Why is the new CTR so slow?
12-05-2017, 03:41 AM
#81
Registered User
I don't care about the drivetrain of these cars because I have no plans of tracking this car (at least for now) and being in socal I don't have to worry much about bad weather situations.
Didn't choose the RS because I feel the exterior looks too boring and not a fan of the interior.
Didn't choose the STI because I don't like the fact that it's still using a motor from a decade ago.
Simple as that. I chose the Type R because I like the looks and the interior layout over the over 2 cars. I can careless which car performs better lol. The STI actually would've been my choice if it wasn't for the motor or their starlink infortaintment system.
12-05-2017, 01:26 PM
#83
Well I’d say it shows the CTR is pretty capable dynamically if it can run a time that close to the M2 despite the power deficit. The only place the M2 is likely gaining time is in the acceleration zones. For instance, the CTR beats the M235i(with less hp than the M2) by 1.3 seconds.
It was also tested to be 1 second faster than the Focus RS(actual competition to this car, not an M2 that costs ~25k more) on this track. Pretty impressive for a Civic.
It was also tested to be 1 second faster than the Focus RS(actual competition to this car, not an M2 that costs ~25k more) on this track. Pretty impressive for a Civic.
12-05-2017, 01:41 PM
#84
yes, let's just assume I chose it based on the brand.
I don't care about the drivetrain of these cars because I have no plans of tracking this car (at least for now) and being in socal I don't have to worry much about bad weather situations.
Didn't choose the RS because I feel the exterior looks too boring and not a fan of the interior.
Didn't choose the STI because I don't like the fact that it's still using a motor from a decade ago.
Simple as that. I chose the Type R because I like the looks and the interior layout over the over 2 cars. I can careless which car performs better lol. The STI actually would've been my choice if it wasn't for the motor or their starlink infortaintment system.
I don't care about the drivetrain of these cars because I have no plans of tracking this car (at least for now) and being in socal I don't have to worry much about bad weather situations.
Didn't choose the RS because I feel the exterior looks too boring and not a fan of the interior.
Didn't choose the STI because I don't like the fact that it's still using a motor from a decade ago.
Simple as that. I chose the Type R because I like the looks and the interior layout over the over 2 cars. I can careless which car performs better lol. The STI actually would've been my choice if it wasn't for the motor or their starlink infortaintment system.
Btw, what about the sti motor did you not like other than it was old?
12-06-2017, 08:10 AM
#85
My point is power is not a factor on a 1.6 mile track. A crusty old 91 Civic SI can be faster than a C7Z06 on an autocross course....I'm sure the Civic handles very well but put it on something like VIR full or COTA and it will get blown out of the water.
12-06-2017, 08:55 AM
#86
Registered User
You own all Hondas as you said earlier, you test drove the RS and sti but then decided the type r was the one for you without driving it based on the looks inside and out. I'd say it's not an assumption you have a bias for Honda's. Not that there's anything wrong with that until you try and say that you don't.
Btw, what about the sti motor did you not like other than it was old?
Btw, what about the sti motor did you not like other than it was old?
regarding the motor, I just didn't feel like dropping 40 grand on a car that's still using a motor from a decade ago tbh. That's really the only reason lol. I know it sounds pretty stupid to some people but it is what it is lol. If it had some kind of a beefed up version of the FA series that's in the regular WRX right now, I probably would've gotten the STI.
Just from that reasoning alone, it was down to the RS or the Type R from the get go really. I only really went to test drive the STI because I've never driven one and wanted to see how it feels.
I've already also mentioned the reason why I DIDNT go for the RS. The seating position is very high, interior lay out felt cheap, and the looks is boring (although the exhaust sound sweet with the pops and bangs like I've said). I know some people prefer the more subtle, less "ricey" look and that's fine but that's just not for me.
To me, it's just entertaining to see Type R owners and Focus RS owners hate on each others cars lol. Not sure why they both need to justify their purchase over another by hating on each others car lol. They should be happy that there are making more cars in the similiar segment which might push other car makers to make a similiar car to compete with the current 3 available.
