2007 Honda Civic Type-R; A "Superhatch?"

[YSSMAN]

Well, atleast there is some offical press on the car now...

Honda today unveiled the 2007 Civic Type R, a high-performance version of the Civic hatchback for the European and Asian markets. Referred to by Honda as a "superhatch," the new Type R continues to be powered by the naturally-aspirated, high-revving 2.0-litre DOHC i-VTEC engine but the unit has been significantly reworked to improve responsiveness using a new balancer shaft and drive-by-wire throttle control. VTEC variable valve timing and VTC variable inlet camshaft technology continue to underpin the engine structure. Further development of the Type R unit means more useable torque, as the switch to high-lift, long duration valve timing (the cam change) now takes place at a lower 5,200rpm, and continues all the way to 8,000rpm. Max output is now 201 horsepower at 8,000 rpm, compared to 200 horsepower at 7,400 rpm. Acceleration to 62 mph takes 6.6 seconds — identical to the previous car.



Like the Type S, its rear track is 20mm wider than that of the 5-door model, but otherwise damper, bush and spring characteristics are all unique to Type R.



Broad 225/40 ZR18 tyres provide added grip, while a 15mm reduction in ride height further reduces body roll. Firmer steering, a quicker ratio and stiffer steering box mountings all provide pin-sharp responses to steering wheel input, while the fuel tank's central location beneath the cabin floor helps to lower the centre of gravity and reduces the body's inertia moment.



Extra strengthening has been introduced into the floor cross member just ahead of the central fuel tank, around the upper front suspension mountings, while the lower cross member (just ahead of the engine bay) provides greater rigidity. The overall result is a more predictable chassis, with levels of responsiveness and stability that are some of the best in class. At the same time, the damper settings deliver enhanced ride comfort, so the Type R is easier to use in all conditions and on all surfaces.

Well, it all sounds great, but is it really any better than the American Si counterpart? I know I've brought that point up over and over again, but generally speaking, is it really that better?

Kinda I suppose... To answer my own question, the biggest upside to the Type-R is the hatchback design, which looks much better in Type-R guise. The added functionality of the larger rear is nice, but again, how much better is it going to be over the coupe?

...Either way, I'll stick to my VW guns here and go for the GTI in most circumstances. It may be a bit slower, but the higher levels of refinement and the additional "balance" of the car overall makes a strong case for sale.

That said, the Mazdaspeed 3 could change the game entirely...

 

[Kent]

Looks great to me and I'd just like to see more companies running fewer model variations from country to country.
It would be nice to have that here in America as the Si.
None the less, like you said, how much of a difference is there?

My bet on the difference: A great deal.
Tires and engine mostly, I'm betting the suspension isn't all that different.
But in the end, when you say 'more torque' it is always a good thing. 👍
(I still find the Si here in NA to be good enough )

 

[iceburns288]

Too heavy

 

[Tornado]

Our Si is the better car, because it has a better rear suspension (the Si has Multilink, the Type R has Torsion Beam). And, IMO, the Type R looks even worse than the Si does.

 

[Jim Prower]

I can't wait to see a comparo between the Si and Type R

It could be the first time Honda sent their best car to the states!

 

[daggoth]

...Either way, I'll stick to my VW guns here and go for the GTI in most circumstances. It may be a bit slower, but the higher levels of refinement

Mechanicly speaking I don't think the VW is more refined.

and the additional "balance" of the car overall makes a strong case for sale.

What exactly do you mean by balance?

 

[Danny]

Kinda I suppose... To answer my own question, the biggest upside to the Type-R is the hatchback design, which looks much better in Type-R guise. The added functionality of the larger rear is nice, but again, how much better is it going to be over the coupe?

...Either way, I'll stick to my VW guns here and go for the GTI in most circumstances. It may be a bit slower, but the higher levels of refinement and the additional "balance" of the car overall makes a strong case for sale.

That said, the Mazdaspeed 3 could change the game entirely...

I'm in a good mood today, so I'll let you off for saying that.

 

[Poverty]

Our Si is the better car, because it has a better rear suspension (the Si has Multilink, the Type R has Torsion Beam). And, IMO, the Type R looks even worse than the Si does.

The old type R would most likely crap all over your current Si. I dont see why there are comparisons being made between the two really.

Two Type R beaters

However, the Type R is not the only fast Civic in town. Autocar reports that the Paris motor show will see a stripped-out lightweight version that's the same as the Type R but without some of the trim and noise-proofing.

