Honda Civic Type R
- The world’s craziest family hatchback
- Here's why you buy a Civic Type R [Pt. 1]
- Here's why you buy a Civic Type R [Pt. 2]
- The world's worst infotainment system?
- Missing: one VTEC Zone. Sad face.
- The big turbo problem
- Our Type R is squealing...not in a good way
- I drove 500 miles, then 500 more
- Never underestimate a specialism
- Easily solved problems...
- Goodbye CTR. I'll miss how mad the spoiler was...
- Civic Type R - absolute rubbish
The world’s craziest family hatchback
We've replaced family transport chalk with cheese, saying goodbye to a Volkswagen SUV and hello to this mad thing.
Date: 20 November 2018 | Current mileage: 850 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 28.5mpg
Well look what we have here. Yep, a Honda Civic Type R. This, in my view, is the single most insane looking family hatchback ever to leave the production line of a major car manufacturer.
And I love it.
I understand why someone might despise it, but for me it is – aesthetically at least – the very essence of what a hot hatch should be…if you take that essence then mix it with a gallon of caffeinated insanity juice. My kids think it’s hilarious. My wife thinks it’s hideous. One of my friends called it “a disaster”. Most of my friends laugh when they see it. I do to. It’s the only car I’ve ever had that I literally say “YES!” to when I look at it.
It’s the opposite of the car it’s replaced in our house – a Volkswagen Tiguan Allspace, a car that’s brilliant in many ways, but which induces exactly zero emotional response. A Civic Type R does, be it positive or negative.
Cars like this are why I got into cars in the first place. Cars that are special in some way but also within the reach of plenty. In the late 90s, when I was a teenager and first really noticing cars as an interest, it was the Japanese stuff popularised by the Sony PlayStation’s Gran Turismo – Impreza Turbos, Mitsubishi Evolutions and Nissan Skylines – that I became obsessed with.
At a time when hot hatchbacks are getting much quicker yet ever more anodyne – more refined, more comfortable, more sensible – the Civic Type R flattens the zeitgeist with its 20-inch rims and its massive spoiler.
If it’s the exact opposite sort of family transport to our Tiguan, it’s also the opposite sort of hot hatch to the Volkswagen stuff too. Since taking delivery of the CTR (which is what we’ll call it from now on), I’ve noticed far more Golf GTIs and Rs than I ordinarily would. And they’ve become very boring, all of a sudden.
I don’t plan on giving the CTR an easy ride though – it’s not giving me one, that’s for sure – and a couple of weeks into the experience I’m already getting irritated by it in a few ways. One thing I can tell you already though: this is going to be an interesting six months.
Here's why you buy a Civic Type R [Pt. 1]
The Civic Type R is part supercar, almost, and part family hatchback. It's amazing at the first role. Here's why.
Date: 4 December 2018 | Current mileage: 1200 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 29.5mpg
When you look at this thing, you know you're looking at something that goes fast. And that's why you buy one of these. But the speed at which it can get from point A to point B is genuinely staggering.
The proof is...sigh...at the Nurburgring test track. I know, I know. But you sort of have to go there, because the CTR is the current lap record holder for a production front-wheel drive hatchback. I’m not really into this sort of thing at all, but as a benchmark of this car’s performance its 7:43 Nurburgring lap time is staggering. You can watch the video below, if you like, but if you can’t be bothered it’s probably enough to pick out a couple of cars that the CTR is quicker than across the 13-mile route:
Audi R8
Pagani Zonda
Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera
Porsche 911 GT3 RS
Staggering, right? What that time tells you is not just that the CTR is quick, which is a given, but that its chassis and drivetrain defy logic. Front-wheel drive, manual gearbox, rear seats, big boot, and yet the high speed agility to get around a notoriously twisty and terrifying stretch of road faster than a load of bona fide supercars.
The 0-62mph argument looks a little redundant in that context. Nonetheless…
The CTR gets its power from a 320PS 2.0 turbo engine with 400Nm torque, which is loads but notably peaks at 2,500rpm – a little on the high side for a turbo engine. The 310PS Volkswagen Golf R, for example, has 380Nm but you get all of it 500rpm lower. That plus the Golf’s four-wheel drive explains the 0-62mph deficit: the CTR takes 5.8 seconds, the Golf R 5.1.