12-06-2017, 08:58 AM
#87
But yeah, totally agree that the car with better P/W ratio will be faster in a straight. It just goes back to the old argument... what do you prefer, outdriving people in the corners, or being able to mash the gas in a straight line? It's possible to have both if your pockets are deep enough, but at the Civic's price point I think it does a great job.
12-06-2017, 11:25 AM
#88
I don't understand the hate.
No one can objectively say Honda make bad cars. No one can objectively say CTR is a bad car. Just like no one can say objectively the RS is bad car, or the Golf R is a bad car, or the STI is a bad car, etc.
Do I think the Focus RS is a bad car? No. Would I get one if I was in the market for such type of car? Probably not. I'm just not a fan of it for various subjective reasons. That said, I really don't understand the title and the point of this thread. I think the title itself is a bit misleading and arguing what car is faster is really a moot point with today's technology. A Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE can out corner, out accelerate many cars costing twice, 3 times, or maybe even 4 times of its price. Does it mean the Camaro is better than those cars? Probably not. There is reasons those cars can be sold for 200k or 400k. I get this is car talk forum but it is not always about performance numbers. Sometime it is the intangible things in a car than make you tick.
No one can objectively say Honda make bad cars. No one can objectively say CTR is a bad car. Just like no one can say objectively the RS is bad car, or the Golf R is a bad car, or the STI is a bad car, etc.
Do I think the Focus RS is a bad car? No. Would I get one if I was in the market for such type of car? Probably not. I'm just not a fan of it for various subjective reasons. That said, I really don't understand the title and the point of this thread. I think the title itself is a bit misleading and arguing what car is faster is really a moot point with today's technology. A Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE can out corner, out accelerate many cars costing twice, 3 times, or maybe even 4 times of its price. Does it mean the Camaro is better than those cars? Probably not. There is reasons those cars can be sold for 200k or 400k. I get this is car talk forum but it is not always about performance numbers. Sometime it is the intangible things in a car than make you tick.
12-06-2017, 01:59 PM
#89
It's not hate, it's a disagreement that raises arguments from both sides that escalates the discussion. And despite numerous statements of hey if it works for you that's cool, eventually it gets interpreted as why you hating.
The following 2 users liked this post by TheDonEffect:
boosted180sx (12-06-2017),
Chibo (12-06-2017)
12-06-2017, 05:01 PM
#90
I don't understand the hate.
No one can objectively say Honda make bad cars. No one can objectively say CTR is a bad car. Just like no one can say objectively the RS is bad car, or the Golf R is a bad car, or the STI is a bad car, etc.
Do I think the Focus RS is a bad car? No. Would I get one if I was in the market for such type of car? Probably not. I'm just not a fan of it for various subjective reasons. That said, I really don't understand the title and the point of this thread. I think the title itself is a bit misleading and arguing what car is faster is really a moot point with today's technology. A Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE can out corner, out accelerate many cars costing twice, 3 times, or maybe even 4 times of its price. Does it mean the Camaro is better than those cars? Probably not. There is reasons those cars can be sold for 200k or 400k. I get this is car talk forum but it is not always about performance numbers. Sometime it is the intangible things in a car than make you tick.
No one can objectively say Honda make bad cars. No one can objectively say CTR is a bad car. Just like no one can say objectively the RS is bad car, or the Golf R is a bad car, or the STI is a bad car, etc.
Do I think the Focus RS is a bad car? No. Would I get one if I was in the market for such type of car? Probably not. I'm just not a fan of it for various subjective reasons. That said, I really don't understand the title and the point of this thread. I think the title itself is a bit misleading and arguing what car is faster is really a moot point with today's technology. A Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 1LE can out corner, out accelerate many cars costing twice, 3 times, or maybe even 4 times of its price. Does it mean the Camaro is better than those cars? Probably not. There is reasons those cars can be sold for 200k or 400k. I get this is car talk forum but it is not always about performance numbers. Sometime it is the intangible things in a car than make you tick.