Honda said it won't import this one but you will be able to get a more extreme, track-only version that's been developed in conjunction with race team JAS Motorsport. You can't drive it on the road, and Honda won't sell it: you'll have to talk directly to JAS.

Being track-only means it's likely to be more focused, with a roll-cage, harnesses, stiff suspension and few interior comforts. But it will be a hoot to hoon. More details when we get to Paris.

 

[Jim Prower]

The old type R would most likely crap all over your current Si. I dont see why there are comparisons being made between the two really.

Wait, the OLD Type R? Are we talking about that one? No. We're only talking about the new one.

I mean, sure, it might've been a great car in it's day, and it might still be a great car now, but it's irrellivant to this conversation.

As I see it, the new Type R hatch and the Si Coupe would have a pretty good scrap at it.

As for the stripped-down version, I want Honda to offer it over here.

 

[Jim Prower]

EDIT: Meant to edit above, sorry.

 

[the Interceptor]

The Si won't be offered here, so that's kind of out of the question as an alternative. Anyway, I like the new CTR, at least from the outside. I'm not sure about the interior though. I mean it's nice and modern, but I rather like classic dials, like on the previous model. Anyway, let's see how it does in the reviews.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Tornado]

The old type R would most likely crap all over your current Si. I dont see why there are comparisons being made between the two really.

Perhaps because I wasn't comparing the two.

 

[Pink_the_Floyd]

UUUUUUGly, Jees.

Where the heck Honda get their idea of the new Civic?

 

[Danny]

UUUUUUGly, Jees.

Where the heck Honda get their idea of the new Civic?

 

[ERA WUNER]

UUUUUUGly, Jees.

Where the heck Honda get their idea of the new Civic?

The lights remind me of the 01 Accord. I think...

 

[Poverty]

Perhaps because I wasn't comparing the two.

Yes you did. You said that the Si is better.

the new one is alot better than the old one according to some guy who drove the prototypes on another forum.

 

[Tornado]

That's great. The problem is that the Si still has a better rear suspension, as do all of the American and Japanese versions of the Civic (even the Hybrid). And unless Honda went out of it's way to rebuild the rear end of the car for the multi-links in the JDM/USDM Civics (because it won't fit in the Euro Civic) and stretch out the wheelbase, it will always be. And it certainly doesn't look like they did.

Yes you did. You said that the Si is better.

And it is, smartass. It's better than the new Type R. I never said anything about the old one.

 

[Poverty]

That's great. The problem is that the Si still has a better rear suspension, as do all of the American and Japanese versions of the Civic (even the Hybrid). And unless Honda went out of it's way to rebuild the rear end of the car for the multi-links in the JDM/USDM Civics (because it won't fit in the Euro Civic) and stretch out the wheelbase, it will always be. And it certainly doesn't look like they did.

And it is, smartass. It's better than the new Type R. I never said anything about the old one.

so here we have a guy who automatically says the Civic Si is automatically better than the CTR because it has a more modern suspension setup, but at the same time would defend the primitive Z06 till his death....

The old CTR is better than your Si for track racing and so will be this new one. End of.

 

[Tornado]

so here we have a guy who automatically says the Civic Si is automatically better than the CTR because it has a more modern suspension setup, but at the same time would defend the primitive Z06 till his death....

I really, really, really hope you know what kind of minefield you just walked into. Not only did you not manage to piss me off (despite your very real and silly amount of European bias, I actually hate the C6 Corvette. I would prefer a C4 with the Z06 engine), but you have just brought two tons of hell on yourself as soon as YSSMAN; and really, anybody with a brain sees that. If you want to start another flame war for yourself to lose, go right ahead. It doesn't need to be me who proves how wrong you are all the time.

The old CTR is better than your Si for track racing and so will be this new one. End of.

I love how you think you are able to state your opinions as facts based on what smucks on other forums say (see German Car thread), yet when anybody else posts legitimate facts you fob it off as being biased against your opinion. Tell me, Captain Jack: based on what can you conclude that the Si won't handle better than the Type R? There is no reason for it not to at all. It has a better rear suspension, and it probably weighs the same or less. The Type R doesn't even have any more power to pull over the Si anymore.

 

[Poverty]

I really, really, really hope you know what kind of minefield you just walked into. Not only did you not manage to piss me off (despite your very real and silly amount of European bias, I actually hate the C6 Corvette. I would prefer a C4 with the Z06 engine), but you have just brought two tons of hell on yourself as soon as YSSMAN; and really, anybody with a brain sees that. If you want to start another flame war for yourself to lose, go right ahead. It doesn't need to be me who proves how wrong you are all the time.

