Honda Civic 2006
-
frumpy? that's pretty subjective...well, even japan's model of FD is different (minimal) from what singapore and around the region has.Originally posted by HENG@:honestly looking at the sg civic, i must say it looks quite frumpy. makes me wonder how come there is such a distinctive design gap between the sg civic n uk civic. -
ok, maybe they didn't do well enuff to clinch the top spots, but u gotta at least give them some credit for hanging with the best of the lot. as much as they were ranked 5th below the contis, there were other contis ranked below them as well.Originally posted by HENG@:nah, they got spanked bad. where did u get 2nd? 2004, top 2 were VX, then Seat and MG. the CTR finished 5th in the hands of Matt Neal.
If u're talking about manufacturer standings, hey coming 2nd by having a LOT of cars in the field doesn't really count leh. In 03, Seat hadn't even entered the sport yet, which is why honda managed 2nd in the constuctor's and team standing. even so, they were over 200 points off Vauxhall and team honda was over 100 points off VX Racing. Then come 04 when Seat stepped into the fray. Honda might have come 2nd in the manufacturer's standings, but teamwise, Seat Sports came 2nd, WSR (the MGs) came 3rd. Halfords (CTRs) 4th and Team Honda 5th.
The new ITRs? actually some of the old ones from last year have won races this year. The privateers are smart to get their hands on the old Team Dynamics cars. What I'm thinking tho, is the field seems a bit more evenly matched this year. The Seats and the *surprise* MGs have been up there challenging for the win. If Matt Neal doesn't start from the 1st 2 rows, chances are he won't win the race.
To be honest, I do think the primary reason why the ITR is doing so well now is largely attributable to the fact that Matt Neal is driving. That man is a minor legend in BTCC. The other ITRs seldom do as consistantly well, and u often see Matt Neal n his ITR winning, then 2nd to 4th are the Seats and then followed by the MGs.
Personally, using the BTCC as an example of the civic being class leading, is not going to work I must say. I look at it, and there are 4 other models which are more likely to win before the CTR is even given a shot.
on the other hand, i beg to differ that the success of the DC5 was largely attributed to the driving abilities of matt alone. i think there were inherent advantages of switching camps to a DC5 such as lower CG and lighter body shell. something that is also evident on our normal road going versions. -
nah, too much thunder in me for dat to happenOriginally posted by HENG@:who dare to steal yr thunder?
later u turn lao ah beng how? 
-
probably so, but Matt is still a very very large factor. In fact I'd give it 60-40 in favour of matt. Why? When they were using the CTRs, Matt was once again the top ranked honda driver.Originally posted by tailslide:ok, maybe they didn't do well enuff to clinch the top spots, but u gotta at least give them some credit for hanging with the best of the lot. as much as they were ranked 5th below the contis, there were other contis ranked below them as well.
on the other hand, i beg to differ that the success of the DC5 was largely attributed to the driving abilities of matt alone. i think there were inherent advantages of switching camps to a DC5 such as lower CG and lighter body shell. something that is also evident on our normal road going versions.
as for the other contis who finished below the hondas, most of them were private teams without much understanding of the cars they were using. Also, many of them had to use the older astras. the situation is different from now where altho team dynamics racing is a privateer team, they basically have factory backing from honda. the 03 session, honda ran a full factory team. if they didn't beat the private teams, it'd have been disgraceful. Looking on also, quite a few teams were running Lexus, not contis. Finally, we should take the top placed team for each car model, and discount the bottom teams. Afterall, honda DOES have a lot of cars in the field and if i were to take the bottom teams into account, then I'd have to give them an even lower opinion don't i?
i do give them credit for getting into the mix, even if the car wasn't quite up to it. I am curious however, why isn't there an S2000 GT version for BTCC? That would be something. Maybe it could take part in ETCC as well, and give the RWD BMWs a run for their money. -
And I feel a thunder in my heart that I cant controlOriginally posted by tailslide:nah, too much thunder in me for dat to happen
I feel a thunder in my heart
Should I walk away or follow my soul?
