New Civic Type-R

[Raghavan]

I hate FWD with a passion. In fact, the only FWD car i'll consider to buy is a 3 or 4th gen Accord (can't remember which one). Those things were light, 4 door, and great sleepers. Otherwise, it's all RWD for me. That's why I've been looking out for 240SX's, AE86's, and MR-2's among others for me to buy.
RWD is much better than FWD since RWD is much better balanced. FWD has too much weight up front, and eats through front tires quickly. RWD is balanced, and i love how you can control the direction of the car with your right foot. 👍 AWD is just the answer to make a car like a pig, with a few exceptions, or if you're going to go offroading.

 

[GM]

Now that Civic just looks weird

 

[Onikaze]

You could say the same with buying trucks and SUV's.

Except those are even worse, I stand by my statement years back that the American SUV craze is because we love Muscle Cars, and an SUV is the closest thing to a modern Muscle Car available right now.

Nevermind that, using my throwing baseballs analogy, the person in the SUV is wearing catchers gear, and waving a shotgun around while talking on a Cellphone.

 

[YSSMAN]

Your SUV = Muscle Car equation is a little wacky, but whatever. If anything, it ties to the wagon craze that happened post-WWII and went on untill the early '70s. Cars like the Town and Country (wagon), Nomad, Contry Squire, etc all have direct influences on the Aspens, Trailblazers, and Explorers of today.

I actually think this is pretty funny to be reading at the moment, given a man from RWD-crazy Australia is promoting FWD cars against an American who is in the land of FWD cars and trucks.

 

[Onikaze]

Ok, look at it this way.

You were young during the Muscle Car age, it etched something into your brain about big, heavy, powerful, RWD vehicles being cool.

You look around the American marketplace, and the only big, RWD, V-8 powered vehicles you see are pickups and SUV's.

You've got a family to haul around now, so an SUV is the perfect fit, and now you can drive around with a big V-8 rumbling in front of you, while buying into the whole "SUV=Status" crap going around these days.

Just a guess, partly wishful thinking, but I'm betting when GM, Ford, and DCX all offer RWD, V-8 powered Sedans/Coupes in a few years, the number of SUV's on the road will drop dramatically.

 

[YSSMAN]

Just a guess, partly wishful thinking, but I'm betting when GM, Ford, and DCX all offer RWD, V-8 powered Sedans/Coupes in a few years, the number of SUV's on the road will drop dramatically.

Well, you could be right, but there are plenty of folks who buy SUV's for a reason. They need the utility of being able to carry X-ammount of 2X4's and X-ammount of plywood, all while carrying three folks back and fourth to the work site every day.

Of course, they could buy a truck (like most sane folks would), but the guy who has it uses it on weekends to tow the boat out to Lake Michigan with the wife and kids, and maybe bring the dog along as well.

Granted, large RWD sedans at affordable prices seem to be what most Americans want these days. With the 300C, Charger, and Magnum proving that notion beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is no question in my mind that the GM Zeta cars and whatever the hell Ford decides to do with their RWD platforms will be very popular.

---

Back to the Civic: I still don't know about the car. I mean, obviously we won't be seeing the Type-R in the US (given the fact that the Si presumably performs just as well), but I'd be willing to bet that most folks (or atleast, sane folks) would opt for the GTI against the Honda.

Why?

Better build quality, more practicality, similar performance even with 4-doors, etc...

But hey, if companies are looking to bring back the hot-hatch segment to the United States, I'm game. While VW is busy conquering the small car market, they need to send over the Golf/Rabbit GT TSI, and Ford needs to get their heads looked at so they can give us the Focus ST/XR5. The only other hatch on my list is the Renaultsport Clio 197, but being that so many Europeans say its a crappy car, it probably won't come to the US. Pitty really...

 

[niky]

See, the only thing wrong with FWD cars is that they can't lay down power as well as RWD cars can. Period.

