Imports

  • Thread starter Puffy
  • 31,198 comments
  • 3,212,378 views
The Euro Type R is still a very good car. People bleat on about the torsion bar rear end but all the best hot hatches ever (Renaults, Peugeots) have had one.

I'd agree the Japanese version is better, but the Euro one is still a great car. The Mugen one isn't the best version though, given that it rides like the Flintstone-mobile and costs FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS. I think I'd save about £17k (or more) and just get the normal one with a limited slip diff.

Or for £40k you could import the JDM one and have enough change for a DC2 Integra R...
Bah, it is a good car in the scheme of things, but it's not a good Type R. The Integra you mention would beat it on a track handily. The Euro R just isn't ridiculous enough to be a Type R. The Mugen dials up the craziness adequately though.
 
Bah, it is a good car in the scheme of things, but it's not a good Type R.

True. It's not light enough for a start. The Accord R we got over here was 100kg lighter than the regular model. And you can pretty much carry a DC2 under your arm.

The Euro R just isn't ridiculous enough to be a Type R. The Mugen dials up the craziness adequately though.

I suppose styling wise it's pretty crazy as standard, but then so is the diesel Civic.

I dunno, I just like it anyway. The interior is awesome. I guess it's easy enough to get hold of the JDM Type Rs in the UK anyway, benefits of right-hand drive.

Can't find many pictures of modified FN2 Type Rs. Found these in a couple of minutes searching:

ice55g.jpg


Sena-FN2_01.jpg
 
Glad you can't find too many, it looks terrible.

Revheadz
That green E36 was lovely. Pity.

Are you referring to the roof rack and such, or to the fact it was destroyed recently in an accident?
 
Can't disagree with that. Well I can, but it's also your opinion so I'm happy enough with that. Given that it performs as well as my Miata in a straight line, I don't see it being too slow. And I like the styling, best looking Honda since we lost the S2000.

Not trying to be too pedantic but your MX5 (if memory serves correctly, you own a 1.6l) has 120hp and weighs in at roughly 950kgs, 0-100kph in about 8.5s. And a quick check of various road tests and specifications of the CR-Z shows the CR-Z with a combined output of 122hp and a weight of over 1200kgs and a 0-100kph of around 10 seconds. I am simply taking the 0-100kph as a example of performance but the power to weight ratio would indicate that an MX5 would be a more lively performer than a CR-Z.
While too slow is an opinion 0-100kph in 10 seconds still seems slow for a vehicle marketed as "sporty" to me but admittedly I haven't driven a CR-Z and perhaps it is quick enough to entertain.

Went over this one with FoolKiller in the hybrid thread. Honda have mentioned about twice (at the most) the CRX when talking about the CR-Z. They're not trying to pass it off as a spiritual successor in the slightest. Styling wise there's some influence, but their main tagline is "World's first sporty hybrid".

The fastest CRXs are significantly more thirsty than the CR-Z (unless you baby them, which defeats the purpose of having a fast car), and the most economical ones are significantly slower (and still only just as economical, despite weighing several hundred kilos less and being smaller). Unless there's one in the middle that matches the CR-Z somewhere, then they can't really be compared.

A few UK mags have hinted there may be a Type R in the pipeline, but it'll still be a hybrid.

Fair enough, I think I have picked up the spiritual successor concept from various motoring publications and had inadvertantly attributed it to Honda themselves. The only reason I was comparing it was I thought that it was being touted as such to there isn't much point in me comparing the CR-Z to the CRX.

If Honda build a faster version of the CR-Z that remains a hybrid it will have to be something very special to deserve the Type R nameplate.

But I digress. Picture thread. *goes to find sweet car pics*

Are you referring to the roof rack and such, or to the fact it was destroyed recently in an accident?

The fact that it was destroyed.
 
Not trying to be too pedantic but your MX5 (if memory serves correctly, you own a 1.6l) has 120hp and weighs in at roughly 950kgs, 0-100kph in about 8.5s. And a quick check of various road tests and specifications of the CR-Z shows the CR-Z with a combined output of 122hp and a weight of over 1200kgs and a 0-100kph of around 10 seconds. I am simply taking the 0-100kph as a example of performance but the power to weight ratio would indicate that an MX5 would be a more lively performer than a CR-Z.

Heh, mine is 20 years old though :lol: I'd suspect it doesn't quite make all of it's original 120 horses...

Of course, a car is as fast as you drive it. I've always thought 0-60 was a bit of an arbitrary figure because it's quoted from engineers and journalists who've taken a transmission to the point of destruction to get a number that looks good in the brochure or magazine. It's also influenced by how many gearchanges you need between zero and sixty.

But I digress. Pictures in a pictures thread:

Some keis, a Beat and AZ-1
IMG_0218.jpg

IMG_0220.jpg

IMG_0215.jpg

IMG_0216.jpg

IMG_0217.jpg


Cappuccino-based Cobra :D
tn_babycobra1-L.jpg


And a Volvo 340 to mix it up a little...
volvo002.jpg
 
I was gonna say that car is an ugly piece of crap, but then I saw the exhaust and I imagined what it would sound like. Cool in my book, I dig it.
 
I was gonna say that car is an ugly piece of crap, but then I saw the exhaust and I imagined what it would sound like. Cool in my book, I dig it.

You mean it would also sound like crap, and thus you like it?
 
Back