I feel a thunder in my heart
Where it comes from I just dont know
Oh no, oh no -
i'd say that was true if matt had achieved similar or better results driving a conti. fact is, the DC5 and EP3 are essentially powered by the same engine and structurally similar. u can't discount the vehicle just because the same driver consistently hammers in good timings in a similar car.Originally posted by HENG@:probably so, but Matt is still a very very large factor. In fact I'd give it 60-40 in favour of matt. Why? When they were using the CTRs, Matt was once again the top ranked honda driver.
as for the other contis who finished below the hondas, most of them were private teams without much understanding of the cars they were using. Also, many of them had to use the older astras. the situation is different from now where altho team dynamics racing is a privateer team, they basically have factory backing from honda. the 03 session, honda ran a full factory team. if they didn't beat the private teams, it'd have been disgraceful. Looking on also, quite a few teams were running Lexus, not contis. Finally, we should take the top placed team for each car model, and discount the bottom teams. Afterall, honda DOES have a lot of cars in the field and if i were to take the bottom teams into account, then I'd have to give them an even lower opinion don't i?
i do give them credit for getting into the mix, even if the car wasn't quite up to it. I am curious however, why isn't there an S2000 GT version for BTCC? That would be something. Maybe it could take part in ETCC as well, and give the RWD BMWs a run for their money.
looking at the list of teams, i'd say that there were as many if not more vauxhalls participating in the btcc compared to hondas. true dat the teams with factory support are expected to beat the privateers, but dats only a determinant in which TEAM stays ahead. overall, the hondas have been really competitive in their MANUFACTURER points against their conti counterparts. in fact, no other japanese manufacturer has equaled honda in terms of btcc wins. now, shouldn't dat be a reason for u to reconsider ur opinion?
i have a few reasons y the s2k is excluded from the competition. firstly, its a roadster. i understand that the btcc only allows homolgated road cars with hard top/ roll cages to partipate? 2ndly, the s2k's kerb weight of 1.3 tons puts it at a disadvantage versus the 1.17 tons of the DC5. alot more has to be done to sharpen the car's handling and acceleration. 3rdly, the cost of maintenance. not only is an s2k more expensive to field, it also suffers from increased cost of maintenance in terms of drive train components, being FR. but i agree that it'd be interesting to see the s2k being pitted amongst the likes of EP3s and DC5s in a sea of vauxhalls, seats and mgs. -
oh no.Originally posted by HENG@:And I feel a thunder in my heart that I cant control
I feel a thunder in my heart
Should I walk away or follow my soul?
I feel a thunder in my heart
Where it comes from I just dont know
Oh no, oh no -
Matt? Oh he has done well in other cars before. His won in a rather crap Nissan Primera. That shows how good he is I think. I believe if he'd been offered a properly supported conti drive, he would have won lots more championships. As it is, he was always the privateer, without factory backing. This driver has not had good cars in his past career, even so, he manhandled a piece of junk to win. I think that says a lot about how much of a factor he is in the current winning combination. U also have to look at how everyone else is doing in the other ITRs and the CTRs also, to know he's a bigger factor than u give him credit for.Originally posted by tailslide:i'd say that was true if matt had achieved similar or better results driving a conti. fact is, the DC5 and EP3 are essentially powered by the same engine and structurally similar. u can't discount the vehicle just because the same driver consistently hammers in good timings in a similar car.
looking at the list of teams, i'd say that there were as many if not more vauxhalls participating in the btcc compared to hondas. true dat the teams with factory support are expected to beat the privateers, but dats only a determinant in which TEAM stays ahead. overall, the hondas have been really competitive in their MANUFACTURER points against their conti counterparts. in fact, no other japanese manufacturer has equaled honda in terms of btcc wins. now, shouldn't dat be a reason for u to reconsider ur opinion?
i have a few reasons y the s2k is excluded from the competition. firstly, its a roadster. i understand that the btcc only allows homolgated road cars with hard top/ roll cages to partipate? 2ndly, the s2k's kerb weight of 1.3 tons puts it at a disadvantage versus the 1.17 tons of the DC5. alot more has to be done to sharpen the car's handling and acceleration. 3rdly, the cost of maintenance. not only is an s2k more expensive to field, it also suffers from increased cost of maintenance in terms of drive train components, being FR. but i agree that it'd be interesting to see the s2k being pitted amongst the likes of EP3s and DC5s in a sea of vauxhalls, seats and mgs.