As an aside, Onikaze... what FWD cars have you driven? I could understand all this bile if all you've ever driven were Corollas... but, c'mon, a MkI Focus? A Mazda (any Mazda)? A "classic" SE-R? The reason FWD "sports" cars are popular is that they're generally light, nippy, and turn well. Sure, they can't accelerate worth squat compared to RWD cars, but most new RWD cars in those price ranges aren't as light or nimble as these cars.

There is room in this world for FWD performance, and it has nothing to do 1/4 mile times or highways. It's got to do with having a lighter car, being able to fling it into and out of corners with abandon. The sheer joy of driving.

And no, I've never driven an FWD that was as fast as a nice big V8 truck... but going down a mountain pass, I'd take steering over power anyday.

Of course, if that steering is on a RWD car (and yes, I know, RWD are supposed to have much better steering... I say supposed to, because I've driven RWD cars with absolutely crappy steering, and FWD cars with as much feel through the wheel as a go-kart), I won't complain, but then again, you pay a price premium for that kind of thing. Most people can't. We're not all mainland Americans, with cheap gas and V8's on every corner.

FWD is not as good... yeah, we know. Get over it. Not as good does not equal not good... period. But then again, with new models getting heavier and heavier, and so many manufacturers going back to torsion beams and simpler suspensions to save space, you may actually get your wish, and they will all become crap.

-----

RE: Civic... forget a US Type R... the Si has the multi-link rear, the Type R has a steel beam. The Si has the same engine, the same trick LSD (making for nice cornering) and a stiff shell. I'd rather see a supercharged Si come out than see this one.

 

[YSSMAN]

Another spy shot of the Civc caught by AutoExpress...

I'm still not sold on the rather wonky looks of the European version, much less the rather silly looking American version as well. Whatever happened to the tasteful Civics, particularly the old Civic Si?

Honda, what have you done!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Onikaze]

I drove a new Mazda 3 back to back with an RX-8.

96 Civic 3 Door
82 LeBaron
2000 Optima
2000 Saturn Sedan
94 Tempo
96 Grand Prix
2000 Contour SVT Package

So, I've driven a wide range from utter crap, to remarkably good handling (that Contour was a shocker) but none of them ever made me think, "Man, I wish this was my car." like that RX-8 did.

It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow. This is very true, I would just love to see Honda put all their engineering know how, you know, the kind spent fixing what's wrong with FWD, and make an excellent sports coupe for the entry market.

 

[YSSMAN]

But ya know what, Honda won't do it... Why? Because they build FWD cars, and FWD cars only. The S2000 and NSX were the exceptions to the rule, and I can imagine them being the only ones who escape it.

 

[Danny]

But hey, if companies are looking to bring back the hot-hatch segment to the United States, I'm game. While VW is busy conquering the small car market, they need to send over the Golf/Rabbit GT TSI, and Ford needs to get their heads looked at so they can give us the Focus ST/XR5. The only other hatch on my list is the Renaultsport Clio 197, but being that so many Europeans say its a crappy car, it probably won't come to the US. Pitty really...

Then many Europeans
a) Haven't driven it
b) Are lying.

I haven't driven the new Clio (not legal to drive yet ) but I have been in one.

That thing is pretty darn comfy and although it wasn't the Renaultsport version, it could shift.

 

[Encyclopedia]

One of the most horrid lookin cars ever in my opinion. That yellow colour didn't exactly improve it either.

 

[Kent]

I actually like that car and even more than the American Civic. 👍 (although I do like the USM Civic as well)

In a few years people will probably grow to like the new Civ just like people grew to like the last gen Celica (I'm guessing 50 to 75% of my friends changed their minds from "hate it" to "like it" by the end of its production run).

Also, on a side note:
I just want to mention that criticisms of the FF format can be overly-harsh. When a FF is well designed and driven it can be one of the fastest cars on the track (from what I can tell this is common in the BTCC).

On highways the FF is fully capable of giving suitable performance and is often the victim of "Gran Turismo-like" stigmas about inferiority to other sporty cars.

That said, FF can understeer more than other formats and doesn't handle "high" hp levels as well as RWD cars.

So I guess everything is fair game.
(sorry but I just had to stand up for the FF civic Type R)
(FF or not, it is a fast and fun car capable of great daily driver performance) 👍

Later.

