Talk:Honda Civic Type R

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Personal opinion/commentary at the end of the section for the 5th generation (FK8 chassis) (2017–)

Whoever wrote this piece at the end of the article clearly has an agenda and is an opinion piece that does not belong in a factual wiki for the Type R

I deleted the opinion piece which can be seen here as I copied and pasted it:

This latest announcement of 7:43.8 for the facelifted FK2 looks like more of the same type of marketing deception.

By their own admission, this is a lap time recorded by a car in "final phase of testing regime", which basically means "free-for-all" in undisclosed mods, such as weight reduction, power boost or "extra special" rubber.

Is the subtle footnote of "pre-production version in final stages of testing" going to be a trend for other manufacturer's records in future?

In that case we will have a really difficult time trusting any information that comes from manufacturers.

This belongs more to an article or forum and not on a wiki page. Unless there are specific citable sources that question the validity of the 'Ring times.

168.166.80.254 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FN2 Section / Controversies

The European FN2 Type-R is obviously a love-it-or-hate-it car. It has won awards for comparing well to it's contemporaries but seems to be a disappointment to Honda ( particularly Type-R) enthusiasts as a 'let-down' compared to previous incarnations (the EP3) and the model offered in Japan (the FD2). I'm trying to keep the balance of both viewpoints apparent in the wording of the FN2 section whilst maintaining a tone suitable of an encyclopedic article. I welcome any editing to improve the prose in presentation of the facts, and hopefully any discussion of the issues could take place on this page rather than in the main article. Jrm76 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that section gave me a negative impression of the FN2 but then I do own one so I must surely be naturally biased. I believe the car has been praised much more than it has been criticized and criticism usually tends to focus on the outgoing model because the performance difference between the EP3 and FN2 is minimal. --87.75.28.66 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, although I'd left the wording about evo magazine stand as it's been there since before I've been following the article - having some presence from that side of the argument also seems to deflect a lot of the critical opinion (as opposed to factual) edits that happened after the Top Gear slating. It might be time to review all of that section to more closely reflect the generally very positive opinion of the car in the press. People also forget that the EP3 version was widely slated by evo magazine and sections of the press for duff, dead-feeling steering, unpredictable handling, the engine response being too 'peaky' making it hard to drive reliably quickly in real world conditions - such as overtaking on minor roads, and mini-MPV-like styling. If none of that (all opinions have available references) is presented in the EP3 section then we should probably similarly tidy up the FN2 section to focus on the positives. Jrm76 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to remove the negative evo magazine verdict especially when it is balanced by a positive Top Gear award. Though we should by all means expand the EP3 section to include both criticism and praise. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will revert and re-arrange the FN2 section. I'll try to have a look and get facts straight for the EP3 section this weekendJrm76 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article says 'Despite negative reviews...' seems to imply that it is, in fact, a better car than the outgoing model. While Clarkson's review (mentioned in this section) was negative, it was backed up by a straight race between the old and new models (which the old model convincingly won). Surely a negative view of the FN2 is justified? 7th Feb 2008

Not really as the race, like many things on Top Gear, was staged to reinforce Clarkson's POV - the actual time split between the cars is under a second, pretty far from 'convincing' and more into the 'negligible difference' territory, as many of the more balanced press pieces have stated, the EP3 is fractionally faster on some tracks, the FN2 is the better driving experience on the road. Most of the negatives raised in the piece also apply to the previous version of the car which also has mixed reviews in the press, I think the wording of the sections reflects the differences of opinion over the car accurately enough, I also don't think wikipedia is a place for a tit-for-tat breakdown of every positive and negative aspect of both cars. The EP3 piece reflects the improvements made over it's lifespan and the FN2 section reflects the current mixed opinions of the car, we could go and get tens more references for and against on both sections and it wouldn't change the fundamental information there, just make for a needlessly longer article. I don't see the need on Wikipedia to go further - there are specialist forums to debate the minutae of each. Jrm76 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've collected many video and text reviews, and there is indeed a lot of contradicting reviews on the FN2: torsion beam good/bad, understeer/not, precise/floppy steering, excellent front/lacks a LSD... hearing all this, they are hardly driving the same car! Also, many people compared the FN2 with the EP3 without considering the three different trim levels available for the FN2: Race, Heritage/GT (adds deafening, dual AC, boot cover, and so on), Heritage Navi/GT Plus (with SatNav, bluetooth handsfree and a few other details), each one obviously adding to the weight. To be a fair comparison, the EP3 should be compared with the FN2 Race trim level, a comparison I have yet to see, when it is often compared with the GT, or worse, the GT Plus (like Clarkson reviewed: video says "this GT version with SatNav"). Admittedly I own a FN2 (Heritage trim) so I may be biased, but for having pushed it quite hard, I'd say Clarkson's review is grossly staged to back up his POV, and a huge overstatement at best (e.g this video among others gives the exact opposite statement of Clarkson's review). It seems like he just didn't like the design (just hear his subtly aggressive introduction, you know where he's headed even before the drive test), was irritated by the +1 HP figure, and became nitpicky about everything else (like the default seat position, which neither hampered me 1.75m, my father 1.82m or my brother 1.88m: granted, Clarkson is tall, but that part of the review is just ridiculously overstated). What's more, the critics about the +1 HP figure are countered by dyno runs on stock FN2 that seem to indicate its K20Z4 engine is more likely to output 215 HP. this page gives an apparently very objective comparative dynapack (hub, not roller, thus much more precise) dyno run between notably the Australian stock, then tuned DC5 Type S and Type R, Accord K24, and FN2 CTR stock K20, concluding on a highly refined engine. Details are interesting, but are more related to a K20 engine Wikipedia page :). What's interesting is the 140kw figure at the wheels. With the usual 15% expected transmission loss, that's 140/0.85=164kw which makes 220 HP at the engine. This is the first page I stumbled upon by googling on the spot to have reference material, but I've seen others giving the same figures in numerous places, ranging from 210 to 225 HP. This is explained in another thread "It was underrated in the UK due to emissions reasons and registering a car vs carbon neutral debate…" and later on in the dyno thread: "After taking in all this information its very clear in my eyes, and also confirmed by senior people within Honda that the FN2 is underrated due to emissions on paper." In the end I feel that TOVA has a much more NPoV review of it and had the chance to test drive both the FN2 and the FD2 (though in very different conditions and at different times) and goes on to conclude that "Regardless of [..] Honda of Europe [having] 'soften' the 'hard-core' nature of the car [..], on top of everything it does not detract from the fact that the FN2 Euro Civic Type-R is still basically one heck of a great car !" --Lloeki (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the review area in the FN2 section is fine as it is (in need of some copy editing perhaps). We are not necessarily looking for the most neutral reviews, we are looking to make an NPOV article. Which doesn't not, by definition present equal amounts of criticism and praise. As it stands now the article expresses the fact that critical reception of the FN2 was mixed which is exactly what we want. If someone wants to swap out some of the info for more reliable sources, that would be fine, but the balance of praise and criticism should probably be kept. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge

I see no reason for the Civic Type R to receive a standalone article. This content should (in my eyes) be split and merged into the appropriate Civic generation sections. I started a conversation here, please feel free to join in. I am nominating the Honda Civic Si together with this, and welcome all input from interested editors. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But then by your logic, the BMW M models also don't need spearate articles because they are based on the xx Series models. I don't think this is the right logic for merge. U1Quattro (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Honda Civic Type R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical Writing

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 August 2024 and 17 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoseJDLT, INU13405 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by INU13405 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]