If we look CAREFULLY at the sort of contis honda was racing against, then u wouldn't look so deep into it. Seriously hor, the 2001 gen hondas were racing the 1998 Vauxhalls used by the private teams. If a newer car cannot even beat a design 3 years older than itself, i think its even more sia suay, isn't it? The hondas were competitive alright. competitive against uncompetitive machinery. thats the only reason the hondas got as many points as they did. by fielding a LOT of cars, and by the dint that most of the contis were very old vauxhalls, and a quad of uncompetitive Lexuses. Now if the whole field was running with say... the newer gen Astra, I'd imagine that to be a very different story. Wooooo can u imagine where Honda would have ended up then? with the privateer astras snatching points from them, they wouldn't even have finished above Seat, even with Seat only having 3 or 4 cars!
Actually that brings me to another pt. Seat with 3 or 4 cars only against almost half of a whole field of hondas, yet where teams was concerned, they came in ahead of honda in 04. the only reason they were below in the constructors was because they didn't field more cars. imagine, if the field had a lot more seats also.... i can't imagine where honda would be in the construtors... it'd be tragic!
honestly, yes, what u say does makes me rethink my opinion yes. everytime i have to dig out more facts, everytime i have to rethink, the bar sinks lower. i beseech u to stop before i run out of ground clearance to lower my opinion of the civic any further
hmm... interesting about the S2K. actually i was thinking pitting it against the Beemers in WTCC would be more interesting! Of course seeing as the beemer is also heavier and RWD, which basically means it shares a lot of the disadvantages of the S2k, and yet won the WTCC championship last year, means a lot of those points are probably moot. Also considering how the cars in BTCC and WTCC are almost similiar (the same Seat Leon Rs r in both) If Honda can somehow get a racing version homologated, why not? Spoon HAS GT versions of S2Ks if i remember correctly. -
anyways for those interested i have checked.. the new 1.8litre unit in the 06 civic uses R18A1 engine.. has cam changing.. no cam phasing...
below is the torque and power curve
as can see there the torque curve has 2 humps machiam camel's back.. not really good if u wanna race pple imho...
for more information visit http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=415957 -
hmmm... yea that torque curve does look a bit problematic.
approx 129 ftlb? thats about... 180Nm... hmm....now im wondering if that affects the everyday drivability of the car. Low torque and a rather weirdly shaped torque curve... -
180Nm of torque is alright with me for a 1.8 litre... is the spread of the torque tt is more of a concern... frm what i can see there will be a drop in acceleration first b4 the second cam profile kicks in... and it peaks too early so it loses breath towards the end...Originally posted by HENG@:hmmm... yea that torque curve does look a bit problematic.
approx 129 ftlb? thats about... 180Nm... hmm....now im wondering if that affects the everyday drivability of the car. Low torque and a rather weirdly shaped torque curve... -
from a 1.8.... average, i must say. Somemore, its only at 2 points on the curve. For 1 second u et 180Nm and then it drops dramatically. Same for the 2nd torque peak.Originally posted by n0x:180Nm of torque is alright with me for a 1.8 litre... is the spread of the torque tt is more of a concern... frm what i can see there will be a drop in acceleration first b4 the second cam profile kicks in... and it peaks too early so it loses breath towards the end...
I do wonder if they didn't make that dip in the torque curve on purpose, to give it an acceleration kick in the higher revs like a car with a laggy turbo.
Personally I would have smoothed the torque curve out, at the expense of max torque. -
eh maybe they want to make it look good on paper..Originally posted by HENG@:from a 1.8.... average, i must say. Somemore, its only at 2 points on the curve. For 1 second u et 180Nm and then it drops dramatically. Same for the 2nd torque peak.
I do wonder if they didn't make that dip in the torque curve on purpose, to give it an acceleration kick in the higher revs like a car with a laggy turbo.
Personally I would have smoothed the torque curve out, at the expense of max torque. remember the performance of a 2.0litre.... now i know.. hahah
anyways this is measured at the flywheel.. not at the wheels.. this new civic has 5 gear shift... wld be compensated somehow??? -
u'd better hope so.Originally posted by n0x:eh maybe they want to make it look good on paper.. remember the performance of a 2.0litre.... now i know.. hahah
anyways this is measured at the flywheel.. not at the wheels.. this new civic has 5 gear shift... wld be compensated somehow???
looks like they compromised a tad too much for impressive looking paper stats. Delve into it, u start to uncover how its not totally honest.
remember wad u tell me about the FC of a 1.5 and the power of a 2.0? Like I said, thats mutually exclusive! -
i heard reviews.. tt the real 2litre 1 using the Kseries block tt the integra is also using pulls strongly all the way to the redline.. whereas the 1.8 cant..Originally posted by HENG@:u'd better hope so.