 

[niky]

It is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow. This is very true, I would just love to see Honda put all their engineering know how, you know, the kind spent fixing what's wrong with FWD, and make an excellent sports coupe for the entry market.

Oh, okay, so you have driven some good ones... for a minute there, I was worried... ...but while the Contour is pretty nice (it is a Euro-Ford, after all) for its time, and the Mazda3 is about as good as you can get for cheap grocery-getters right now, there are still better cars, like the European Focus RS or the Clio. I'm still of a mind that the Protege is much more involving than its replacement, being a lighter and more direct car.

And yes, none of those cars would give you the "gotta-own-it" feeling of the RX8... they're not sports cars, and none of them is in the RX8's league. Not even the Type-R... but then it's a different kind of car, too.

Oh yeah, Honda engineering went into the S2000, and while it's not a coupe per se, it's about as close to Civic-level engineering (an oxymoron, yes, but the Civic seems to define Honda engineering) as you'll see Honda put into an FR. Similar (not the same, strangely) engine, same high-revving goodness, and a good suspension set-up. Strangely, not what many people think about when they think "Fast Honda" (which the import kids seem to think means only "Civic"). They really should have given it a catchier name, like "Rebel".

 

[JohnBM01]

The thing is that people's perceptions of cars is that only cars that they have to be painted black, high horsepower, and rear-wheel drive. Not every car has to have "character" to actually warrant some attention. There are different cars for different tastes. A car isn't bad because it isn't capable of 11 seconds with 125+ mph down the strip. The big minus for FWD is the issue of understeer in performance driving. That couldn't be any more true if you played the Civic Type-R Cup in "ToCA Race Driver 3." The cars can be b:censored:y in handling (not twitchy. B:censored:y). I think the reason the Civic is so liked is that it was an easy and inexpensive car to work with. It didn't have to be a boring "grocery getter," especially if people were modding these things to be worthy touring cars or rally racers. The problem is that people just wanted Civics to be better used for getting groceries or going to work. Only thing I didn't necessarily agree with Civic types are those who think they could beat any muscle car or a high-end sports car or something. People will try to find performance in anything even if they weren't initially intended for hardcore racing. I respect these people who have a love of tuning because any car can be made better with tuning. That's true for any class of car ranging from minis to superexotics.

Even if the Nissan 240SX is seen as "the new Civic" in regards to a car people are buying and tuning like crazy, I have respect for the Civic as it's been an inexpensive machine that probably makes a good car to balance the disciplines of road and track. I don't think "ricer" when I think of the Civic. I don't believe that stereotype or generalization. Some people have been trying to pimp out Ferrari 360 Modenas and Cadillac Escalades, yet the target of hatred is the modest and humble Civic. So I'm with Kent for Post #103. I have a softer spot for the previous Civic on looks alone. Other than that, I'm sure the Civic will be a great and affordable car for car and track, even if one doesn't have similar money to blow on a decent sports car. But that's just me.

 

[Onikaze]

I thought Civics were popular for being cheap, with roomy engine bays, and the option to swap less crappy engines in for cheap.

Did I miss a memo?

 

[niky]

Older Civics were popular for being cheap, having excellently smooth and fuel efficient engines and having the option to upgrade to pretty revvy and entertaining engines, having a relatively sophisticated suspension for a grocery getter, with front dual wishbones and a multi-link rear, that itself had a ton of available upgrades and for having much better than average driving dynamics (for a FWD car).

People liked them for a variety of reasons. The reason the Civic was so successful was that it appealed to a large demographic, from the practical family man looking for a fuel-thrifty and reliable runabout to the the backdoor tuner with too much time on his hands to the "ricer" who just had to have the "in" car, and who just had to "improve" the car with some questionable kit.

Despite the unfortunate antics of that last demographic (and they're not just limited to imports or FFs, mind you), the Civic was (once upon a time) a good car. GRM rates it. EVO rates it. The big advertising brochures that used to be mainstream car mags rate it. There are guys out there who don't automatically equate FWD with pure, unredeemable crap. They actually get in it and try to find out whether it's good or not, regardless of the drivetrain orientation.

