Honda Civic Type R (FK8) specs

AutoBild (8/August 2020)
0-80 kph: 4.3 s
CO2: 178 g/km

Laptime on Suzuka GO track 2:23.993

https://www.thedrive.com/news/34702/a-2021-honda-civic-type-r-just-lapped-suzuka-quicker-than-a-ferrari-f40?fbclid=IwAR2BE2Yb2Qb9q1UZ6F7lFPXNXVxq8ff-s58fnFCf1Q_oxK8aY_Z6sipQ4cI

SportAuto 6/2019:
Slalom 18 m: 70.2 kph

Vtec+turbo=god

Vtec kick in yoo

i just noticed the 0-60 mph, how on earth is that 4.9 seconds when the 0-100kph is 5.6

I wouldn’t doubt this car is fun to drive. Just can’t be seen in one.

People in this post are retarded. Comparing 0-100km times with AWD cars.

THE CIVIC IS A FWD PLATFORM. COMPARE IT TO OTHER FWD PLATFORMS. If you actually wanna see which company did it better. As a consumer you can argue about what you should choose between a FWD hatchback and a RWD Sports car. But they ARE NOT the same thing.

So, Given the fact that the Civic Type R is a version of the FWD Platform Civic, that you can also take on a track, it is THE BEST example of such a car. PERIOD.

And I am ONLY considering its performance on track. If you count in other factors like reliability, services, interior space, comfort, seating position, aftermarket support, price, and cost of maintainance etc, the Civic DEATROYS ALL COMPETITION.

That's the sad truth you can't understand.

hondas are for people with white hair and over 70

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ9mFuqdOZ0

Auto express ran 45.8 with the fk8 at llandow, please add, this is a very fast time!

Odd thread. Lots of VR4 talk.
I own a 2007 350Z HR with FBO. My carc is by no means super fast
I have beaten a couple of stock Type Rs, I agree that they're overrated. From a dig I pulled hard on both of them.

As far as the VR4, I've lost to 2 bone stock VR4s, a 1996 and 1999. They're faster than people think and pretty untouchable from a dig. They're a bit faster than a stock Focus RS and a bit slower than the Golf R DSG.

LoL this is a funny thread.

I have a golf r and i am running worn out PS4 michelins. just worn away, but.

This car is a fun little go cart around the back roads. i love my golf r. for the fun and happyness is brings to me.

and that honda is hideous

This honda thai bar car is the most silly car i have ever ever had the misfortune of looking at.

This took the following five fwd lap records:
- Magny-Cours 02:01:51
- Spa Francorchamps 02:53:72
- Silverstone 02:31:32
- Estoril 02:01:84
- Hungaroring 02:10:19

https://www.honda.co.uk/cars/new/civic-type-r/challenge.html

Read this months EVO magazine track car article. The Civic is voted best all round real world car and second overall to the 911 GT3. Really impressive comments from the judges on this car which on a dry/wet/dry track is apparently amazing. Any naysayers and critics put off by the looks and apparent straightline speed compared with the opposition may have their opinions of the car changed after reading this test.

On the other hand autocars road test figures are 0-60 in 5.7 secs and 0-100 in 12.5. Perhaps autocar had one of the earlier quicker ones.

Uk magazine times for the civic are slow. I have EVO magazine issue 252. 0-60 6.0 and 0-100 13.8. It’s just not that quick for the power to weight ratio. On the same day a Golf R did 0-100 in 11.6 and was 5.5 sec ahead by 130 mph!! The previous gen type R actually posted better times in EVO

Uk magazine times for the civic are slow. I have EVO magazine issue 252. 0-60 6.0 and 0-100 13.8. It’s just not that quick for the power to weight ratio. On the same day a Golf R did 0-100 in 11.6 and was 5.5 sec ahead by 130 mph!! The previous gen type R actually posted better times in EVO

0-150: 10.5 s
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/42805782845/in/album-72157699178837864/

I also noticed this debate about the 3000GT Twin Turbo vs the Type R.

Well, it just so happens that I actually owned a 1996 6 speed Mitsu GTO Twin Turbo, factory spec (I never modify my cars). It was about as fast as my current RS6, and actually a bit quicker downlow - I'd recon the RS6 would be about half a car to a car ahead at 250kph.

It appears no one watched the links the poster provided.

Are the GTOs/VR4s clunky, piggish cars? Yes, in many aspects they are awful, outdated cars - but their straight line merit is highly impressive. They do 60mph well under 5 seconds with a monkey at the wheel.
Published figures from US AND UK magazines show faster times for the VR4/GTO TT than the new 2017/2018 Type R, and by quite a bit at that. If averaged out, the GTO TT/VR4 does 60mph in 4.7s and the quarter mile in 13.2@103mph. My personal best run was 13.08@168.6kph...so about .5s faster ET than the FASTEST recorded time for the Type R with barely any difference in trap speed. Even if the Type R trapped 172kph, for instance, it's not winning due to the absolutely massive ET difference.