looks like they compromised a tad too much for impressive looking paper stats. Delve into it, u start to uncover how its not totally honest.
remember wad u tell me about the FC of a 1.5 and the power of a 2.0? Like I said, thats mutually exclusive!
anyways saw my uncle's civic 1.8 today... the ride is nice.. everything is nice.. juz the engine... but hey it cant be totally discredited.. he told me he was cruising at 120km/h at rpm 2000 where most cars of this class wld be screaming thier heads off.. the 5 gears help too... and he is having a FC of 1litre 12km which is pretty decent -
prob its 4 gears with a 5th overdrive gear then. it just doesn't look as impressive IRL to be honest. 12km/l is a bit... low.Originally posted by n0x:i heard reviews.. tt the real 2litre 1 using the Kseries block tt the integra is also using pulls strongly all the way to the redline.. whereas the 1.8 cant..
anyways saw my uncle's civic 1.8 today... the ride is nice.. everything is nice.. juz the engine... but hey it cant be totally discredited.. he told me he was cruising at 120km/h at rpm 2000 where most cars of this class wld be screaming thier heads off.. the 5 gears help too... and he is having a FC of 1litre 12km which is pretty decent -
Originally posted by tiggersgd:
thought is 1.8s and 2.0s?
i'm back! who wants a gd whacking?? 
msn arh?? sure...
i've attached another [b]asian (MY) link that writes up on the new FD. 2 models, 1.8 n 2.0S.
http://asia.vtec.net/Reviews/8GCivicFirstDrive/index.html
in the writeup, i dun really see the any cam phasing but if anything is to go by, i'd say i like the sequential shifter or short shifter in the 2.0S model...
cheers.
[/b] -
1. R18 is i-Vtec (cam phase +cam change)
2. Cam phase is also know as VVTi(toyota/Suzuki),AVCS(subaru),VTC(nissan) it is actually cheap easy tech pioneered by Ford in 1962
3. Cam change pioneered by Honda in 1980s
4. Vtec patent ended abt 5 years back; till date only Porsche,BMW and Toyota has successfully adopted Vtec system in their cars.
5. Toyota's "i-Vtec" is VVTi-L last seen in Celica SSII 1.8 Block. Now discontinued as it is too complicated and expensive to produce. VVTi-L now reserved in expensive Lexus range
6. BMW's new inline 6 engine (R6) uses digital Vtec system; again complicated and heavy, they solved by incorporating aluminium alloy.
7. Honda's relevance is that it is still the only car manufacturer to introduce true racing technology at affordable prices (unless you consider Porsche, BMW are cheap)
8. Choice between SOHCorDOHC is just power, if you can get the same power from a SOHC then of coz SOHC. (Notice Honda's SOHC pumps out more power than most DOHC) DOHC also more complicated and higher FuelConsumption. Plus point for DOHC is more receptive to modding due to its extra head.
9. overall comparing a BMW M3 with WRX STi/S2000/Evo not good; Price of 1 M3 can get you all 3 cars.
My 2 cents
-
Well FYI Magnesium is nw used in BMW's engines....
-
R18 DOESNT have cam phasing.. doesnt mean it says ivtec meant it have cam phasing.. honda only introduce cam phasing in K series engines.. ivtec is juz a vague term tt can also mean closing off 1 valve at lower rpm and cam changing.. also adding i to vtec suggest an improvement and is seen as a marketing gimmickOriginally posted by ernie77:1. R18 is i-Vtec (cam phase +cam change)
5. Toyota's "i-Vtec" is VVTi-L last seen in Celica SSII 1.8 Block. Now discontinued as it is too complicated and expensive to produce. VVTi-L now reserved in expensive Lexus range
8. Choice between SOHCorDOHC is just power, if you can get the same power from a SOHC then of coz SOHC. (Notice Honda's SOHC pumps out more power than most DOHC) DOHC also more complicated and higher FuelConsumption. Plus point for DOHC is more receptive to modding due to its extra head.
lexus range doesnt use VVTL-i.. they use dual VVT-i.. which means cam phasing on both the intake and outlet valve..
SOHC or DOHC is not much diff.. but to have cam phasing u need to use DOHC... which again justifies why i say tt R18A doesnt have cam phasing.. and without cam phasing low end torque is not as fantastic.. power aint everything... and without cam phasing.. at lower revs.. a honda engine is juz a conventional combustion enigne... -
Originally posted by toyota-corolla:thought is 1.8s and 2.0s?
isn't it what i wrote? link also provided already...haiz... 