If all you’re interested in is the traffic light battle, the Golf is clearly the way to go – and to be honest the Golf does feel quite a bit quicker than the CTR off the line. Beyond that the CTR pulls away though. In every sense. For a start, its 50-70mph time is astonishing; if the CTR’s straight line performance is a little underwhelming off the line, it more than makes up for it beyond that.
Assuming it's dry, and assuming you're in an appropriate place (of course), the CTR has the agility and balance and outright pace that absolutely defies its place as, basically, a front-wheel drive family hatch. The level of grip is astonishing; it has proper, actual steering feel; you can make it oversteer; the brakes scrub speed like a an airport sniffer dog; the pure excitement of the thing is an absolute drug.
And if that stuff was the only reason you bought a Civic Type R, brilliant - you'd buy one without hesitation. Thing is, it's not. You also buy one becausw of the hatchback bit. The family car bit. The Golf R, that's absolutely amazing at being a boring family car alongside the fast stuff. The Civic Type R, not so much. Come back for part two and we'll let you know why that is...
Here's why you buy a Civic Type R [Pt. 2]
If the Civic Type R is an astonishing performance car, as a hatchback it's underwhelming... and for some that could be a big problem.
Date: 18 December 2018 | Current mileage: 1200 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 29.5mpg
In Pt.1 of this we convinced you, hopefully, of the CTR’s otherworldly performance credentials. It probably doesn’t need saying again, but nonetheless, production family hatchbacks do not come more exciting than this.
Sadly, they do come far more suited to being family transport. Some of the CTR’s day-to-day frustrations come as a direct result of it being a performance car – the ride quality, for example – but some of it is just basic poor design. So let’s talk about that stuff, because that’s the stuff you’ll be dealing with the majority of the time. If you didn’t need that stuff, you’d be buying a Porsche Cayman or something, right?
First… four seats. Four seats in a family hatchback. I mean, seriously. I asked Honda about this and was given the official line about “all Type Rs having four seats” which, I suppose, you could see as admirable adherence to a principle.
On the other hand… nah. Other Type Rs also had tape decks and LCD clocks; making a five-seat family car significantly less useful for no other reason than an esoteric nod to history is, I think, a bad move. Any potential Type R buyer with child #3 will be obliged to agree, then go to his or her nearest Ford or Volkswagen dealership.
A big basic boot. Nothing more to add.
Other areas of Civic grief? There’s the infotainment, which is widely regarded as one of the very worst pieces of in-car software available today. It’s so bad that I’m going to dedicate a whole update to it, so let’s move on.
The boot is big and the hatchback itself is massive, which makes it very flexible and easy to load, and the retractable luggage cover is pretty neat and clever, but I do wish there were more hooks and nets, and maybe a bit of underfloor storage. Oh, and back up front there’s only one cupholder. Which is weird.
But, to be fair, it’s otherwise ok. Like, there are plenty of USB ports for your phones, plus a wireless phone charger, and the in-cabin storage is decent throughout. The kids have never once complained about the space in the back, and it has one of the very best driving positions of any hatchback, ever.
Funny thing is, none of that stuff really matters to me. I love this car so much that it could have no cupholders, a boot the size of a practice amp, only one rear seatbelt, and infotainment running on Windows 95 (which it might as well be, to be honest), and I’d still enjoy using it. That’s the power of aesthetics. And actual power.
The world's worst infotainment system?
Does the world's craziest family hatchback also have the world's worst in-car infotainment system? (The answer is yes.)
Date: 1 January 2019 | Current mileage: 1850 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 30.2mpg
Aside from being a proper high performance thing, and looking like a creation from the deepest brain recesses of a lad called Dazza who has his hands permanently down the front of his Lonsdale cotton tracksuit pants, the Civic also functions as a family hatchback.
And if it does a sterling job of being a fast thing, the job it does of being a family transport thing is less so. As we discussed last time, it’s far from catastrophic, but to live with a Civic for a bit is to become frustrated by foibles that are, in my opinion, quite easily fixed and therefore even more frustrating.
I did promise I'd dedicate an update exclusively to Type R's achilles heel, its infotainment setup, which really is properly, finger-jabbingly rubbish. So here goes...
For a start there’s the volume situation. The touch sensitive panel has a mind of its own, so the business of turning down the radio a notch is needlessly difficult. There’s a button on the wheel, which I now use exclusively, but even it is no replacement for the classic volume knob. You know, the tried and tested method of turning volume up and/or down.