Again, my GTO TT was factory spec down to the wheels. I had it dynod - It makes FAR more horsepower than stated by Mitsubishi, and anyone involved in the Mitsubishi community knows that, these cars make more like 340-355 crank horsepower. Mitsu was going after the Skyline GT-R, of course they underrated the car!

My mate had an R33 Skyline GT-R, we were neck and neck from a dead stop to over 240kph. From a rolling start, at any speed, my GTO TT would have half a car on him.

There is NO way in HELL a factory spec Civic Type R could win a race from a standing start to top speed against ANY GTO Twin Turbo / 3000GT VR4. Are people that stupid?! Anyone who disagrees has never been in or driven a well maintained GTO TT or VR4 - these cars are good for high 12s in the quarter mile off the show room floor, especially the J spec MR model.

Yes, the GTO TT / VR4 is a heavy, complicated car, and it handles like shite. I sold mine because it was no fun on B roads, and only fun in a straight line. Ironically, I sold it for the FK2 Type R I mentioned owning, and I had to get over how much slower the Type R was compared to the GTO TT. The difference is massive.

The man provided legitimate links. People should watch the links. The GTO TT and VR4 are supercars acceleration wise compared to the 4-cyl Type R. No chance for the Type R.

I just came across this page after test driving a new Type R for a couple hours, have a mate that sells Hondas. I have to agree with the posters saying the numbers are off, this new FK8 is nowhere near as quick as it is hyped up to be.
I also had a young twat try and race me in his brand new Type R about 2 months ago - I drive a high mileage 2003 Audi RS6, which I don't consider all that fast considering - and my RS6 made his Type R look like it was going in slow motion.

This car couldn't do 60mph in under 5 seconds (in factory spec form at least) if its life depended on it, and I'm talking the 320bhp UK model. It does 100kph in right around 6 seconds, and the 420 mark in 14.0s at 165kph with an average driver.
@hostboy - you're a crack up mate. Hoping you arent daft enough to think a factory spec Type R can trap 113mph, don't make me laugh. And I'm actually a Honda fan, I had an FK2 Type R awhile back - it was the same as the new FK8 - unimpressive in a straight line, great in the corners. It was too much of a rattle box so I sold it.

[2018 Honda Civic Type R] Motor Trend 7/2018 test results [published in "Ultimate Grand Tourers" page on this issue date]:
0-30 mph = 2.3 s
0-40 mph = 3.3 s
0-50 mph = 5.0 s
0-60 mph = 7.2 s
0-70 mph = 8.5 s
0-80 mph = 9.7 s
0-90 mph = 10.8 s
0-100 mph = 11.6 s
1/4-mile = 14.3 s / 113.6 mph
Figure-8 = 22.0 s / 1.12 g
Lateral acceleration = 0.93 g
Willow Springs = 82.13 s

Nothing is going to get changed get over it already, The fastest stock time tested we use from a credible dource And its just that d8kple, simply because you failed to get a time thats as good as thd time shown here, that doesnt change anything, Doesnt matter how good or bad a driver you are, Get over it Nobody who would be honest would write THAT MUCH about a stick time to be removed without some dishonest motive.

Ok, i came here to look at lap times for my type r, but i actually own both a 2017 Civic Type R and a 1998 3000GT VR4, both are stock.

You'd have to be insane to think the Type R could beat ANY VR4 in a straight line race or drag race, im dying here! The 94 to 99 3000GT VR4 makes an underrated 320hp @6000rpm and 315tq @ 2500rpm from a twin turbo 3.0L V6. It beat the 300ZX TT and RX7 TT by car lengths.

So, more power, more displacement and the AWD advantage. It also has a much better geared 6 speed manual than the shortly geared type r.
My VR4 dynod 293@whp. Stock. Mitsu underrated the numbers, in the UK its rated at 280bhp@whp.

My VR4 ran a best of 13.08@104.2mph and usually runs a 13.1@103. My FK8 ran a best of 13.73@104.6mph and averages 13.8@104mph.

From a dig the VR4 jumps ahead of my FK8, by the 1/4m mark its about 4 or 5 car lengths ahead, and by 160mph the type r is about 1.5 to 2 cars behind depending on the VR4s launch. The VR4 pulls like 3 or 4 cars off the jump on the FK8. Ive done this race like 10 times, different launches, the VR4 always wins.

The best recorded time for an FK8 was the pre production car that ran 0 to 60 in 4.9 and the quarter mile in 13.5@108. The stock ones after were all high 13s @102 to 104.
Motorweek ran a stock 1994 VR4 to 60 in 4.9s and the quarter mile in 13.5@103mph. Motortrend got 0 to 60 in 4.8s and the quarter in 13.5@102. Motortrends FK8 ran a best of 14.0s @ 103. Thats a .5s difference in et.
If you average out published times, the VR4 comes out as faster by quite a bit. The et is huge. The FK8 cant close that gap!

