Repair-It

Been waiting for this.

Sorry about the shitty "scan" from my phone. It has a bad image stabilizer that, ironically, causes image blur.

Some highlights:
- That 108 trap for the Type R seems to have been a ringer. This one did 104, which is still decent. 1 mph faster than the RS in fact.
- That heroic 4.5 second 0-60 for the RS was achieved the way it always is in this kind of car: at the 6,700 rpm rev limiter and a clutch slip. No one who owns this car will launch it like that. Comparing 5-60s which just mat the gas from a 5 mph roll, the RS posted a 5.7 and the Type R posted a 5.9. 0.2 seconds is not significant.
- Type R excelled in chassis numbers. But, tires were not equal. RS ran the Michelin PSS which are the most aggressive summer tires any normal person would run - I have them on my CTS-V. They are excellent. The Type R ran Continental SportContact 6s. Apparently they are more like a 10,000 mile tire. So, I'd say the Type R had better tires. And posted better chassis numbers. Not too surprising.
- Type R chassis is a sweet heart and it's been confirmed over and over again that it is the superior platform, providing sharp response with a good ride.
- RS had better shifter feel. This is embarrassing for Honda I think.
- Type R has a significantly better back seat, which I think matters. They referred to it as delivering the legroom of a mid-size car. If that didn't matter, I think you'd just drive something like a Camaro SS and have a real performance car (which is significantly heavier despite the smaller interior). Better cargo space in the Type R, too, over the RS. Again, practical.
- Type R is more affordable by $2,220 base price or $5,000 as tested. It still comes loaded at that cheaper price, with no additional options available. Again, $34,775 gets you equipment that includes satellite radio, keyless go, dual zone auto climate, and navigation with a 7" screen. That is remarkable value. The RS had the RS2 package to get similar equipment, which is where the $39k as tested price comes from. If you want tires like the Type R, you have to fork over ANOTHER $2,000 (which I wouldn't recommend anyway). $42k vs $35k. That is a big gap.
- 3,137 pounds for the Type R. While not "light" it is significantly lighter than the 3,465 lb RS.

The way I see it, the Type R does more with less.

With the numbers being very close... I would still pick the RS over the R.

I can see someone making a different choice. The reality is that I would actually be in the market for a used RS in the future when the 3 dies and I have the Camaro which won't ever see salt/snow. Between these 2, I would much rather have the RS. AWD with up to 70% to the rear sounds way more fun than FWD, and better in the snow (not with the tires that come with it obviously) than the R. Used, I bet the R retains value more so I could probably get the RS cheaper, and I think it would be more fun.

Someone else might like FWD and Honda reliability, which I could see too. Really, I wish they would make a Mazda or a Chevy version of the RS, and not in hatchback form, but I don't see that happening. Funny thing is, Mazda already made the R around 2008 and called it the Madaspeed3 with 256 HP (FWD, turbo, decent handling, hatch). Sure the R is better now, but when the Mazdaspeed3 came out I was disappointed that it was FWD also, so I am not just Honda hating with the FWD hatch. The zero to 60 for the Mazdaspeed3 was 5.7 seconds 10 years ago which sounds dated now, but was not bad for the time.

The Mazdaspeed3 also looks way less ridiculous than the RS or the R:

bill25 wrote:With the numbers being very close... I would still pick the RS over the R.

I can see someone making a different choice. The reality is that I would actually be in the market for a used RS in the future when the 3 dies and I have the Camaro which won't ever see salt/snow. Between these 2, I would much rather have the RS. AWD with up to 70% to the rear sounds way more fun than FWD, and better in the snow (not with the tires that come with it obviously) than the R. Used, I bet the R retains value more so I could probably get the RS cheaper, and I think it would be more fun.

Someone else might like FWD and Honda reliability, which I could see too. Really, I wish they would make a Mazda or a Chevy version of the RS, and not in hatchback form, but I don't see that happening. Funny thing is, Mazda already made the R around 2008 and called it the Madaspeed3 with 256 HP (FWD, turbo, decent handling, hatch). Sure the R is better now, but when the Mazdaspeed3 came out I was disappointed that it was FWD also, so I am not just Honda hating with the FWD hatch. The zero to 60 for the Mazdaspeed3 was 5.7 seconds 10 years ago which sounds dated now, but was not bad for the time.

Yeah I get all that. I mean AWD is kind of a novelty - the STS is my personal first AWD car and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in how it will perform in the snow (word is, extremely well).

I looked up the original MS3, from an 07 C/D review. They got 0-60 in 5.8, 1/4 mile in 14.4 @ 99 and 5-60 in 6.7. Compare that 5-60 to the 5.7/5.9 range and you get a good picture of the extra performance you get (after 10 years of time has elapsed). Only 3,180 lbs. I don't like that AWD weight penalty - I don't want it in the STS or any car really.

