New CTR.....

[son of solo]

oh dear honda...where did it al go wrong? how did it come to this....
just read the review of the new CTR in EVO...
i wonder how many people put of buying a trophy to wait for this effort..?
3 1\2 stars aint good...and dont get me started on the dash (looks dated already)
still laughting to myself after reading that they are offering a "lightweight" version (40kg lighter) ...some genius at honda has decided to do this by removing the stereo,speakers and parcel shelf...
why didnt renault think of this...?
only joking

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Tis a weird one, i havent read the evo article yet but had a look at the auto express, autocar and car articles. Think it did well in the Auto Express group test but they picked some faults with it, it didnt do great it Autocar - they liked it but i'm sure it only got 3 and a half or 4 stars. But Car put it up against just about every other similar car and it came out on top!? One thing they all seem to agree on is that its now pretty expensive (esp. in GT guise), the retrograde rear suspension is definitely a step back and it has poor visibility, etc.

 

[Steve]

There is an active 'new Civic' thread, but never mind.

I haven't got 102 yet, but it's no surprise that CAR rate it highly whereas proper magazines such as EVO rated it differently. CAR is shit these days and seems to decide on a winner first then twist everything to suit. EVO rated the Focus RS and the DB9 poorly - flying in the face of convention, all the other journals rated them highly because they wanted them to be good then eventually came around to the real verdict when their novelty had worn off, massive torque steer and dead dynamics respectiviely.

The torsion beam is a backwards step but shouldn't necessarily be the reason it's a poor driver's car, the Trophy has a twist beam while the old CTR which had independent rear wishbones was not as good in the handling department, in cornering performance or on-limit feel.

Aesthetically I think it's a vast improvement on the old bread-van but it's way short of the concept (the wheels are dreary in comparison) and the rear is way too bulky and clumsy, it looks like some sort of futuristic off-roader.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

To be fair they only rated the Focus RS with 3 stars to start with.

My judgement is reserved until I've driven one.

 

[quik5i1ver]

I think that visually it's disappointing.. If my memory serves me correctly, the concept looked far more exciting than the car that EVO reviewed. As for that interior.. seriously it looks like the sort of OTT futuristic attempts that Alpine used on some of their demo cars - if anyone's seen them... I can imagine that in 10 years time, it will be like looking at the old Esprit interiors (10k feature in EVO)...

 

[Steve]

EVO review confirms my fears, too heavy, too soft, and now not a match for a humble old 182 in raw performance terms or track ability.

Article made me want an R26 even more, faster than any of the turbo-charged competition and quicker than the R32 on track, now that is a performance bargain, made me laugh when I recalled some twat on Renaultsport who sold his Meggy to buy an Astra VXR saying how it's 'much' faster. Er...it would seem not.

 

[DaveTrophy]

Yeah I'm not keen on the look of the new CTR but to be fair I wasn't overly impressed with the old shape.

After listening to people rant and rave about how good they were, I drove one and it didnt have much of a "wow" factor.