Having said all this, the FK8 is the better by far, despite being slower in a straight line.
Sorry Honda guys, the 20 year old VR4 is faster than the fk8 Type R by quite a bit. BUT the FK8 rapes it around a track.

Jesus, what a stupidly obvious comparison though. A TT V6 with more power displacement and AWD vs a FWD 4cyl single turbo with FWD...only an idiot would think the FK8 would win that!!!!!

@fastest laps - the vr4 dynos at 285 to 290 whp, thats a well known fact.

Ive seen this race, the VR4 has 2 cars on the fk8 by 150mph from a dig, consistently and the VR4 is still pulling.

. How can you not beleive that? The VR4 has AWD, and a 3.0L v6 twin turbo with 285 to to 290whp so about 345 to 350hp at the crank, my friend has both, a 2017 FK8 and a 1998 VR4, both stock. The VR4 runs 13.1s@103 to 104mph, the FK8 runs 13.8s to 13.9s@101 to 104mph. Thats a .8s to .7s difference, the VR4 is about 5 car lengths ahead of the type r at the 420 mark, it cant close the gap. Sorry, its a fact, the VR4 is faster any way you play it as far as acceleration. I own a stock 2008 hr z, and his VR4 beats me by the same amount to 150mph.

All these commenters are correct, im the 3rd person to verify this!!!

Links-https://youtu.be/vFEYkgOZdC4
13.2@102.7mph stock 1999 VR4
https://youtu.be/kBTwc8h-cnI - 94 vr4 0 to 60 4.9s 1/4m 13.5s @103mph
https://youtu.be/ukVsqR66ldE - j spec vr4 beating an r33 skyline. Can an FK8 do that???
https://youtu.be/fwps3TVcJMM - stock gto tt, identical to the us vr4, beating an r32 skyline

Links to fk8 -
https://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-ford-focus-rs-vs-2017-honda-civic-type-r-comparison-test-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4
13.9@104mph
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2017/2017-honda-civic-type-r-first-test-review/amp/ - motortrend, 14.0s 1/4m

How is this unbelievable??? The VR4 is leagues faster, it has twin turbos, awd, more torque and hp, and is easily faster. Ive seen this race, the fk8 loses by 2 to 3 cars.

This is the most overrated car in existence as far as acceleration times, did anyone read FK8 ownes post??? Car and Driver got a 13.9 @ 104, Motortrend got a 14.2@102.

He brought up the 3000GT VR4/GTO TT, no idea why, but he has a point - i checked the page for that car. Published figures show 0 to 60 in 4.8s and the 1/4m in 13.4s @ 103mph. The page doesnt show thay.

The VR4 would absolutely destroy a 2017 / 2018 FK8 in a straight line from from a dead stop to top speed, and from a rolling start - ive seen that exact race. He even posted a 13.2@102 run in a stock VR4, no FK8 can pull that off.

Ive driven both the VR4 and the FK8, i own a Nissan 300ZX TT, another car thats got bs numbers on its page. The VR4 is much faster than my z stock to stock, but my z is much faster than an FK8 stock to stock.

Driving skill? I see FK8s running 13.9s to 14.2s @ 100 to 103mph all day long. I have also seen bone stock VR4s run 12.9s @ 105mph...
The bottom line is that the FK8 is slow as far as acceleration, and if the moderator wants to post bullshit times from a pre production car so be it. What a joke, fanboying at its finest here.
The lap times are accurate. The acceleration is not. And im in the UK, we have the 320bhp version. Its slow.

The 1/4m time is way off, PLEASE CHANGE IT!!! . Car and Driver tested a hopped up preproduction model, and when retested in a production car got a much slower time.

Car and Driver- 13.9@ 104mpm
Motortrend- 14.2@102mph

https://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-ford-focus-rs-vs-2017-honda-civic-type-r-comparison-test-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-4

http://www.motortrend.com/news/honda-civic-type-r-2018-car-of-the-year-finalist/amp/

See above. I own a stock 2018 FK8, ran a best of 13.81@103.3mph. Own a stock 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4, ran a 13.21@104.1mph.

https://youtu.be/vFEYkgOZdC4 - stock vr4, 13.2@ 102.7mph.

The FK8 is slower than all its AWD competiton and 90s JDM cars including the 300ZX TT, Supra TT, etc.
The FK8 is blistering fast around a track but supbar in a straight line acceleration.
Please correct this info, a stock FK8 would need modifications to run a 13.5@108mph, that trap speed is insanely WRONG. Highest trap I've seen is 104mph.
Thanks.

Sachsenring 1:37,75

Why is the US version 10 hp less?