-
oh, sorry la, thank you!Originally posted by tiggersgd: isn't it what i wrote? link also provided already...haiz... -
Hi Nox, the below shows the details of the R18 which have both cam phasing/timing (you can see the graphs showing the time delay)and also cam change (Vtec-E 12to16v configuration as you mentioned)and it also has a variable intake manifold. Again i-Vtec is first introduced in the K-series, R series is first SOHC to have i-VtecOriginally posted by n0x:R18 DOESNT have cam phasing.. doesnt mean it says ivtec meant it have cam phasing.. honda only introduce cam phasing in K series engines.. ivtec is juz a vague term tt can also mean closing off 1 valve at lower rpm and cam changing.. also adding i to vtec suggest an improvement and is seen as a marketing gimmick
lexus range doesnt use VVTL-i.. they use dual VVT-i.. which means cam phasing on both the intake and outlet valve..
SOHC or DOHC is not much diff.. but to have cam phasing u need to use DOHC... which again justifies why i say tt R18A doesnt have cam phasing.. and without cam phasing low end torque is not as fantastic.. power aint everything... and without cam phasing.. at lower revs.. a honda engine is juz a conventional combustion enigne...
i-Vtec means cam phase+ cam change, if not it will be a case of misrepresentation. In US, little things like this can cost millions in lawsuit for the company...
http://www.honda.co.jp/factbook/auto/CIVIC/200509/09.html
VVTL-i is reserved in Lexus range, you will see the first implementation in 2007 in their new V6 engine...Toyota is unable to make it economical enough(they lose money for every SS-II/GTS they built, until they cancelled it totally)
For Honda, cam phasing is introduce to address the issue of low torque of traditional Vtec. The K-series and R-series have all round good torque...
SOHC or DOHC not much difference?
1) SOHC simpler, lesser parts
2) DOHC heavier, more parts
3) SOHC cheap to build, DOHC more expensive
4) Fuel consumption also very different
5) Power per cc also very different -
hi ernieOriginally posted by ernie77:Hi Nox, the below shows the details of the R18 which have both cam phasing/timing (you can see the graphs showing the time delay)and also cam change (Vtec-E 12to16v configuration as you mentioned)and it also has a variable intake manifold. Again i-Vtec is first introduced in the K-series, R series is first SOHC to have i-Vtec
i-Vtec means cam phase+ cam change, if not it will be a case of misrepresentation. In US, little things like this can cost millions in lawsuit for the company...
http://www.honda.co.jp/factbook/auto/CIVIC/200509/09.html
VVTL-i is reserved in Lexus range, you will see the first implementation in 2007 in their new V6 engine...Toyota is unable to make it economical enough(they lose money for every SS-II/GTS they built, until they cancelled it totally)
For Honda, cam phasing is introduce to address the issue of low torque of traditional Vtec. The K-series and R-series have all round good torque...
SOHC or DOHC not much difference?
1) SOHC simpler, lesser parts
2) DOHC heavier, more parts
3) SOHC cheap to build, DOHC more expensive
4) Fuel consumption also very different
5) Power per cc also very different
sohc or dohc depends on the needs.. most car makers go for dohc for better performance and efficiency.. tt is not always the case i know.. but what i do know is tt car makers keep things simple not by doing away with 1 cam but keeping to inline engines.. as in the case of bmw straight sixes.. eg. the reknowned M3 engine.. though i do know they going into v layout now...
checked through all the V6 going to be introduced and dun see VVTL-i being introduced.. its only DUAL VVT-i which is diff... if u insist.. care to list the engine model...
and finally.. the website u quote me..i cant read jap but if u insists on it using cam pahsing.. then with a SOHC.. it will be extremely difficult to implement... u have to individually vary each rocker on top of increasing length of each rocker when second cam profile kicks in... whereas in the case of DOHC.. u simply vary the speed of the entire cam... -
thank for the comment you people made, my dad confirm getting a Honda Civic 2006 1.8 Vti-s Version.
The advantage is: i can show off to my friend (whose dad currently driving a Toyota Wish (OPC Vehicle), always say that Wish best and ex, now lets compare who more ex!)
The disvantage is: my pocket money have to cut down again, father loan quite a small amount though
