Civic Type R v Clio 182



I'd not get one with my own money...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Firth wrote:

I don't see how ANY of those reasons make it shite ?
It handles well, it's quick, and it's (very) cheap. It's got masses of standard equipment (including HIDs). It's an excellent buy !
I can't think of a single better hot-hatch for the money ?
I'd rather a Leon Cupra-R or an Astra Coupe Turbo if I were buying a used hot-hatch myself, but both cost a bunch more than the Clio. Civic Type-R is about the best of the lot if you can put up with the terrible engine, but for some stupid reason, aircon is an optional extra - so it may be a struggle to find a used car.
If you've got 20k to spend, then the Astra VXR or the Golf GTi would be the places to put it - but you'd have to have some sort of overpowering brain defect to waste twenty grand on a new shopping cart with a mere ~200bhp and no 4x4. You could pick up a late M5, or a very-nearly-new WRX STi, or a Skyline GTR, or a nearly-new Evo, or any number of HUGELY more capable cars for the same outlay !!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here Here, my money would be on a scooby!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've seen an ST220 take a Clio 182 on the straights and twisties...then was outdone by a Focus RS.
Ta, G.
The Clio mustn't have been trying too hard, unless of course it was in excess of 139 mph :)
Mondeo St220 Manufacturer's figures
0-60mph (sec) 7.8 Max speed (mph) 150
Clio 182 Cup Manufacturer's figures 0-60mph (sec) 6.9 Max speed (mph) 139
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Although hell, it could have been a 1.2 as opposed to a 182!!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh it was.

That's shite. Try 7.3 to 60. The Zetec-S is 7.6.

3am, dry empty roads. It was coming off a roundabout, 40mph in second, along a dual carriage way of approx 1.5 miles long, avg speed about 130-140. (hitting 150 at a point). There was then a roundabout, a sharp bend and another roundabout, at which point we (in the ST220) had to retire to go home.
We were taking a right at the last roundabout and the Clio was coming round the last bend.
Ta, G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G-Man wrote:

Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher top-speed than the Clio. Well duh.
The Clio would absolutely *annihilate* the ST220 on your average bendy road / race track / drag race / anything !
Performance above 130mph is not performance.
If you're under the impression that the ST220 is quick, then you're living in a dream world :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First you claim the CTR has a terrible engine, then you spout that shite.
Shut the fuck up.
Ta, G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You said an ST220 was quicker round a track than a Clio 182 - that was frankly a comedy statement of crap :)
His point about the CTR engine was that its revvy and gutless below about 5.5krpm - which is true. It must get quite annoying on a daily basis having no low down grunt what so ever.
--
Dan



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The reason the Clio gets to 60 0.4 of a sec quicker than the Mondeo is due to a 450KG weight defecit. The first second or so is where the Clio will shift. From a rolling start (say 15mph) the Mondeo would be off and at 100 quicker than the Clio. The Mondeo is also an handles incredibly well.

When it fires over 1200KG to 60 in 6.6 seconds? Saying that only 2000rpm of the rev band is useful is panties. OK it develops it's 200PS @ 7400rpm, but it must have a decent whack lower down than that.
I'll stand by my statements until I'm proved otherwise. Danke.
Ta, G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a chance.

Not as well as a car that was specifically setup to be thrown around a track (surprising that, eh).
The Mondeo is essentially a tourer, even the 'sport' versions.

Yes. If you use the top end of the power band.

Fun starts at 5,500rpm. Fun ends at 7,500rpm.
Been a few years since I left school, but I still make that a difference of 2,000rpm...

Ok, the corner is over there :)
--
Lordy.UK

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Limitier doesn't kick in until @8500 - 30% potential entertainment missed (if you swing that way!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G-Man wrote:

You're not wrong - the ST220 is one lardy bastard, especially given it's mediocre power output.
In any case, what does 0-60 have to do with anything ? It's merely a measure of standing-start traction, and has nothing to do with real-world performance.

I say again : "Er, so what you're saying is that the ST220 has a higher top-speed than the Clio. Well duh."
Who gives a monkey whether it's faster over 100mph ? I don't know if you've ever actually driven on any real roads, but if you had, you'd see the opportunities for sustained 100mph+ are few and far between. The Clio would have no problems at all keeping up with the ST220 on an average A to B jaunt !

Er, not compared to the tin-box Clio !

What about when it fires over 1200Kg to 60 in 6.6 seconds ?
It does have no low down grunt what so ever. The end.

It does, compared to a boggo 2.0 NA engine.
But compared to a nice 2.0 forced induction lump, or some larger-capacity V6, or a high-powered-diesel lump, it's got the pulling power of a wasp with it's nads trapped in a vice. And funnily enough, it does a rather good impression of one too !

Go ahead. I shall do the same.
By the way, you are aware that the ST200 costs approximately TWICE as much as the Clio ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in slurred : >>> If you're under the impression that the ST220 is quick, then you're

Well, yeah, but it was Nom, doing his popular scared-of-revs old geezer act. The civic engine isn't gutless at low revs at all - it's a very tractable and fairly torquey 2.0 NA lump, which just happens to be able to rev like a bastard. It has as much low down grunt as any other 16v 2.0 NA lump.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Albert T Cone wrote:

....and is a steaming sack of poo, compared to any other 16v 2.0 Turbo lump.
Why choose VTec, when you can choose forced induction ????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in slurred :

Well, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you about preferring a turbo, just with the statements that the type R lump is gutless shite. It produces over 75% of the torque of the stock Ti lump (rising to 85% at peak), which isn't bad, and does so right across the rev range from just above tickover to 7000+rpm, which is very good.
A lot of people buying hot hatches want something which is fundamentally sensible, but which can be quick and fun when you want it to, and the civic does that. The engine _would_ be better if it was turbo'd, but as it is it isn't a bad compromise, and nowhere near as bad as yours and Dan's comments would suggest.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was why I wanted, and still want a later, VTEC Prelude. Sensible drivable round town, looney when revved.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Albert T Cone wrote:

Yes it is.
The TI lump is already way down on torque, cos of the limiting valve.
Do your comparison again, but use a normal 280Nm 2.0 Turbo engine :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in slurred :

Yebbut, the point is that the Ti wasn't anywhere near being gutless, and since the type R is only slightly less gutsy, neither is that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Albert T Cone wrote:

Agreed.
Yes it is ! Have you driven one ? It has ZERO guts !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.