26th Jun 2011, 15:23
The FN2 is a great car, but... Does it deserve the Type R badge? Sadly not. I've had a Integra dc2 Type R, and currently have a Civic ek9 Type R, and have driven my friend's ep3, which are all great. Pure Honda at its finest. I recently test drove an FN2, and was sooo disappointed. If you think the FN2 is a great car, I promise you will be blown away by the previous Type R.
The reason is too many legislations an heavy safety features, as well as they try to build the car as cheaply as possible to make money in these bad economy times e.g. crappy torsion beam is sooo much cheaper than independent suspension, and the brakes have clearly been made on a shoe string. A few people I spoke to say they fade so quickly, and the car understeers like a pig.
Sadly Honda can't make high revving cars any more, due to euro and world emission laws. The future of Honda looks bleak.
Ek9 FTW.
8th Jul 2011, 06:26
Completely agree. Was tempted by a fn2 a couple of weeks ago, but test drove it and was disappointed. Much better to drive home in my trusty ep3.
22nd Jul 2011, 07:53
Honda claim they only had 1bhp more, but to be honest, if you look at rolling road graphs for the fn2, you would be surprised; some of them are putting out 210bhp stock. I even saw a completely stock fn2 at TDI-North recently pull 216bhp before it had Hondata and exhaust intake fitted. It just depends if you get a gooden, or if it has been looked after.
26th Jul 2011, 14:16
It understeers like a pig though, and doesn't feel as involving to drive as earlier models.
8th Aug 2011, 06:02
The Civic Type R (fn2) will not get to Honda's over hyped (as-usual) claim of 60mph in 6.4sec.
Many car magazines, Autocar, Evo, Autoexpress etc have only achieved between 7.2-7.4sec to 60mph and around 18sec to 100mph. In gear acceleration times were also pretty poor. The car is just too heavy!
As for 210-216bhp stock. LOL... it's great to dream!
8th Sep 2011, 09:11
Also take into account, rolling roads can be very misleading. Two different dynos, same car, very different results. Plus you don't always need to be the fastest; great handling is just as important. Shame the fn2 has neither. Type R used to mean something, now it's more of a gimmicky badge to sell more cars.
15th Nov 2011, 03:23
You won't get a quicker 0-60mph time than 7 seconds from an FN2 Type R. As someone mentioned above, the car is too heavy, and most performance car magazine tests result in times of 7 - 7.5sec to 60. Why oh why do Honda always exaggerate their times???
14th Dec 2011, 08:25
To sell cars to younger drivers, they only care about traffic light drag races and spouting quotes from the brochure at a local track day. There were so many FN2's with a wide range of mods, and none of them got past my DC2 JDM model. The fastest Honda of the day was a EP3 supercharged. Honda got it wrong, they brought out the truly great cars, first the DC2 and EK9, then slowly diluted the formula as they progressed.
8th Jun 2010, 05:03
I've had my FN2 Type R for 3 years and 42,000 miles. The only issues I've had are:
1. Rear brake pads/discs wear out quicker than you'd expect if you like to hustle the car down fast 'A' and 'B' roads because of the efficiency of the VSA, which mainly acts on the rear brakes.
2. Creaking from the rear suspension when cold, but it only lasts a very short while before clearing itself.
Otherwise this is a top, top car. Use the revs, don't be afraid of leaving it above 6k RPM and it will reward you - it can be thrilling, even if there are out and out quicker cars - but that misses the point of this car and how involving it can be.
I also ride a 1000cc bike, and the Type R is the only car I know that gets close to feeling like a bike on 4 wheels.
It's also the only car I know of that after 3 years of ownership still makes me look forward to getting into it each and every time. That is from a 53 year old, who has spent 20 years in the vehicle leasing industry, and actually prefers to be on his bike to anything else.
I also believe that the official 0-60 is 6.6 seconds, and I do believe that figure is achievable.