2004 Honda Civic Type-R from UK and Ireland - Comments

No faults.

Considered as a £16k hot hatch, the CTR does nearly everything very well. The engine is superb; reasonably torquey below the 5800rpm cam changeover point, and very quick indeed beyond - although the 'kick' is not as pronounced as in earlier gen performance VTECs.

The six-speed box is outstandingly precise, and the clutch light. Steering is quick, but still numb - it's also heavy at parking speeds, with a poor turning circle.

Dry road grip is excellent, and cornering composed, with very little roll. The ride is obviously on the firm side without being uncomfortable, and refinement is noticeably improved in the 04 model; some road roar from the tyres, but perfectly acceptable for a hot hatch.

Materials quality is fine, no squeaks or rattles from the cabin, and it's quite spacious (although the boot is only adequate). Tyre and fuel consumption entirely dependent on the heaviness of your right foot. Very pleased after 10k miles and fully intend to keep it until the warranty expires.

The Clio 182 cup would wipe the floor with your Type r!

Performance wise and Handling.

Hell of a lot cheaper too..

Actually, there's absolutely nothing in it in performance terms. You could make a case for the Clio handling better, but Tiff Needell thought otherwise on the track recently.

The difference is that I have a practical modern hatchback, with Japanese engineering and quality, whereas you have a cramped, dated, poorly built French supermini.

When I drove one, I personally couldn't get used to the overassisted and vague power steering, and found myself swearing at the almost total absence of torque at low to medium revs. I also found the chassis grippy, but not very rewarding. Too little feel and ultimately a dogged understeerer. After several hot Peugeots (which fall apart, but drive like nothing else!), I thought it was very disappointing.

That said, the CTR does offer a heck of a lot of performance and engineering pedigree for the money. No arguments from me on Honda's mechanical engineering excellence and quality control.

Enjoyed reading your review.

The last thing I'd describe the CTR's steering as is "over-assisted". Lacking in feel certainly - I'm not a fan of electric PAS systems - but quick and quite well weighted. I suppose the chassis is unexciting compared to an old 205 GTi, but I also know it's a hell of a lot safer for the average driver - high levels of grip culminating in benign understeer will do me just fine.

It puzzles me that the "lacks torque" argument is used about a drivetrain that's obviously designed to extract big horsepower from a small N/A engine using high revs. As criticisms go, it's kind of missing the point.

In fact, the CTR's torque output is exactly what you'd expect from a 2.0 multivalve engine, and it doesn't feel gutless for everyday driving. That said, it is not a sensible purchase for those who don't enjoy stretching an engine on a regular basis!

I personally found the steering too light, hence my comment about overassistance. Again, this is relative to two Peugeot 205 GTI 1.9's, a 306 XSi, and my current 306 GTI-6.

There's nothing wrong with the amount of torque the engine produces, but peaking at 5,900 RPM is not a recipe for good driveability. When you open the throttle wide at anything less than 5,500 RPM, the car feels spectacularly ordinary. That wasn't my biggest gripe though - the engine works the way it does and you either like it or don't. For me, the chassis wasn't involving enough, and lacked feel.

In Honda's defence, I don't believe any current hot hatch handles as involvingly as my ageing 306 (including any of Peugeot's current kit) which is why I still have it, and why I put up with its increasingly erratic reliability (122,000 hard driven miles on the clock). I suspect the problem is down to compliance with crash and emissions regs, spiralling kerbweights and the lawsuit culture, where any manufacturer offering a car with remotely "edgy" handling would be lining themselves up for expensive and reputation damaging lawsuits. Look what happened to Audi when they originally launched the TT for example.

Hmmmm...your GTI-6 has a slightly higher kerb weight than a CTR, identical torque output, and produces peak torque at only very slightly lower rpms (5500). So I'm struggling to understand why the Pug should feel anything other than "spectacularly ordinary" at lower revs either!? It's rather like a tamer and slower CTR in concept.

What you fail to mention is that 90%+ of peak torque is available from 3000rpm in the CTR, which means it pulls in a linear fashion and is quite driveable as long as you don't expect to trundle around in 6th at 30mph.