The software itself is among the clunkiest you’ll find in any car, ranging from consistently frustrating features like how difficult it is to simply find a list of DAB stations ("do I press 'audio' for this, or 'source'?") to being basically disfunctional.
And you thought Windows Vista was bad...
For example. At this stage we’ve used the sat nav once. Here’s how it went down:
1. Sat nav wouldn’t recognise a perfectly good postcode; gave 9YO daughter phone and instructed her to find address on Google Maps instead.
2. Inputted similar postcode into nav to at least get close to destination before switching to Google Maps. Off we go...
3. Attempted to turn off spoken nav instructions. Eventually… eventually… found the way to do that. Did it. Spoken instructions continued.
4. Turned spoken instructions on again, off again, on again, off again in perpetuity. Spoken instructions continued.
5. Cancelled navigation in fit of passive aggressive vexation. Spoken instructions continued.
6. Agreed with nine-year-old daughter that “this screen is rubbish, dad.”
On top of that, it’s the other little things. Like how it takes ages to pick up a phone on Bluetooth - even a phone that's already paired. And how it forces you to click off a safety message – something about not being distracted, ironically - every single time. And how the various sections and menu layers have all the design flair of a low budget hip hop album cover.
I don’t like it. Nearly ruins the car. But not quite.
Missing: one VTEC Zone. Sad face.
The Civic Type R's 2.0 turbo engine is a marvel of engineering, but it somehow doesn't quite hit the spot.
Date: 23 January 2019 | Current mileage: 2250 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 31mpg
Here’s a test: if someone says “the VTEC zone” to you and the image you conjure up is of a rainbow-painted room full of children playing with brightly coloured plastic cameras and that, this isn’t for you.
If, instead, you jump to the area between approximately 6000-8000rpm where an eponymous naturally aspirated Honda engine gets a remarkable second wind, read on. We need to talk about that VTEC zone.
Much was made of Honda’s move into turbocharging its VTEC petrol engines, and it was largely in lament of the demise of the VTEC zone. In the smallest of nutshells (VTEC technology has a Wikipedia page, if you’re that interested in the nitty gritty), in 2013 Honda began turbocharging VTEC engines in deference to increasingly stringent emissions regulations.
For runabout stuff nobody really cared, especially if it meant better fuel economy with improved low-rev performance. But those interested in Honda’s high performance stuff - those people did care. They were worried that the VTEC zone was lost for good. The 2015 Civic Type R (the one before this one) became the first CTR with a turbo engine, and therefore the first without the CTR’s most endearing characteristic and most potent USP: maximum power right in parts of the rev range that most other cars simply couldn’t reach.
The Honda Civic Type R MUGEN - one of *the* great hot hatchbacks
Compare: the last non-turbo Civic Type R, the 2006 model, hit its maximum 200PS power at 7800rpm, whereas today’s (this one) gets to its 320PS peak at 6500rpm. Actual power deficit aside, that rpm difference might not look like too much, but believe me, they're worlds apart.
I’ll never forget the first time I hit the VTEC zone proper. It was in the MUGEN version of that 2006 Type R – one of the prototypes, and a precursor to a tiny production run in 2010 of just 20. Hit 6000rpm in that thing and it felt (and sounded) like someone had dropped a second engine under the bonnet. Probably 9/10ths of the reason that Type R MUGEN remains one of the most exciting cars I’ve ever driven to this day is that VTEC kick.
That car hit its peak at 8300rpm, which is why despite having a full 80 horsepower less than our Type R (240PS vs. 320PS) its fast pedal was at least twice as exciting.
This Civic Type R is incredibly potent, and will wipe the floor with any Civic Type R before it (MUGEN included) either in a straight line or around a track. And do so while producing far less CO2 and using significantly less fuel. The fact that the 200PS Civic Type R of 2006 returned 31mpg and 215g/km CO2, compared to this 320PS version’s 36.7mpg and 176g/km is deeply impressive.
Problem is, it's nowhere near as dominant in real life as it is on paper. And I’m sad about that. Click here to read the next update and find out why…
The big turbo problem
Here's why a 320 horsepower mega hatch isn't quite quick enough...
Date: 23 January 2019 | Current mileage: 2500 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 30.8mpg
If you’re here straight from the last update, read on. If not, best to read that first by clicking here.