Don't you ever wonder why reviewers enthuse over one FWD or another? These are "car guys" who've been in the biz for a long time. They've driven everything. And not all of them are on the car companies' payroll. Take the guys at EVO. These are guys who get to drive Caterhams, Lotuses, BMW M-cars and Porsches month in and month out. They'll call a turd a turd, and they'll call a gem a gem. Yet they still had the cheek to pit a Clio against an M6 in a one-on-one comparison. They felt the Clio was that good. They knew it'd get its ass kicked, but they were so entertained by it, they decided to give it a go anyway.

Keep an open mind, man. Sure, a lot of FF cars don't give you the same involvement as RWD cars, but some do. And there are quite a number of RWD and AWD cars that don't give you involvement, either.

After having finally test-driven the new Civic, I can say that despite being unimpressed by the distinctly digital feeling steering and lack of torque, it struck me as a very good value and a competent car, merely lacking a little power and a stiffer suspension. I'd still pick a new Focus over it in terms of driver involvement, but given the chance to drive an Si or Type R, I might change my mind.

In Si sedan form, the Civic would probably be a good car to buy if you wanted one that could do it all.

Of course, you're just going to carp that it'd be perfect if it were rear-wheel drive, but then again, if it were, it'd cost quite a bit more... and then some more over that, as you wouldn't be able to subsidize it with a base model.

 

[YSSMAN]

^Great post!

If FWD was so horrible, it would have been done away with years and years ago. But the automakers have stuck it out, so have the magazine editors, and so has the public.

If FWD was so incredibly bad, Car and Driver wouldn't continually mention the new MKV's (Jetta, Rabbit/GTI, A3) as the standard in the FWD segment, and Motor Trend most certainly wouldn't have given the Civic "Car of the Year" status last year.

 

[Onikaze]

I will just say this.

Manufacturers will never stop making FWD cars because they are cheaper than any other drivetrain, and no matter how "good" a FWD car is, you always have to tack on that caveat 'for a front wheel drive car.'

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's not just FWD cars are cheaper. There's also no transmission tunnel to worry about meaning there's more room in the back. Not to mention FF is safer than MR and FR and without the weight of 4WD.

 

[Onikaze]

It's not just FWD cars are cheaper. There's also no transmission tunnel to worry about meaning there's more room in the back. Not to mention FF is safer than MR and FR and without the weight of 4WD.

Safer how?

Safer because you will wind up understeering into something instead of oversteering into something?

FF being cheaper, I can deal with, no trans tunnel, cool, safer..no, that's crap, an unfounded urban myth.

 

[the Interceptor]

Safer how?

Safer because you will wind up understeering into something instead of oversteering into something?

Exactly. Sitting in an understeering FWD, you have the chance to recover or at least soften the blow. In an oversteering RWD car, you're only a passenger waiting for it. Additionally, shortly wheelbased RWD cars tend to oversteer suddenly and almost unrecoverable.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Onikaze]

Let's turn that around though.

In a FWD car, if faced with a sudden change in road conditions/obstacle, you suffer from a greatly reduced ability to avoid an accident, and are more likely to understeer into something.

Modern cars are designed to better handle a head on collision, so in that sense, understeering into something is safer.

I like BMW's take on it, "The best way to survive an unavoidable collision, is to redefine unavoidable." RWD cars are only dangerous if drivers aren't taught how to handle them, or they don't have nannies. Since it would apparently be too hard to teach people how to react quickly to avoid accidents or lessen the impact, it's easier to put nannies in.

After having tried to avoid another car suddenly in a FWD car, having the front tires lose traction instead of being useful, and only stopping through luck and flatspotting a tire some, I have to say FWD being safer is crap.

I've always heard, and experienced myself, that Understeer is when the driver is scared, Oversteer is when the passenger is.

 

[the Interceptor]

RWDs are not only dangerous when the driver doesn't know how to handle it. Given the fact that the absolute majority of cars out there technically seen are not in a perfect state, and there are a lot of situations even the best driver can lose a RWD car easily, uncontrolled oversteer can happen a lot more often than you might think.