EDIT: Looking at an 09 hot hatch comparo in C/D. MS3 picked up some speed. Also the Cobalt SS turbo enters the picture and posted a test-best 6.0 5-60 (and also a test-best 0.92G!) which is damn close to the Type R's 5.9. The MS3 fell to 6.2.

And the MS3 trapped the same 103 in 2008 as the RS just did...maybe that's why I was originally underwhelmed with the car.

For that matter even in 08 these hot hatches weren't taking down V8s (ok, maybe the Rustang). They provided the basic acceleration profile of a ~2000 Camaro Z28, which would have been an 8 year old car and available at significant discount...

And when the RS matches the trap of an 09 MS3 which matched the trap of a ~2000 Z28, that means, to me, a battle cry for the RS of "hey, I got my 2017 Focus RS - calling all 2000 Z28s. I'm going to walk you slowly!"

I get all that. The RS isn't much more than a 2009 Mazdaspeed3, or a 2000 Z28. The R isn't much better than an 09 MS3, so if the RS doesn't deserve hype, tell me why again the Civic FWD hideous hatch does. Because it is marginally better than the RS?

Maybe the conversation is: "Why buy an R for 34K when you can get a much more reasonable looking MS3 for 5-8K

One example:
https://providence.craigslist.org/cto/d ... 75147.html
https://hartford.craigslist.org/cto/d/2 ... 94747.html

I guess used cars are usually cheaper though...

bill25 wrote:I get all that. The RS isn't much more than a 2009 Mazdaspeed3, or a 2000 Z28. The R isn't much better than an 09 MS3, so if the RS doesn't deserve hype, tell me why again the Civic FWD hideous hatch does. Because it is marginally better than the RS?

Don't forget to the throw the Camaro V6 in there. Imagine if we had a WRX in 1995 and it was no faster than a 1995 Camaro V6! All those JDM cars we never got (and some that we did) were MUCH faster than a Camaro V6 (and way more expensive but nevermind that).

The Focus RS got a lot of hype (to put it mildly) and now it gets to be criticized in proportion to the hype. The Type R was the underdog in this, from day 1 - just look at the previous Civic Si's, and look at its on paper specs (300+ hp turbo, FWD has to be awful, right?). So it gets to be recognized for the accomplishment.

Let me quote C/D:

Don't interpret the one point spread in this comparison test to mean that the Focus RS and the Civic Type R are similar. They're not.

And then remember that the comment is in context of the Type R being in 1st place in this comparison (even by the thin point spread).

That doesn't mean you're not allowed to like the Focus RS. But the Focus RS isn't the hands down, unquestionable, dominating entry, even though maybe it should have been on paper. I like the Type R over the Focus RS for the same reason I like the Chevrolet SS over whatever Charger we're comparing to. More sophisticated, leaner. To a lesser extent on the weight, it's also like Camaro vs Mustang (chassis). Or really any Alpha Cadillac vs its competition.

As with the SS/Charger, I don't think that means the Charger (or Focus RS) is bad. One doesn't have to be bad and the other excellent. However, that doesn't preclude anyone from making a comparison. We could easily sit back and say "wow these are both great cars" and end the discussion there. It would be a true enough statement but it doesn't make for interesting debate.

All that said, I REALLY want to see these cars all wearing the Michelin PSS. Tires play a huge role in performance these days. Though maybe we could look at other Focus RS tests on the Sport Cup 2 but I don't know if the Continentals on the Type R are truly in the exact same league. Annoying.

I totally agree that it is great to have options to discuss and we don't have to like the same thing. I am not looking for a FWD hatch. I can see why someone would be though.

As you want to see these cars with the same tires, I want to see these compared in the snow. That is when I would be driving them most if I got one of these and the Camaro.

I didn't forget the V6 Camaro, I just pretend it doesn't exist no matter how good it is.

Article is on the website now:

https://www.caranddriver.com/comparison ... rison-test

I realize treadwear ratings are far from standardized across the industry, but the Continental SportContact 6s are 240 treadwear, while the PSSs are 300 treadwear. Both are in the Max Performance Summer Category on Tire Rack. The optional Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s on the Focus RS are a notch more aggressive and classified as a Streetable Track & Competition tire by Tire Rack. They have a 180 treadwear rating. It appears that Honda may have split the difference between the two OEM tires available on the Focus RS, but I wouldn't say the Contis are some super cheater tire. For what it's worth, the Cup 2s, dropped 4 feet off the 70-0 braking and added 0.04 g to the skidpad performance for the RS. The braking still wasn't as good as the Type R and the skidpad was 0.01 g better, while having way worse ride quality.

Link to the Cup 2 test:

https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/focus-rs