what would scooby do

..well having just bought a new CTR yesterday I can say it definately feels "nimbler" then the scoob i.e. revs freely whatever gear..

however as it's only got 45 miles on the clock I can't compare how it is against a scooby..

basically I think it will be fun and fast but not have the out and out grunt of a scoob (I did have a 300BHP type R BTW)



Bottom line is both get me to work and back and I can get my harrods and marks and sparks shopping in the boot

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

Remember, you can't compare the torque on a normally aspirated car to that of a forced induction one, they will never be able to match it!

However, the CTR engine does have a decent amount of torque for a N/A engine and it's not all at the top end either.

This is the torque curve for mine >>>




Even at the lower revs it's still got a lot of torque for a normally aspirated engine and it's pretty damn flat thanks to the newer iVTEC system!

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

Having driven both I can't tell any difference!



It has a lighter flywheel, and a slightly different clutch setup, but no throttle mods. Engine wise they are identical!



The best thing they could have done was to ditch the EPS and go back to a hydraulic system!

davedipster

Decent but renault can do better, Clio 172 and 182's have 147ft.lb as standard, more than a std CTR.

I'm happy with my extra 150ftlb

Dipster

dogboy1

As has already been stated Both cars are completely different animals focusing on different markets. Theres no doubt that both the Civic and the Scooby are great, exceptionally quick, great handling, well made cars. Its swings and roundabouts as to which is the "better car" as it all comes down to personal choice.

Personally i'd go for the civic anyday because its such great fun and value for money well built and very versatile. Fair enough its a car that you need to keep the revs high in but thats all part of the enjoyment IMHO. Considering its thousands cheeper than the Scoob and only marginally slower in the real world (driven by the average Joe) its the one i would go for but you pays your money and you takes your choice>

DOg

MooseRacer

Clios and CTRs both have excellent torque figures (and curves) for a n/a 2litre. There's literally a couple of ft/lb between them.


Nice to see someone posting a graph of a VTEC torque figure to dispel the 'no lowdown torque' myth (not that it will...)

what would scooby do

I have to say, the CTR gearbox is excellent compared to the scoob, I can actually change gear one handed now

The tyre noise on the CTR is horrible by the way

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Ditch the tramlining, noisiy Bridgestones for a set of quiet, sticky Toyo's

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

The Clio's have 147lb/ft and the CTR has 145lb/ft so practically the same as standard...

I had a Clio Cup before the CTR and I just so happen to have both RR graphs on the same axes >>>




CTR - cat back zorst & BMC air filter
Cup - Pipercross Viper


Pretty similar lower down, but the CTR is stronger at the higher revs, as you'd expect. The Clio's advantage is it's weight, or lack of in this case, as 1204kg vs 1021kg means the torque-to-weight ratio is better.

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

When it was being run on the rollers we were all quite surprised by how flat it actually was and that even as low as 2500rpm most of the torque is avaible.

It's not standard though, hence 158lb/ft of torque (and 208bhp), but it's only an exhaust & filter, so nothing major.

what would scooby do

You may be right, I've always liked Toyo's (wet braking asides) or I may swap them out for Goodyear F1's

chrisp

Plenty of torque for a NA motor but just had a look at my scoobs graph and it has 200lb/ft at 3300rpm and keeps climbing and finally drops back below 200lb/ft at 7,000rpm.

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

Yeah, same for my mate's tweaked 200SX it's just got a huge wave of torque from when the boost comes on and stays like that until the higher revs.

But, like I said before you cannot compare the torque for a turbo'd motor against a normally aspirated one...

CavT

CTR's are very good in the handling department for a FWD motor, I can quite honestly say that they out handle my Cav on some seriously twisty roads, but quick as the CTR is, it ISN'T a match for a 300BHP motor! A CTR above 60mph will hold a very good account of itself against a standard WRX, but to claim it will do the same damage to a 300BHP car is nonsense.

Having had a few runs now against CTR's, I have NEVER had a problem pulling away from them..... EVER!

CTR versus boggo WRX is a far comparison, anything higher and the CTR owner is deluding themselves.

Paul_M

Gotta say even though power is king (it's what makes you go quicky) I do love having a fair chunk of torque for when you're done having fun and just want to go home. Where I stay is quite hilly, and in the scoob I can climb a long hill in 4th gear sitting at 2500RPM on half throttle with plenty in reserve should I need to accelerate. Most cars need to stay in 3rd and even then there ain't much in reserve until you wind the revs past 4000.

It's great being able to drive in a relaxed manner when you can't be bothered thrashing it, yet you always know there's plenty of power on tap with a quick gearchange if you want it.

sh4un

Hmm, i thought that was the whole idea behind the iVtec you can toddle along cruising at lower revs, but if you want a blast just keep it into the vtec zone?

chrisp

People on this thread are though

I know what you are saying and I agree. Hardly fair as I have 100bhp more and shed loads of extra torque across the power band and 1240kgs kerb weight.

Couple of friends went to one of these ride and drive days and drove a CTR last week and I deliberately said good arent they as not to taint the response. Both their responses were "yes but really had to drive it hard and felt like a normal 1.8 below 6000rpm". I ask them if they would buy one and neither would and preferred a saab turbo or a cooper s.

Paul_M

Yes but the i-Vtec doesn't get you any extra torque, rather it's just a way of getting more power without losing the low-down torque. Without that trickery you'd have to trade low-end torque for high-end power, meaning it would have less torque than a standard N/A 2.0 low down.

The point I'm making is that if you drive it expecting it to be like any other 2.0 when pottering about it will be fine, but many people assume that because it has 200BHP compared to say 140BHP of average 2.0s that the power (or rather torque) will be far better throughout the rev range - it isn't of course.

Agreed you can't fairly compare torque curves of a NA 2.0 with a turbo'd 2.0 or 1.8 but that's what people do when buying because the outright performance is comparable. E.g. if you're looking at a CTR a sensible comparison would be the 1.8T Leon Cupra due to similar price and performance - but the engine characteristics are very different (cupra has ~200lb/ft torque at 2000 RPM, from the graph looks like the CTR is closer to 130). Some people prefer engines that force you to wind them up to make quick progress, others hate it.

Emms

I will have to add however that this apparent low torque combined with the hi revving nature of Hondas engine actualy makes getting power down fairly easy. Even cars like the focus RS uses a kind of traction control (rs owners please correct if im wrong) to reduce power a smidge so as to help in keeping traction of the line. When driving my Husbands CTR I really don't find this lack of torque an issue (no intentions of towing caravans). crusing at 80 and then droping from 6th to 4th, the needle flying round to the v tech zone, engine screeming....its a blast.

sh4un

Yep, im sure the torque is restricted in 1st gear on the Focus RS, btw your not allowed to fit a tow bar to a CTR

civictyper

That's not actually true.

The 'i' is what smoothes out the torque between the two cam profiles - hence the cam change is less noticeable/pronounced with the new engines. So in essence it does give you more torque.