2017 Honda Civic Type R

[ArchiDeos]

Compare to Ford Focus RS..

Sent from my F3212 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[Egan101]

Compare to Ford Focus RS..

Sent from my F3212 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

In most tests abroad, the Focus RS is quicker mainly it has a more powerful engine and AWD. The Focus RS is not available though in the country, not even the Focus ST or Fiesta ST.

[Janemar]

240whp is good enough from 300hp at the crank, that's a loss of 20%. The WRX is rated around 220-230whp.

173whp from the Civic RS? How much does it make at the crank?

Civic 1.5T,

Rated 174hp by honda
Dynoed around the world from 170whp-180whp bone stock. Any time, any day. Local result is 173whp by speedlab.


New CTR, rated 305hp by honda on brochures(crank?)
Dynoed around the world as seen on YT vidz, around 290-305whp stock.

^^the small difference is dun papasok ung factors as mentioned by sir Niky like fuel grade, humidity, temp, altitude, dyno condition, break in method, etc...

I understand your rule of thumb "20%" loss in powertrain, etc,etc. BUT as we can all see. It doesnt apply in these new Hondas.

[EQAddict]

RS 3 v A45 AMG v Civic Type R v Golf R v Focus RS - DRAG & ROLLING RACE | Head-to-Head - YouTube

Hot hatch showdown. Audi rs3 vs mer a45 vs ford focus rs vs golf r vs honda civic type R. I know what i want......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[StockEngine]

was gonna post this vid hahaha. civic needs 50hp more😁 its hella goood.

id get an m badge over these though

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[Egan101]

If the Civic Type R had AWD, it would have been heavier and even slower. Something like 350hp and AWD on a Civic Type R would have made it like the Focus RS. The Golf R in 6MT is slower off the line compared to Golf R with DSG. The RS3 and A45 are on a different league compared to the Focus RS, Golf R, and Civic Type R. I wonder how would the M2 match up against the RS3 and A45.

[StockEngine]

If the Civic Type R had AWD, it would have been heavier and even slower. Something like 350hp and AWD on a Civic Type R would have made it like the Focus RS. The Golf R in 6MT is slower off the line compared to Golf R with DSG. The RS3 and A45 are on a different league compared to the Focus RS, Golf R, and Civic Type R. I wonder how would the M2 match up against the RS3 and A45.

the japanese honda engineering team are already testing an awd civic hehehe... maybe a 400hp beast?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[Egan101]

the japanese honda engineering team are already testing an awd civic hehehe... maybe a 400hp beast?

Maybe something like the old Mitsubishi Evolution VIII FQ400. Its 2.0L engine was tuned to 405hp and its weight was at less than 1500 kg.

[niky]

That's what I don't get, why don't all dynos use standard correction factors? Even runs on the same dyno at different parts of the day can produce different readings because of changing conditions.

There are standard correction factors. SAE correction factors temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure (-altitude-) do work.

The first problem is: These correction factors are meant for non-turbo cars. Turbo cars will typically do better versus their quoted specs on a dyno compared to naturally aspirated ones, because they make their own atmosphere, and the SAE correction factor for altitude should be different for turbocharged engines, but dynos use the same correction factors for all cars, regardless of whether they're naturally aspirated or turbo.

The second problem is, modern turbocharged engines are often artificially limited to whatever output they put out. This is what gives them those nice, super flat torque curves. Thanks to MAP sensors, they will sense altitude and adjust. So the turbo will be making relatively the same horsepower over a wide range of different altitudes and temperature/humidity conditions.

What does this mean?

Say a naturally aspirated V8 makes 500 whp at sea level. Take it to a certain altitude, and it might make just 450 whp.

Now, the dyno up in the mountains will correct for that... and voila... two different dynos at two different locations will read the same 500 whp.

A turbocharged engine making 500 whp will measure 475 whp at altitude. The dyno auto-corrects this to 525 whp (or something)... wow... this thing makes more power than I thought!

Now add electronic boost adjustment... that turbo makes 500 whp at sea level, and also 500 whp in the mountains, running more boost. SAE correct that and you get 550+ whp.

Or something like that.

-

This is why the Nissan GT-R was so contentious when it came out. People were applying the wrong correction factors to the dynos and getting stupid high numbers. The first Japanese dyno had on it, plain as day, the label "Torque correction factor 1.15"... which means a 15% adjustment for ASSUMED drivetrain losses... when Nissan notes that the loss should be just 10%. Obviously, the dyno was inflated.

Only when Edmunds.com dyno'd it next to the Porsche 911, which also claims around the same bhp, did it become apparent that the GT-R makes just about as much power as you expect a 480 bhp car to make.

-

And then you get to the part where dynos differ in terms of mesasurement methods... either braked or inertial (lots of fudge in inertials... because wheel weight actually affects readings... but they're consistent!)... torque capacities of the dynos and brakes used... wheel slippage... fan and cooling capacity... software... then what gear is used for the dyno... dyno calculations, in part, have to backtrack and calculate bhp from wheel torque... and gearing affects this greatly...

As seen here:



Which would suggest a lower gear would be better, right? Unfortunately... no... Usually, dyno operators look for the gear closest to 1:1, but it's rarely an exact match. If you go a gear too low, the engine doesn't spend as much time accelerating the test mass or brake, and can't apply its full power to such.



So, in other words... YMMV. Hahahaha!

This is why, to me, numbers in isolation are meaningless, unless compared to similarly powered vehicles on the exact same dyno.

That's already a given and deserves another discussion. Bottomline, on a properly set dyno(dynojet or dynapack, sae or std, etcetc) stock type r will pull 280-300whp any day.

If i have a type r and it reads 240whp and ill start to investigate... Dyno or my car?

I know you can ask speedlab on this one, the local civic turbo is 173whp stock on our conditions. Really close to the 174hp brochure. So maybe honda is under rating their cars? Who knows, fact is dyno charts dont lie especially if there are 4+ dyno read outs backing up each other.

As I said... I wouldn't be bothered about it until/unless I find out other "300 hp" cars are making much more on that particular dyno. I don't know if Speedlab has dyno'd one, but I might know someone who has. Let me check.

-

Do note, that "green" cars might be on limited power... and then there might be market specific engine tuning to adapt to our crappy gas.

Let's wait for others to dyno the car to find out.

Civic 1.5T,

Rated 174hp by honda
Dynoed around the world from 170whp-180whp bone stock. Any time, any day. Local result is 173whp by speedlab.

I understand your rule of thumb "20%" loss in powertrain, etc,etc. BUT as we can all see. It doesnt apply in these new Hondas.

I can vouch for that car. Given its weight and quoted power, plus the CVT, it should be a bit slower than the Ford Focus Sport 1.5T. But it's actually a second quicker. And quicker than the dual-clutch 200 hp Veloster, as well.

Very low drivetrain losses. Very good engine response.

Only issue is heat soak in extended hard running... but an extra tranny cooler should fix that.

[BlancNoir]

A red civic type R was on display last saturday sa honda Q.ave.

Slight OT. hehe