We’ve established that this CTR has a turbocharger, which means it’s the most economical Civic Type R ever, but also that it’s missing the near-legendary VTEC zone of CTRs past. And given that was for many, including me, the best part of the whole Type R experience this is quite sad.
I happen to love how far petrol turbocharging has come over the last decade or so, giving even the smallest capacity engines bark, bite and efficiency, and to the extent that they’re eating into diesel sales. Another bonus. The VWG 1.5-litre TSI engine is my favourite engine, pound-for-pound, in the world.
And actually, taken in isolation, the 2.0 turbocharged petrol in the CTR here is an absolute peach. The problem is (and stick with this), that it’s almost too slick. It’s impressive enough that Honda has managed to squeeze 150 horsepower per litre from its VTEC engine, but that it’s done it so smoothly is staggering. There’s proper power right across the rev range in this thing.
The problem I have is that it’s also slightly charmless. There are few fireworks either from the engine bay itself, nor from the car’s ridiculous triple tailpipes. By contrast, the Hyundai i30 N, for example, has the sort of burbling, popping, firecracker exhaust note that’s a feature in itself. (Here's our video review of the N.) The CTR sounds…boring. Just slightly louder than the average hatchback, basically.
As modern engine bays go, this is one of the best like.
The second thing is that it doesn’t really come alive until 50-60mph. The way it accelerates beyond that is astonishing. Weirdly, Honda won’t give us any in-gear acceleration times but they have been done elsewhere, and it transpires the CTR will hit 100mph in 11.9 seconds, and does 40-60mph in fourth gear in 3.1. And in fifth, 50-75mph in 5.
The problem there, of course, is that mostly these aren’t the sort of speeds much good to anyone on the road. These stats tell you exactly why the Civic Type R is great on a track, and a Nurburgring lap record holder - high-speed relentlessness combined with otherworldly grip. Sadly, back where we all live, CTR drivers like me are losing a traffic light battles left, right and centre with other quick hatchback owners: the VW Golf R, Ford Focus RS and BMW M140i all ruin this to 62mph. And it's a double embarrassment given how Honda has chosen to dress the Type R.
Obviously I’m not advocating traffic light racing (I hate all that stuff, honestly, and never do it), but I’m saying that this Civic Type R has neither the low speed thump – the off-the-line urgency – that you want in a car this mad, nor the old VTEC fireworks. It has proven that it can keep up with genuine supercars at the track stuff, but personally, I'd trade some of that for it being that bit quicker off the line, and that bit louder all the time.
These things are relative, of course – your average hatchback owner would, I’m sure, drive a CTR for the first time and consider it an absolute rocket ship. What I’m saying, though, is that I just wish the CTR’s engine matched the drama of the bodywork during the day-to-day stuff. It doesn’t, quite.
Our Type R is squealing...not in a good way
We've got loud brakes and foggy lights but they're still not diminishing our love for the barking mad Type R
Date: 6 February 2019 | Current mileage: 3,200 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 32mpg
We're well into our time with the CTR now, into the territory that we road test types don't often see, what with our usual conveyor belt of test cars coming and going on a weekly basis.
It's extremely rare that a test car will go wrong because a test car is cared for to the highest standards, prepped in a specialist press garage on a weekly basis; during the last 12 years as a road tester I've never had a car go wrong, and the only car I recall bits falling from was a Lotus Evora. And that includes lots of French and Italian stuff, of course.
Even long term test cars are usually fuss-free... so it is a bit disappointing that this Honda is glitching out. Nothing catastrophic, but at the same time there are a couple of thorns in its side. The main one being the brakes. Hit play below before reading on...
The video doesn't really get across just how loud and grating the noise is. It gets better/less frequent when the pads warm up, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all, but quite often it's like carrying an evil passenger with long nails and a chalkboard. *shudder*
On top of that, the sat nav has frozen on us a couple of times to the point where we've had to pull over and restart the car. And, as you can see below, we've got the old moist lamps situation...
Apart from that, though... well I'd say smooth sailing, but that's not really the metaphor to use for the CTR, whose maniacal nature is a frequent point of contention in the Nichol household. Basically, I can live with its bumpy riding, aesthetically challenging brutality because I love the way it goes. My wife, on the other hand, hates everything about it. She finds it embarassing and uncomfortable, physically and mentally in the latter case, and so she's less willing to overlook the foibles than I am.
