Repair-It

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/ci ... 713C9FCA29

I mostly agree with the finishing order. I would have swapped the RS and Golf R but otherwise I agree. Maybe I will just defer to M/T because it sounds like Ford improved the chassis calibration for 2018. I'd still choose the Golf R as the daily if I "needed" AWD, but man that Civic Type R is REALLY good. Blistering lap time and good street manners. Lighter, cheaper (the only one under $40k and it is WAY under $40k - and $7k cheaper than the Focus RS), AND highest trap speed of the group (and best brakes), which basically shows up from 0-70 and beyond, where the launch is less important and HP/weight matters more. Even the 45-65 pass is fastest in the Type R, because, again, factoring out launch, trap speed always tells the story. Unfortunately I don't see 5-60 where we could see the truth when a non-abusive launch is performed.

And to be a Debbie Downer, the Camaro V6 1LE still posted a better lap time than all of these, even being 0.25s faster than the Type R. Hot hatches are not what they used to be (neither are pony cars) but the Civic Type R, in my opinion, retains most of the characteristics that made the hot hatch what it is. The fact is, the Civic is cheaper, more practical and basically as fast (higher trap) than the 1LE V6. So there are multiple ways to look at it.

kevm14 wrote:I mostly agree with the finishing order.

I will spare the Focus RS and attack the WRX for a moment. That car sucks. That engine architecture does NOT lend itself, AT ALL, to turbocharging. It drives like something out of the 80s.

Nothing comes easy. The Subaru’s engine feels straight out of a turbocharged 1980s rally car. It’s lazier than The Dude at low end, but once boost hits at 3,000 rpm, it surges forward, only to be held back by its ridiculously short gear ratios. You better get used to muscling that notchy shifter from gate to gate.

The Type RA doesn’t get any more manageable through bends. Steering is quick and heavy but lacks the feedback you’d expect from a hydraulic steering rack, and the track-oriented suspension tosses you around on all but the smoothest surfaces. “It requires a lot of corrections through bumpy corners—quite a chore,” associate road test editor Erick Ayapana said. Road test editor Chris Walton agreed: “The experience remains one of continual ‘delay gain,’ with unsure steering, tremendous turbo lag, and a ‘Who knows what’s going to happen next?’ feeling most of the time.”

Despite the sensory overload the Subaru delivers on the road, it didn’t quite translate once our test gear was hooked up.

Randy liked the Type RA’s brakes and shocks but was annoyed by the laggy engine and its handling balance. “Even though we had the center diff in Auto–, the Subaru still had quite a bit of understeer,” Pobst said. “I’m frustrated with Subaru because they’re too conservative with their handling balance. The RA has a wing on it, and it looks all radical, but this isn’t. It’s pushy.”

The WRX STI might be the car directly responsible for kicking off the sport compact segment, but somewhere along the way it lost that little bit of sparkle.

The Type RA both looks and feels racy, but it doesn’t have the performance to back it up. Even more important: This Subaru is just simply not as fun to drive as it is to look at.

For a $50k 575 unit limited run, this thing is a big bag of disappointment and fully deserves last place here. It's like they benchmarked the first Focus RS and then tried to out-do them, and totally failed because the RS actually softened (and is better for it).

And by the way, the original WRX also was not as good as people remember it.

Me? I’ll never forget the first time I saw a Subaru WRX. I was about 12 years old. It was a snowy winter morning, made colder by the wind ripping off an angry Hudson River. My dad and I were lugging my hockey gear through the parking lot of Manhattan’s Sky Rink at some ungodly pre-dawn hour for practice. He pointed to some bug-eyed car parked alongside the pier.

“You see that?” he asked. “It’s a Subaru WRX. I read that it was faster than a 911.”
“That thing?”
I could hardly believe it, but I loved the idea that a relatively affordable, dorky-looking compact could smoke a sleek, expensive Porsche.

No. Maybe with a clutch-incinerating one-time 0-60 it could get a few tenths on a non-turbo 911, but really that car was a turbo lagging pig when you drove it like you owned it.

And while I'm ranting, none of these cars are really that affordable. That the most affordable car (by a lot) was also the best, speaks volumes. I mean, you can have a Camaro 1SS for the price of three of these. So get a Camaro and a beater, not some AWD overpriced nonsense. To be able to own a car with the performance and dynamics of the Camaro SS is well worth giving up your "race" off a light in the snow or rain or whatever WRX bros dream about at night.

I really like the Civic Type R. I have been reading some things lately about people downsizing to 18s for better performance. One small beef I have with it is that it only seats 4. I like having the 5th seat for the option of 4 adults + 1 child, which actually could become a more common seating configuration now that my parents are moving to Charlotte.

On the WRX, I remember driving a WRX that was purchased by a friend of mine from college back in 2002. I remember thinking it wasn't any faster than my 94 Prelude VTEC from a roll and it had bad turbo lag. If you think the Honda lacks torque down low, try flooring a 2002 WRX at 10 MPH in 2nd gear.

That engine is so unimpressive. This SRX STI special edition whatever has a compression ratio of 8.1:1. 8.1! What is this, 1987?? Oh, it's turbo you say? Yeah well the others all managed to land in the 9s. And the Type R is 9.8:1.

Bob wrote:I really like the Civic Type R. I have been reading some things lately about people downsizing to 18s for better performance. One small beef I have with it is that it only seats 4. I like having the 5th seat for the option of 4 adults + 1 child, which actually could become a more common seating configuration now that my parents are moving to Charlotte.

So you still need a V-sport. The messed up thing is, the Type R may not be a very good used car buy. And it could make some sense to buy one, enjoy it for a couple years, then "realize" that it won't seat 5, and get your Vsport then.

I feel like if I bought a Type R and kept it stock, it would be almost like money in the bank. I still don't see many of them, new or used, for much under MSRP. The steepest discount offered nationwide is about $2k off MSRP. I really need to drive one. Thankfully my friend Adam who lives in TN just bought one. I just need an excuse to go there.

I think the Vsport still has a lot of room to give on the resale front. There are some fairly widespread issues that I don't think are common knowledge yet (mainly turbo rattle, but some other stuff too) and the CT5 will be released soon. Given these factors, the ideal time to buy a Vsport might be in another 1-2 years when they could be well under $20k.

Bob wrote:I think the Vsport still has a lot of room to give on the resale front. There are some fairly widespread issues that I don't think are common knowledge yet (mainly turbo rattle, but some other stuff too)

The Vsport is going to follow a usual depreciation path for the kind of car that it is. I don't know that I would say it is ever going to "bottom out." Is there a slope to the curve that you have decided is optimal?

What happens with the turbo rattle anyway? Is it bad bearings and the turbo needs to be replaced? Or is this like piston slap?

Bob wrote:Given these factors, the ideal time to buy a Vsport might be in another 1-2 years when they could be well under $20k.

I'm going on record that I don't think this is going to happen. But are you really authorized to spend $35k on a Type R? Or would the plan be to get a used one in the upper $20k range? Are you even allowed to get a manual?