I love how you think you are able to state your opinions as facts based on what smucks on other forums say (see German Car thread), yet when anybody else posts legitimate facts you fob it off as being biased against your opinion. Tell me, Captain Jack: based on what can you conclude that the Si won't handle better than the Type R? There is no reason for it not to at all. It has a better rear suspension, and it probably weighs the same or less. The Type R doesn't even have any more power to pull over the Si anymore.

1. You and prove You still think porsches are a posers car even though its the 2nd most gatso'ed vehicle in the UK. Not bad for a car thats out of reach to most people. You dont prove anything

2. Just because a vehicle has similiar stats on paper doesnt mean anything. The CTR is a performance enthusiast model. Your Si thingy isnt. Our CTR is geared towards the track, your Si isnt. Dont see whats so hard to comprehend about that.

3. Why am I biased to european cars? Its arguable that europeans consistently make the best all-round vehicles. Looks, comfort and power. Im not gonna lie and say "no, that european car is crap". Funny thing is I will openly admit that most british cars, well the ones that arent around anymore were mostly crap. Example being rover. If a car is good I will say so. If a car is bad I will say so. Its not my fault certain manufacturers are good at making crap/boring cars

I didnt say anything bad about the Z06. Its suspension setup is primitive but my whole point was that just because something isnt using the cutting edge technology doesnt automatically mean its gonna be slower than something that does.

 

[Tornado]

1. You and prove You still think porsches are a posers car even though its the 2nd most gatso'ed vehicle in the UK. Not bad for a car thats out of reach to most people. You dont prove anything

That is irrelavent to the topic at hand, and just becuase you couldn't get it through your skull that I wasn't saying that all Porsches and their drivers are posuers isn't my problem.

2. Just because a vehicle has similiar stats on paper doesnt mean anything. The CTR is a performance enthusiast model. Your Si thingy isnt. Our CTR is geared towards the track, your Si isnt. Dont see whats so hard to comprehend about that.

This coming from the man who said that the Quattro was a match for the WRX, not only in acceleration but also in handling because they were "similar in specs."

3. Why am I biased to european cars? Its arguable that europeans consistently make the best all-round vehicles. Looks, comfort and power. Im not gonna lie and say "no, that european car is crap". Funny thing is I will openly admit that most british cars, well the ones that arent around anymore were mostly crap. Example being rover. If a car is good I will say so. If a car is bad I will say so. Its not my fault certain manufacturers are good at making crap/boring cars

So you said that you aren't biased about Euro cars, yet you use the whipping boy to try to make yourself look better.

I didnt say anything bad about the Z06. Its suspension setup is primitive but my whole point was that just because something isnt using the cutting edge technology doesnt automatically mean its gonna be slower than something that does.

Well, you forget that nearly all of the good handling FWD (old Type R, Clio 182, Ford Focus, Mazda 3) have Multi-links. And the Euro civic was lambasted for it's torsion beam rear-end.

 

[Danny]

Guys, let's just not, okay?

Will the older Type R depreciate faster now, d'ya think?

 

[Poverty]

That is irrelavent to the topic at hand, and just becuase you couldn't get it through your skull that I wasn't saying that all Porsches and their drivers are posuers isn't my problem.

okay then matey. what you were saying is that only pporsche drivers who own the near top or top of the line porsches arent posers "I have lots of money to spend on my porsche so im not a poser"

This coming from the man who said that the Quattro was a match for the WRX, not only in acceleration but also in handling because they were "similar in specs."

Your a bit of a hypocrite arent you. First whining about me bringin up the porsche/poser argument and then you yourself refer back to a old argument.

Lets get the facts straight though. I said that the Quattro could keep up with subarus equivelants of today., I never said jack about handling other than retort to those who said that audi's understeer (which I acknowledged that they do), and proving that scoobies understeer too.

Infact your own figures showed that in a race to 60 it imprezas would be neck and neck with a comparable quattro But to you 0.3 of a second is a "thrashing".

So you said that you aren't biased about Euro cars, yet you use the whipping boy to try to make yourself look better.

whipping what? Im biased towards audi's, that I will admit that, but even so audi do have some class leading cars, or are extremely competive in which some categories they are class leading.