For her, the squealing brakes and the inept infotainment system are just more ammunition for the case against. For me, they're like the chewed up sofa and curtains that you'd rather not have to deal with, but you just do because you absolutely love the barking mad puppy you've brought into your home.
I'll let you know what the garage says about all this stuff after it's gone in...
I drove 500 miles, then 500 more
Within one week our CTR has done more than 1000 miles, most of it on the motorway. How has it stacked up?
Date: 20 February 2019 | Current mileage: 4000 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 32.5mpg
You think Civic Type R, you don't necessarily think motorway. Turns out Honda didn't either.
Within just one week recently, our Type R did two round trips from Newcastle to London(ish) in what was (and will remain) easily the most intense period of use it'll get during its stay with us. That's the case from a pure mileage perspective (a good 1200 of them), but also because the second of the trips involved carting a big drum kit down south.
**spoiler alert**
It wasn't that pleasant.
Let's do the fuel efficiency thing first. I measured it properly on the way down the A1 the first time around, minus the drum kit for obvious reasons. There was very little traffic and, I assure you, I kept things close to 70mph for the vast majority of time. Of the 260.3 miles I used to measure the fuel economy, I'd say 15 of those were off the motorway. I got the following figure by brimming the car, resetting the trip clock, then brimming it again to see how much fuel I'd used over those 260-odd miles.
I'd used 31.51 litres, or 6.93 imperial gallons. Therefore the CTR had achieved 37.6mpg. (As it goes, the car's computer was showing 39.5mpg.) Make of that what you will. On one hand, it's pretty admirable for a 320PS performance car to nudge 40mpg in any context. On the other, it's a four-pot petrol engine and, I swear, it was being driven as gently as can be. Hey ho. That's that.
Imagine a load of drums and that in here.
Onto the experience. When I arrived down south I met Keith, our Classics Editor, whose first question was one of concern about the condition of my spine. "My ears have had a worse battering," was roughly my reply. And that's what I took away from that particular motorway journey (and all the subsequent ones): the CTR's ride quality in Comfort mode is compliant enough for passable cosiness on the motorway, surprisingly. The most rattling thing about the experience is the ear-bashing.
In top sixth gear at 70-75mph the CTR is sitting around the 3,000rpm mark and emitting a fairly unpleasant drone. It feels like you're in fourth gear in a bog standard petrol car that doesn't have any soundproofing. And it's grating. And that's that.
And so finally to the practicality thing... thumbs up, basically. The CTR swallowed an entire drumkit in its cases, as well as a big Apple Mac and a few overnight bags. Granted, some of it overspilled onto the front passenger seat, but it was nonetheless an impressive engorgement. I even managed to get the parcel shelf across it all so I could see out of the back window.
Obviously I didn't take a photograph of it. That would be too easy. You'll just have to take my word for it. Sorry. Here's a lovely picture of my drumkit instead.
Never underestimate a specialism
Some time with a rival hot hatch has made Mark appreciate the greatness of the CTR's particular skill...
Date: 10 May 2019 | Current mileage: 4500 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 32mpg
David Beckham wasn't a great footballer, but he was a great striker of a football. Liam Neeson was a terrible dad, but he was effing brilliant at getting his daughter back from Albanian human traffickers.
Both men's greatness came from a very particular set of skills. And so it is with the Honda Civic Type R. I knew this already, but was reminded of it recently while spending some time with one of its square rivals: the Renaultsport Megane RS 300 Trophy. Those names aren't necessarily in the right order.
The Megane Renaultsport Trophy RS 300 is probably the closest thing to the CTR you can buy: the fast Golfs (GTI and R) are too refined; the BMW M140i is too 'premium'; the Mercedes-AMG A45 (and more recently the A35) is too expensive; the Peugeot 308 GTI is underpowered; the Hyundai i30 N is too discreet.
But in the Megane RS we have a loud-looking thingy with about 300 horsepower, for about 30 grand, based on a mainstream hatchback and comprehensively fettled so as to be as dynamically engaging as a front-drive hatchback can be.
I'll be honest, as I write this I've only had the Megane for a couple of days, but it's already very clear how differently they approach the business of going fast. This has reminded me just how brilliant the CTR is.
The Renault Renaultsport Megane RS 300 Trophy Sport Renault 300 RS Trophy.
