
be realistic mate, it might feel fast, but it certainly isnt faster.
Maybe for about 1 second from the initial pull off until the teg got into vtec.. but after then you would be left well behind....
you need to understand that the power figures on diesels need to be understood better... yes, at the flywheel you have all that torque... but because each gear has to cope with 6000 rpm less, the gears are probably twice, if not 3 times as long as the ITR's.. meaning that all the torque is lost through the gearing...
be realistic mate, it might feel fast, but it certainly isnt faster.
LMFAO 
As I said in the new Scooby thread - torque is deceiving. The new Scoob felt easily twice as fast as my DC5, brutal acceleration, but in reality it was only the same, maybe even a little slower.
Torque and power delivery are very deceiving.
As I said in the new Scooby thread - torque is deceiving. The new Scoob felt easily twice as fast as my DC5, brutal acceleration, but in reality it was only the same, maybe even a little slower.
Torque and power delivery are very deceiving.
Japs seem to like the 2.2 derv engines now.
The Corolla D-Sport is going to be a bit of a beast. Currently the engine is in the Avensis, 155 and 180hp versions. 180hp with 300lb/ft in a corolla :O
Agree with merlin, my Rover felt a lot lot quicker than his DC5, on the road though nothing in it, if anything his had a slight edge. Smooth power delivery makes cars feel slow and is also the reason people with dervs think they are much quicker than they are, a huge wallop of torque for 2000rpm certainly feels good to the 'butt dyno'.
The Corolla D-Sport is going to be a bit of a beast. Currently the engine is in the Avensis, 155 and 180hp versions. 180hp with 300lb/ft in a corolla :O
Agree with merlin, my Rover felt a lot lot quicker than his DC5, on the road though nothing in it, if anything his had a slight edge. Smooth power delivery makes cars feel slow and is also the reason people with dervs think they are much quicker than they are, a huge wallop of torque for 2000rpm certainly feels good to the 'butt dyno'.
No way the CDTI could keep up with a Teg or even a Civic (Type R's of course).
I was looking, earlier I posted saying I reckoned the CTR could beat the ATR (just). I was told that the ATR is quicker, were you looking at the newest ones or something?
Well on Parkers 0-60 a CTR will do 6.4s (an 01 onwards version) and the ATR will do 0-60 in 6.7s (98-03 version). Very closely matched, but I think on a track the Civic would have the Accord but in a straight line it would be quite close.
Edit: Just re-read and saw times quoted at first were from Evo magazine
I was looking, earlier I posted saying I reckoned the CTR could beat the ATR (just). I was told that the ATR is quicker, were you looking at the newest ones or something?
Well on Parkers 0-60 a CTR will do 6.4s (an 01 onwards version) and the ATR will do 0-60 in 6.7s (98-03 version). Very closely matched, but I think on a track the Civic would have the Accord but in a straight line it would be quite close.
Edit: Just re-read and saw times quoted at first were from Evo magazine
Last edited:
Simon said:If I'm OK I best fit the engine and order some brake pads and tyres
That'd help, yeah.
I got my new brakes pads and they're as thin as a piece of toast
So, looking at the pads on the car - there's probably 35%/40% meat left on them, so I'm leaving them on.