Well, you forget that nearly all of the good handling FWD (old Type R, Clio 182, Ford Focus, Mazda 3) have Multi-links. And the Euro civic was lambasted for it's torsion beam rear-end.

That doesnt mean anything. A good car cannot be defined alone by its suspension setup.

Will the older Type R depreciate faster now, d'ya think?

Depends on the sales of the new model id say.

 

[JCE]

I actually like this Type-R Civic on the outside. The interior is still hideous. And all of you here KNOW how I feel about Hondas. I think this would look great in the Honda blue that is on the '06 Accord.

 

[Tornado]

Okay then matey. what you were saying is that only pporsche drivers who own the near top or top of the line porsches arent posers "I have lots of money to spend on my porsche so im not a poser"

Enough! Why don't you learn to read:

No. However, there are far more idiots who buy base level Cayennes and Boxsters that do it merely to buy into the brand than there are idiots who buy top level Porsches to buy into the brand, if only because there are less idiots with that much money. In addition, tell me how the base level versions of those cars are any better than the other cars they are competing with? The Porsche Cayenne 3.2 sure as hell isn't the best midsize SUV, yet it is one of the most expensive. Why? Brand prestige that morons are willing to buy into. Again, it is the exact same thing as the Hummer H2. The Boxster 2.7 sure as hell isn't the best convertible in it's class.

Your a bit of a hypocrite arent you. First whining about me bringin up the porsche/poser argument and then you yourself refer back to a old argument.

Hah hah hah. You called me a hypocrite? Pot calling the kettle black doesn't even begin to decribe you.

Lets get the facts straight though. I said that the Quattro could keep up with subarus equivelants of today., I never said jack about handling other than retort to those who said that audi's understeer (which I acknowledged that they do), and proving that scoobies understeer too.

O'Rly? Since you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Scaff.

So do the scoobies, and infact most 4WD cars do, they can engineer it out, but it would the system would then become incapable off roading like a X5, and it would lose other advantages such as being faster than RWD when the cars powerful, and on a twisty road.

Once again you have posted without a great deal of thought (or possiably knowledge) on a subject.

The engine layout on a Impreza and most Audi's has only one thing in common, they are at the front end of the car.

The Impreza runs a flat-four engine which allows for a compact design that can be mounted low in the car and keep the bulk of the weight behind the front wheel line. This does a significant ammount to help quell the natural understeer tendancy that any car as.

Audi by contrast has stuck with a longitudinal layout (when almost everyone else building FWD and/or 4WD cars moved to lateral layouts) which has resulted in the bulk of the engine being either over or ahead of the front wheel line. This situation results in a front weight bias and an increase in on the limit understeer that is almost impossiable to engineer out.

Pop the bonnet on any Audi and take a look at how far forward the engien is situated, this provides a massive packaging problem that Audi themselves admit must be resolved.

You can state the opposite all you want, its not going to change the fact that Audi themselves disagree with you.

Nor would most testers agree with you that a modern quattro is quicker across a twisty road or track that a well sorted rear wheel driver.

You are also serious deluding yourself if you believe that any model in the current Audi range is a true off-roader, and I do include the Allroad and Q7 in that. These cars have never been designed (and again Audi are quite open about this) as true off roader. Show them a real off road test track and they would soon end up stranded. None of them has the required level of appoach, departure or ramp angle to truely manage off-road.

Im not trying to compare the system used, but you cant deny that the scoobies also tend to undeersteer. That is all that im saying.
It still understeers, something which I have learnt straight from a scooby owners forum.

All road cars will understeer when cornering on the limit, I have never said anything different, however Audi's choice of engine placement increases the cars tendancy to understeer a great deal and in a manner that is very hard to engineer out without changing the engine layout.

I've not denied that Scoobies understeer, but certainly not to the same degree as the vast majority of the Audi product range. On the flip side I have never been in a Scoobie that was anywere near as well finished as an Audi.

RS4 and the MK2 TT have managed.

If you are saying (and I hoipe you are not) that these two have engineered out understeer completely then I would disagree. The latest RS4 has resolved a lot of the issues, mainly by using lighterweight components at the front end of the car, its far closer to its rivals now. However the simple fact that the balance of testers still rate the M3 above it, given the age of the M3, still means Audi have work to do.

The TT is a totally different story as its one of the few Audi models that does not use a longitudinal engine layout.

You must also of missed it when I said

Infact your own figures showed that in a race to 60 it imprezas would be neck and neck with a comparable quattro But to you 0.3 of a second is a "thrashing".

