JonBoy

235 section width on 19" tires. I'd assume they'll use an extreme performance summer rubber that every other top-end sports car uses.

Not at speeds over 60 mph. At track speeds, aerodynamics are way more important as aero drag is the main component of resistance to forward acceleration.

Agreed, in general. That's my point, though - you can set up a FWD car to be neutral and handle well. FWD isn't nearly as limited now as it used to be.

I'm not saying it's better (subjective) - I merely said it was faster (objective).

When a 306 hp car is as fast or faster than cars with 500+ hp, you know that it's doing something in the corners to make up the time, which bodes well for those that want a good-handling, capable car. Regardless of the fact it's FWD, they have to recognize that this car appears to be a massive step up in the FWD hot hatch arena and that it can probably humble some pretty serious sportscars on a track.

SlowTeg

I guessed it'd be somewhere around there too. 235's all around is no slouch.

I would argue FWD was never really limited. The original Integra R came with 195's all around, and much less stickier rubber at that.

If there's anything I've learned, it's that "handling" is completely subjective. FWD hondas have been made to "handle" well for as long as I can remember, thanks in large part to their reasonable weight, good hydro steering racks, and good suspension design. I don't think the new Civic R is unique in this regard. Honda just put more thought/time into the aero, put some wider rubber on, and finally put a powerful engine in the car. I'm sure there are plenty of force fed swapped civic hb's lapping vette's and other cars at tracks. They just finally packaged that all up from the factory.

I guess to some folks they view this as a big step up, and perhaps it is, I just personally have little desire for a performance oriented FWD platform.

JonBoy

I agree - not interested in this car - but I respect it (hugely) for what it's capable of doing. I'd just rather spin the back tires than the fronts.

WolfpackS2k

SlowTeg gets my argument. But considering your last reply to me agreed one with one of my points, and straight out ignored my other one, I'm gonna assume you haven't.

Which is fine, I just don't know why you blindly defend everything Honda makes. For this car, just please explain to me how it being FWD is better than if it were AWD (Not including fuel efficiency). Sure I respect the performance, but it's still like having the coolest 2 speed bike after everyone else moved up to an 18 speed.

SlowTeg

To reiterate your point another way for Jonboy. The FWD platform is first and foremost an economy platform. Period. Thus, making a supercar caliber FWD car is impressive from strictly a numbers and engineering standpoint, it's not from a real world/practical standpoint. Can it work for some people and perform very well? Sure. From a pure performance standpoint however, it has no real world advantages worth mentioning (besides economy).

Edit: I think Jonboy understands this.. he's obviously a smart guy. Just toting the company line a bit..

WolfpackS2k

JonBoy

Tell that to Nissan's latest racecar...

That said, the Civic Type R is not a bespoke performance vehicle - it's built on the humble FWD Civic platform. Could they add AWD? Maybe - I have no idea if the chassis allows for it or not - but it's basis is not an AWD vehicle nor was the Civic initially designed for AWD. The cost to add may have made the project infeasible.

FWD has a number of advantages, in this case:

1. Less weight - more parts = more weight
2. Less complexity - more parts, more tuning, more electronics with AWD
3. Better fuel economy (sorry - you can't say "Don't say something that helps your argument")
4. Improved reliability - less things to go wrong
5. Better efficiency - more power to the wheels rather than being sapped by AWD components
6. Less cost - less components than an AWD system and lower maintenance costs as well
7. Potentially allows them to put money into other areas, like the adaptive suspension and improved aerodynamics

Would AWD be cool? Sure! Would I prefer it? Probably. But the point is, they're destroying AWD competitors in track performance anyways so unless I'm launching my car all the time (good luck doing that reliably in an AWD vehicle), I don't really care about 0-60 times. Sure, you can't get a 0-60 of 4.5s like a WRX STi...but you also don't have a crappy interior, poor reliability and a car that is significantly SLOWER around a track. On the street, most "racing" is going to be from a roll and the Civic will do just fine in that area.

tomas6791

Concept looks so much better.





So aside from the lights, what has changed? Well, the production car loses the concept’s cool blade-like LED daytime-running lights and the headlight cluster is also a lot more conventional looking; the LED blades are replaced with old-school projector lamps.

24 comparison pictures from different angles

.

rob-2

I guess I'm not that impressed by the figures. Sub has done this for years. Big brakes won't make up for the ugly + FWD.

How does this compare to the Dodge Neon SRT4 on Ring times?

JonBoy

SRT4 never rang the 'Ring - no comparison times. Cobalt SS did, though - 8:22.85 - but it was the slower supercharged version. The turbo version was quicker in virtually every way.

No Subaru (stock) ever ran the 'Ring in 7:50. In 2011, a prototype STi with an engine swap, bastardized suspension, full undertray, some other aero (it was getting out of control on some high-speed corners) and a bigger turbo ran a 7:55. So, I'm glad "Subaru has done it for years" except they really haven't. They make AWD cars that are heavier, more complex, handle fairly poorly and have crappy interiors. Okay, so they have Brembos. 300hp and 6MT (on the STi) but that's about the only similarity. They'll obviously be quicker off the line but I bet from a roll, the Civic will win.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ing-lap-record