Both the Civic and the Megane are, frankly, a bit crap at being ordinary hatchbacks. In the Civic's case it's mainly the ropey ride quality and the dreadful infotainment, and in the Megane's it's the questionable ergonomics and the almost total lack of thought that's gone into in-cabin practicality. Thing is, in both cases you can overlook that stuff because they're both great to drive.
For me, though, the Civic is in a league of its own. The Megane seems to rely too heavily on tricks: rear-wheel steering and a bloody loud trick exhaust, mainly. They both work - the Megane RS is really good fun, and the steering in particular is hilariously sharp - but the ride is too unsettled, the pedal placement is all wrong, the steering lacks feel, the engine is laggy and if there's any hint of water near the tyres the RS simply can't get its power down properly.
Next to that the CTR feels basic, almost. But in the best possible way. The driving position is absolutely spot on (if this were the '70s everything would be "falling to hand"), the power delivery is beautifully linear, the steering is beefy and natural, the action of the gearchange a haptic dream...it goes on. Basically, where the Megane can feel a little over-engineered and clumsy, the CTR feels like a car that was built around you...actual you, personally.
I'm coming to the end of my time with the CTR. I won't miss the fact that it still takes me half a mile to work out how to make a list of radio stations come onto the screen. And I won't miss being at the petrol station every ten minutes. And I won't miss it not being as fast as a Golf R in a straight line. But I will miss every turn of the wheel, every individual gear shift, and every time I see that spoiler.
Easily solved problems...
Mark reckons that the Honda Civic Type R could be significantly better with a couple of very minor tweaks.
Date: 31 July 2019 | Current mileage: 6000 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 33mpg
To live with a Honda Civic Type R you need to learn to be comfortable with stupidity. Mainly because driving it, with all its bodykit and spoiler and pinstriped alloys and that, is like going to the Co-op in cosplay. But also because of the little quirks that really should have been ironed out very early in the car's development phase. And by "ironed out" I mean thrown out of the window, ideally at high speed... during a lap of the Nurburgring, say.
Stuff like when you start the engine and the car insists on telling you to press the brake and hold down the clutch to start the engine, even though you've literally just started the engine. And then when you stop the engine and the car immediately tells you that "YOUR. MOBILE. PHONE. IS. STILL. IN. THE. VEHICLE." And you're like, "I know it is! I have it in my hand and I'm about to leave the vehicle!" These aren't text warnings either. It's an actual voice. A stilted one.
And the touchscreen. Dear God the touchscreen. I know I go on about this a lot, but six months into having the car (it goes back very shortly) I still can't remember whether you press 'audio' or 'source' to shift from the radio to Bluetooth audio, or vice versa. And even when I can remember I often miss the button because it's so small. And even when I do hit the button it usually takes two prods to make it register. It's unfathomably difficult to turn the volume up or down a notch too, because the little touch sensitive volume pad at the side of the screen seems to operate of its own volition.
Which brings me onto easily solved problem #1: have a volume knob.
See this panel of dials and buttons here...?
...why on earth didn't they use one of the dials to control the stereo volume? I haven't commissioned any research on this, but my guess is that the vast majority of drivers adjust the volume of their stereos far, far more often than they do the air temperature; there is no occasion I can think of, short of a surprise nuclear holocaust, in which a driver will have to make an emergency car cabin temerature adjustment. On the other hand, anyone with kids knows that a major volume adjustment is made every few hundred yards, usually to accommodate some banal musing or ridiculous question. Or stop a fight. In the Civic, this can only be accompliashed by furiously prodding the touch panel and hoping for the best, or using the steering wheel slider, which admittedly is better but still takes too long.
Easily solved problem #2: include a passenger cupholder.
All the other cars prove this is not an insurmountable puzzle of design or engineering. It's bizarre.
"It's my turn with the cupholder today, love. You'll just have to hold your boiling hot coffee between your knees and hope for the best...although I don't fancy your chances because I've decided we're going to town in Sport mode. Bring a wet towel."
And so finally to #3: don't remove one of the seatbelts.
So yeah, four seats. That's a thing specific to the Type R, which does without a middle seatbelt for the back row. And why is this? I'm told it's because having four seats is a Type R thing. Anecdotally, having an extensive collection of tracksuit bottoms and an agressive dog is a Type R thing too, but that's not a good reason to stitch 'SPORTS DIRECT' in to the seats and put a Staffie on the options list, is it?
Despite all this I still effing love this car. Weird eh?