Your views about the chassis are fair comment - even the most basic 306s handled superbly, as I know from experience, while the CTR is really about lots of grip and very little body roll - it's an efficient tool for going round corners quickly rather than being particularly fun.

And your final paragraph nicely summarises why I have a problem with the CTR. Surely, outright fun is the key ingredient of a hot hatch. What's the point otherwise? The trouble with making a hot hatch all about performance and grip is that a front drive hatchback, by definition, is among the worst kinds of cars you can buy in this respect. If you want pure speed, and rapid ground covering ability you won't buy a Civic (or a 306 for that matter). You'd buy a used Porsche, Lotus or TVR which would make any hot hatch look daft on most roads.

Relative to a true sports car or supercar, the average hot hatch is slow in a straight line and even slower on the bends. There is only so much you can do with a front drive chassis designed primarily for carting the shopping home from Tesco's. To my mind, fun, feel, involvement and ensuring that even "eight tenths" driving plants a Cheshire cat grin on your face are the hot hatch's reasons for existing. Grip and speed are nigh on irrelevant in this respect.

I don't think there's any point getting too misty-eyed over the demise of the hot hatch as light, chuckable road-going go-kart. It's inevitable. Passive safety is designed-in, and punters want toys. The CTR weighs 1200kg, and it's a mere featherweight compared to the new generation of hot hatches, lead by the lardy likes of the Golf GTi.

Of course, a FWD hatchback chassis isn't the ideal basis for a performance car, but why compare a hot hatch to a "genuine" sports car? The former are usually a hell of a lot more attainable, far more practical and considerably faster than the limp-wristed entry-level examples of the latter (MX-5 et al).

I personally haven't given up on the hot hatch as a breed, because they still offer far more BHP/£ than any other market sector, and the current crop is probably the best ever. Something like the new Focus ST looks outstanding value at £17.5k, for example.

I would agree that the Focus ST looks very interesting, and I am a big fan of that 5 pot Volvo engine, so I await that one with baited breath. I have always liked fast Fords, and they usually manage to be half decent even when based on a crap base car (look at the mkV Escort RS2000 for example). The Focus should be a corker. That said, 200+ turbocharged bhp and front drive never strikes me as a particularly wonderful combination.

Funny you should mention the MX-5, as I happen to be a huge fan. My better half had a 1.8iS (the one with the LSD and 146 bhp) for two years and I have to say it was brilliant. Lively enough to be a laugh, and so chuckable and full of feel that a run to the shops turned into a 10 mile detour around some favourite twisties. I take your point, it's slower than a good hot hatch, but it reminded me just how good a well set up rear drive chassis can be. Once I remembered how to drive a RWD car again of course (and it took a few spins!)

The MX-5 is a car you really have to drive to appreciate. I groaned when she asked me to accompany her on the test drive, but by the end I was asking where we sign. I liked it that much. In a final point that also applies to the CTR, it was when I finally appreciated the fact that nobody engineers cars like the Japanese. They just don't break down or go wrong and that is not to be underestimated for day to day use.

If you read last months autocar magazine, they were testing a numbers of cars around a track and on the road some of these cars were, renault megane 225,clio 182,mgzs180,mgsv-r, honda civic and a few others, the civic and megane got 2/10 for track and 4/10 for road, whereas the mg's both got 4/10 on track and 7/10 on road.

Autocar rated the mgzs180 a better handling car on both road and track than any of the others including the clio 182 and civic.

Therefor the civics certainly isn't the best handling performer in its class.

The ZS is dead. Rover is no more. Very few people beyond the unfortunate people affected by the job cuts could care less. Get over it!

Most people wouldn't pay five figures for a two generation old Honda Civic saloon, whatever wheels they put on it, wherever they move the badges to or whichever grille or lamp design they choose this month.

At the end of the day, the ZS is only a tarted up mid 90's Civic. A 2 grand VTi out of the classifieds is just as capable, barely any slower, and doesn't have a Rover engine under the bonnet. Which makes it worth more in my opinion!