I no longer wish to drag this out, but I am truly sick of crap like this.
Not only did you question my figures when they were faster than the quattro, but when I said that they were backed up figures by respected magazines in both America and Europe you started going on about how .3 seconds wasn't a huge whipping. Well, I have some real bad news for you: the quattro that was on sale the longest did get it's ass whipped in acceleration by a full 1.3-1.5 seconds by the Japanese and American Wrex. Only the limited edition 20V and the 87-89 quattro got anywheres close to either.

whipping what? Im biased towards audi's, that I will admit that, but even so audi do have some class leading cars, or are extremely competive in which some categories they are class leading.

You said your not biased, yet you go on to defend it by saying you realise that the Europeans car company that is known to be pretty much universally bad is bad.

That doesnt mean anything. A good car cannot be defined alone by its suspension setup.

Which is obviously why all of the other hot hatches use multi-link, and why the Euro Civic was such a disappointment to European magazines. It also explains why when the renault Clio went from Multi-link to Torsion beam people became pissed.

 

[Poverty]

Enough! Why don't you learn to read:

Unlike you I dont have time to go trawing back through other threads as I actually have a job which I require to pay for a car which I actually drive. But to keep it short and sweet you kept changing your argument as we went along.

Hah hah hah. You called me a hypocrite? Pot calling the kettle black doesn't even begin to decribe you.

Bla bla bla likewise

O'Rly? Since you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Scaff.

What do you post thats valid to listen to regardin the quattros? And really mate look at you trying to be clever with your quoting. You didnt quote me when I actually took the time out to go into detail and explain why Imprezas DO ALSO undeersteer. lol @ you not quoting the full converations. Nice try though

Not only did you question my figures when they were faster than the quattro, but when I said that they were backed up figures by respected magazines in both America and Europe you started going on about how .3 seconds wasn't a huge whipping. Well, I have some real bad news for you: the quattro that was on sale the longest did get it's ass whipped in acceleration by a full 1.3-1.5 seconds by the Japanese and American Wrex. Only the limited edition 20V and the 87-89 quattro got anywheres close to either.

Bull the figures you provided cannot be used to compare the vehicles in a fair test. Different sources, different conditions, and I doubt the quattro figures where american, and we all know that american figures are always quite a bit more impressive than European ones. Infact the UK figures I have of the imprezas where slower than the ones you quoted, putting them near enough exactly the same as the quattro's.(not that there was much difference anyway)

Also I said the quattro. i love how you try and change the criteria of the argument by using the Audi quattro that was on sale the longest as the vehicle taht we were comparing. I never said a specific audi. Doing that is just complete stupidity. Just because there wernt many Audi Sport Quattro S1's made doesnt make them invalid for the argument

You said your not biased, yet you go on to defend it by saying you realise that the Europeans car company that is known to be pretty much universally bad is bad.

What world are you livin in? Audis and universally bad Put down the drugs. We have been throught his before. If you think audi's are bad you know nothing. Infact the A6 is OUTSELLING both the 5er and E-class in its home market. Are you saying the germans preffer buying a much inferior car over their other german companies

Which is obviously why all of the other hot hatches use multi-link, and why the Euro Civic was such a disappointment to European magazines. It also explains why when the renault Clio went from Multi-link to Torsion beam people became pissed.

Do you know how many hot hatches there are? Do you know how many use multi-link? I dont know what euro reviews you have been reading but on a whole most magazines love the new civic and regard it as class leading.

Im going to bed now. I have got work in the morning.

 

[Tornado]

Unlike you I dont have time to go trawing back through other threads as I actually have a job which I require to pay for a car which I actually drive. But to keep it short and sweet you kept changing your argument as we went along.

Oh, your so much better than me because you drive your car more often. I'm impressed. Even funnier because you posted after that post.

What do you post thats valid to listen to regardin the quattros? And really mate look at you trying to be clever with your quoting. You didnt quote me when I actually took the time out to go into detail and explain why Imprezas DO ALSO undeersteer. lol @ you not quoting the full converations. Nice try though

So, when multiple people all say that Audi's understeer considerably more than Subaru's, we are all wrong and you are right. Awesome. You sound like George Bush.

Bull the figures you provided cannot be used to compare the vehicles in a fair test. Different sources, different conditions, and I doubt the quattro figures where american, and we all know that american figures are always quite a bit more impressive than European ones. Infact the UK figures I have of the imprezas where slower than the ones you quoted, putting them near enough exactly the same as the quattro's.(not that there was much difference anyway)

So, your European Impreza figures are better than mine? And stating "the figures you provided cannot be used to compare the vehicles in a fair test" invalidates every single 0-60 test ever.