Goodbye CTR. I'll miss how mad the spoiler was...
It's time to say goodbye to our long term Honda Civic Type R. It's been immense and Mark's sad to see it go.
Date: 27 September 2019 | Current mileage: 8000 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 31.5mpg
Okay, so this is it. Goodbye Honda Civic Type R. To be honest, as I type this the car is long gone, replaced some time ago by a Volkswagen T-Roc (which I'll start telling you about very soon). That means I've had a bit of space to work out what really stands out about the CTR - what is it I remember, exactly?
I remember it being mental. My kids do too. Only the other day my daughter told me she "missed the blue car with the red seats." When I asked her why she missed it, it was because she liked the spoiler and how mad it was. kids are stupid.
Me? Mainly I miss the CTR's spoiler and how mad it was.
The CTR is as close to a supercar - both aesthetically and in spirit - as a family hatchback can be; I saw one on the A1 the other day and my first thought was "bloody hell it looks wide, that thing." I said it out loud. For all its madness I actually got used to the ride quality, hard as it is, and I got used to how tight the seats were. And how much attention it gets from people who, frankly, I wish it didn't.
I did not get used to the noise on the motorway; truly, the sound of the engine whining at 3,000-odd rpm at 70mph for hours on end is far, far more tiresome than the ride quality. I used to dread the trips from home in Newcastle to the HJ office in Peterborough.
But mostly I did not get used to the infotainment system. It's one of the very worst in-car systems on the market. Inexcusably poor. I've talked enough about it. Let's move on.
I think the main problem the CTR has, though, is something I knew within a week of getting it: it's not quick enough. Sounds stupid, right? 320 horsepower etc. It is, in my opinion, the finest handling hot hatch on Planet World - in pure fun terms, if not outright grip - but a lot of the time that matters less than the business of accelerating. And as compared to the free-breating, manic 4WD punt of a Golf R or the RWD push of a BMW M140i, the CTR seems almost laboured. In making the VTEC Turbo engine progressive and non-turbo-ey, the power delivery is almost too linear. Too non-dramatic.
I know, I know. Step into it from a Honda Jazz and you'll think them's the words of an idiot, but I just think it's missing the brutality to match its awesomely idiotic looks.
Still, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Well priced, decent on fuel (always returning more than 30mpg), fantastic on the right road, and never a dull moment. I'll really miss that spoiler and how mad it was.
Civic Type R - absolute rubbish
Prepare yourselves for some hardcore real world testing: we went to the tip on our fast hatchback.
Date: 30 August 2019 | Current mileage: 6500 | Claimed economy: 36.7mpg | Actual economy: 32.5mpg
Everybody knows the blueprint for a hot hatchback: fast, practical. How much emphasis is placed on either of those words, often to the detriment of the other, varies from model to model. If you want a couple of bookends, compare a Renaultsport R26.R (absolute dedication to low weight and great handling) with a Cupra Ateca (lardy crossover with big turbo power).
Generally, though, hot hatch zen comes when a car combines the two with seemingly little compromise on either quality: brilliant to drive, eminently practical.
Electrical and cupholder quirks aside - and whatever you make of the looks - the Civic Type R sits right in the sweet spot, for me. Arguably the fast Golfs remain the very best combination of day-to-day comfort, b-road dynamism and ease of use, but for my money the Civic is the more engaging to drive while being more practical.
The Civic has a slightly bigger boot capacity than the Golf (420 litres against 380), but it's the massive hatchback that makes the real difference - the Civic is more a Sportback, in Audi speak, or Fastback in Rover terms if you like.
That means it's your friend at the tip. Yes. See Exhibit A:
It's a running joke among car journalists that a trip to the tip is absolute long term test gold. That and any sort of motorway trip: 'ooh, I squeezed **.*mpg out of my ******** on the way to *** this month, and maybe you could too.' The LOLs we have.
Still, despite conforming to this very stereotype (and trying to hide it by busting through the fourth wall a bit), I have to report that this trip was another reason I love the CTR. An Ateca Cupra (or whatever it's called... it's not a SEAT, I know that much) would do the tip job a bit better, sure, but not that much. Look at the size of the hatcback on that thing up there. Plus it's much more fun than the Ateca to drive home again.
Job done. Next week: 'I went to Peterborough and raised my average fuel economy by 0.76mpg.'
Nope.