And having a near miss in a FWD car is no reason either, cause the same can happen to you in a RWD. As you said by yourself, modern cars are constructed to be safe in head-on collisions, which I'd rather have than spinning out of control. Thinking back to the accident you just avoided, would you rather have been in a RWD car that would have spun?

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Onikaze]

I'd rather have been in a RWD car that would have shifted it's weight properly and not understeered as it did.

I didn't avoid the accident, btw, I slid to a stop because when I tried to jump over into the next lane, the front tires broke traction, so I panic braked and prayed.

Being a passenger with a steering wheel at 50 mph is a horrifying experience, and one I'd never like to repeat.

I do make a point of throwing any car that I drive around a large empty parking lot to find it's limits, and in the RWD cars I've driven regularly, I've had situations where I had to toss a (2 ton body on frame Ford) out of the way of another car, and besides it getting a little squirrely, I was able to recover and continue on, heart rate up 50 BPM, but everything else intact.

RWD cars don't automatically spin out if you don't drive them in a straight line, I'd love to see where you got this idea from.

 

[the Interceptor]

RWD cars don't automatically spin out if you don't drive them in a straight line, I'd love to see where you got this idea from.

Now, I didn't say that, did I?

I'll grant you that, if you know what you're doing and how the car will react, you might have a bigger chance of actually avoiding a collision in a RWD car, compared to a FWD car. Unfortunately, and as you pointed out already, most people don't, so they might be better off with a FWD, don't you think?

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Onikaze]

RWD Car with Nannies would be safer to me than a FWD Car with or without Nannies, for an untrained driver.

The unfortunate truth is, FWD cars are cheaper, and always will be, because of the reduced number of steps in their assembly on the line.

 

[Wolfe]

I have to admit that although I praise Onikaze for his incredibly anti-WWD views, I can appreciate some FWDs. However, I tend to appreciate the ones that allow the driver to toss them around like RWD cars, and as Onikaze said earlier, it's not "that GTI is an awesome car." It's "that GTI is an awesome FWD car." I also believe strongly that the best FWD cars would be even better, and even more fun, if they were RWD.

That said, I agree with Onikaze about the safety issue. I've never heard the line, "Understeer is when the driver is scared, Oversteer is when the passenger is," but it applies 100% to me. In all of the winter driving that I've done, my parents' FWD Oldsmobile is the only one that I've had close calls with, and the only one that I'm afraid to drive. I feel perfectly confident in my BMW, even with its summer-biased "all-season" tires, and I never use the 4WD in my parents' Blazer unless the snow is really deep.

Of course, that doesn't mean that every driver is going to feel the same way, but still, the safety drawbacks of RWD have been exaggerated for years, just like the advantages of FWD. Both are equally safe, but only one offers more control to an experienced driver, and that's RWD.

The only drivetrain that makes a noticable improvement in driving safety is an AWD with an active rear diff. Little to no understeer, little to no oversteer, just controllability for inexperienced and experienced drivers alike.

 

[Onikaze]

Yep, I will not deny that AWD is the safest for your average joe schmoe driver.

Though I'm biased towards the more balanced, handling oriented AWD set ups, and I think it would be very cool to see Honda make a SH-AWD Civic Type RR or whatever.

 

[Wolfe]

Yep, I will not deny that AWD is the safest for your average joe schmoe driver.

Though I'm biased towards the more balanced, handling oriented AWD set ups, and I think it would be very cool to see Honda make a SH-AWD Civic Type RR or whatever.

SHAWD is handling-oriented. It's the same concept as the Evo's AWD system with its "active yaw control." A computer-controlled rear differential that sends power to the outside rear wheel to prevent understeer and help the car rotate into the corner.

The only thing that currently hampers SHAWD on the Acura RL is that, if I remember correctly, there's a somewhat-intrusive traction/stability control nanny that can't be turned completely off.

A Civic Type RR would be cool, but it should have an "A" in it to denote the AWD -- Civic Type ARR. Then they could use a pirate in the advertising campaign.