Also I said the quattro. i love how you try and change the criteria of the argument by using the Audi quattro that was on sale the longest as the vehicle taht we were comparing. I never said a specific audi. Doing that is just complete stupidity. Just because there wernt many Audi Sport Quattro S1's made doesnt make them invalid for the argument

Well, sure it doesn't. Just like the fact that there were only 176 quattro Sports doesn't make the fact that an Evo 6 wipes the floor with it irrelavent. But it sure dampens thing when every Impreza can pull 6 second 0-60 times, and only a small amount of quattros can get close.

What world are you livin in? Audis and universally bad Put down the drugs. We have been throught his before. If you think audi's are bad you know nothing. Infact the A6 is OUTSELLING both the 5er and E-class in its home market. Are you saying the germans preffer buying a much inferior car over their other german companies

Do you read your own posts? You never said that Audi's were bad, and niether did I. You said the Rover's were bad.

Do you know how many hot hatches there are? Do you know how many use multi-link? I dont know what euro reviews you have been reading but on a whole most magazines love the new civic and regard it as class leading.

Which is obviously why the Honda Civic took the European car of the Year Award since it is so class leading. Oh wait, the Clio which is in the same class took it. Hmm...

 

[Dave A]

Lad's give it a rest. Your way off topic, Poverty is right that just because the suspension isn't as cutting edge, it doesn't mean it won't work well. However Toronado is also right that there is nothing (on paper at least) to suggest that the Type-R will be notably quicker if at all quicker than the Si. It might well be, but until the Type-R is out and tested all your can do is specualte and making speculations and forwarding them as facts is not a clever thing to do on a message board, it will get you ripped into pretty fast on a lot of boards. As for the Audi v WRX comparison, Scaff was 100% correct in that thread and that's how the debate ended, Scaff has a lot of knowledge on these things and far, far more experience then you two or me and not one thing he said didn't add up.

As for the new Civic it has been classed by many mags as a great car with one or two flaws, it's not the class leader (at least not in the opinions of the mags I read ie atuocar, Evo and TopGear) though it isn't considered a bad car at all.

 

[harrytuttle]

I was going to say how ugly the car is, but the lukewarm flamewar is actually kind of interesting. It's funnier when no one listens to the other.

Oh well. It's still an ugly car, regardless of how well it might shuffle. Strangely, having been in the Si, it's ugly right up until you sit in the seat. Then everything makes sense: it's perfectly ergonomic. Everything is right where it "should be". Pop back out of the seat and it gets fugly again.... Like a real-3D optical illusions.

Bully for Honda to offer the Type R, but it's not a "superhatch". A true "hot hatch" for sure, but a "super hatch" would be the Type R minus ~200 lbs. and another 40 HP. But let's see if they can make the steering wheel worth holding onto, though. "Honda" and "numb steering" are synonymous to me.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well I think we are all forgetting that the Si won't be sold in Europe, nor will the Type-R in the US. Given the similar specs, I would predict their performance figures to be very similar given the numbers presented on paper. Could I be wrong? Certainly... I've been wrong before! But, given the current situation that Honda has for the two models, I'd suspect them to be nearly the same given how much complaining went on here in the US when we went without the Type-R Civic and Type-R RSX/Integra.

---

On the GTI, and other hot hatches:

Quite frankly, the GTI is the standard to beat here. Atleast in the US, the car is quite cheap and offers commendable ammounts of performance while maintaining the attitude of a civilized teenager in that it will not only match the hot-blooded Si, but will also whoop on models like the Cobalt SS, etc.

My higher levels of "refinement" that I talk about are quite evident really. Smaller pannel gaps, lighter use of plastic, better interior materials, and an overall feeling of "quality" versus that of the truely sub-par Civic. Granted, we are talking about a Civic that is at Kia levels of quality, but it certainly is a dip down from where they were at a generation or two ago. As for the GTI, it certainly has been a step-up from the MKIV to the MKV, and that is no joke.

As for the Renault Clio, I certainly would have included it here, but sadly it isn't sold in the US. It is one of my favorite cars that aren't sold here, as I would love to have a Renaultsport 182 or 197, but alas, I'm stuck with my GTI and Cobalt SS models... And in no way is that a bad thing!