Review: 2016 FK2R Civic Type-R Turbo

[Tom]

Not a fan of its styling too, looks a bit too fat at the rear, too cluttered especially the front fender, wing a bit outlandish, rims too big (18' would look much more proportional to its size). Well at least in the photo or videos, maybe if I look at it in the flesh I might change my mind.

0-100kph only in 5.7sec? Seems a bit slow for a 300hp/400nm car. A 10+ yrs old Evo VII-IX with similar std power output would still smoke this, at least on the straight I suppose. If it's an AWD it would be a better.

Its styling is definitely edging over the top.

Although I can't really agree with the 4WD part on a car like this. It'll likely take away the liveliness of it, plus FF hatch these days are really good. Torque steer is almost a thing of the past too. Plus 4WD just makes things so much heavier and it takes quite a bit of manhandling to capitalise on the 4 wheel grip and that happens maybe 1 percent of the ownership duration. So simply lugging the rear axle and propshaft makes little sense imho

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 09:57 PM ----------

I have to say, Tom, you are one lucky guy to get to test out this car.

Look is subjective la. Kesian this car kena hantam that is ugly. Hahahahaha. But i on the other hand, find it quite nice looking. I am not crazily into the looks of it, but is not an eye sore to me. Actually, it grows into me after awhile Interior looks nice too.

Still a kick-ass car if you ask me....

Turbo and iVTEC...Sounds like a very good recipe for modding.....Its only a short matter of time that aftermarket performance part manufacturer and tuning companies come out with some insane mod for this car and transform it into a monster......

Totally agreed on the not the best looking yet not an eye sore part.

The engine needs some attention to be honest. It just lack character. Like I wrote, it just sounds too much like a tuned 4G63 to be honest

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

When I first heard the new FK2R uses a 19" rims, I was thinking, is that really necessary in a FWD car despite it being turbocharged. Even Lancer Evolution and WRX STI which produces more power than this uses 17 or 18" only. 19" is normally the size for supercars such as Gallardo, F430, R8... Or I guess rims are getting larger and larger in cars as time goes... Decades ago, cars like Lancer Evolution III and Lamborghini Countach only uses 15" as stock...

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------



Perhaps if the rims are downsized to something like 225/40/18 it might be slightly faster?

The Megane RS275 Trophy R runs on 19s as well. I suppose there's a certain look and engineering reason behind this especially coming from the RenaultSport guys. I doubt it's because of the bigger brakes

Perhaps someone with engineering degree here can shed some light into this big diameter wheels making way into FF hatches.



Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------

Tom : Note5 for the win [emoji3] I hate that it's better than the Iphone I recently bought. Goddammit. How'd you mount it for the video shoot?



A AWD Honda saloon? Oh the blasphemy! Personally I don't see an issue with the performance numbers and all that. Compared to the Evos I think this FK2R is more sophisticated in terms of ride comfort, probably safety and Evo IX isn't really a fair comparison since the IX was designed with performance straight out. Lightweight everything and reduced everything all for the sake of power-to-weight.



Dude.. the Countach uses 335/35/15. Size isn't quite a good comparison here. The surface contact is insane! And a Type-R using puny little rims would look so weird. I think the 225/40/18 suggestion might sacrifice its mechanical grip.

Yeah and it's cheaper than the new iPhone. Plus its less precious. I simply love the camera feature here.

Anything other than on board, it'll be my hands.

On board videos are shot via gopro. I use a jaw clamp with the gooseneck to clamp onto the base of the headrest post. Or I'll use tape and etc.



Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

 

[6UE5t]

When I first heard the new FK2R uses a 19" rims, I was thinking, is that really necessary in a FWD car despite it being turbocharged. Even Lancer Evolution and WRX STI which produces more power than this uses 17 or 18" only. 19" is normally the size for supercars such as Gallardo, F430, R8... Or I guess rims are getting larger and larger in cars as time goes... Decades ago, cars like Lancer Evolution III and Lamborghini Countach only uses 15" as stock...

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------



Perhaps if the rims are downsized to something like 225/40/18 it might be slightly faster?

...
A AWD Honda saloon? Oh the blasphemy! Personally I don't see an issue with the performance numbers and all that. Compared to the Evos I think this FK2R is more sophisticated in terms of ride comfort, probably safety and Evo IX isn't really a fair comparison since the IX was designed with performance straight out. Lightweight everything and reduced everything all for the sake of power-to-weight.



Dude.. the Countach uses 335/35/15. Size isn't quite a good comparison here. The surface contact is insane! And a Type-R using puny little rims would look so weird. I think the 225/40/18 suggestion might sacrifice its mechanical grip.

Its styling is definitely edging over the top.

Although I can't really agree with the 4WD part on a car like this. It'll likely take away the liveliness of it, plus FF hatch these days are really good. Torque steer is almost a thing of the past too. Plus 4WD just makes things so much heavier and it takes quite a bit of manhandling to capitalise on the 4 wheel grip and that happens maybe 1 percent of the ownership duration. So simply lugging the rear axle and propshaft makes little sense imho

...

The Megane RS275 Trophy R runs on 19s as well. I suppose there's a certain look and engineering reason behind this especially coming from the RenaultSport guys. I doubt it's because of the bigger brakes

Perhaps someone with engineering degree here can shed some light into this big diameter wheels making way into FF hatches.



...

Naah, I don't really buy that the 19's are truly put for real handling advantage for such car. I think it's all about marketing, coz people nowadays are so fixated on going bigger and bigger without much sense but just for show! I'd say using 18' or even 17' lightweight rims with properly sized tires (say 235/45 or 245/45) can actually make this car go faster on the straight AND in the corners.

As for the comparison with Evo, well this Civic especially with such outlandish look, similar engine type and power, and comes ONLY with manual gearbox cannot be compared to the standard barrier of a value for money 2 ltr performance turbo sedan like an Evo? How much is the price of this Civic anyway, is it similar to the Evo IX (when compared new to new last time)? If it does, then they should be comparable. Having more sophistication is not the real point coz in the end the main focus of this car is supposed to be high performance (especially with such look) so that's what I'd would be looking at if I'm shopping for such a car. The additional sophistication is just nice to have but not essential criteria. That's why Evo IX is still considered the last great Evo by many, while the more sophisticated and livable X is not.

As for the AWD, maybe if it has, then it would accelerate even faster matching the likes of Evos & WRXs. The Civic weight even without AWD is already a bit hefty, probably due to the additional sophistication/hi-tech features and creature comfort in it. I'd trade-off those features with a killer AWD system like in Evo so it would still maintain similar weight and retain the liveliness. Having an AWD also makes the power mod potential sky high as it would be able to handle much more power than std. Being FWD would just limit it to where it is now. But maybe Honda's aim is just to snatch back the FWD speed throne from the Megane RS, that's it.

I don't know, to me this car is missing the point just a bit. It looks so outlandish but yet the performance not as extreme as its appearance, right? Maybe if it tones down the look, I'd actually feel it's more suitable, but I guess I'm a bit old school so my views and taste might be outdated already.

 

[Tom]

Naah, I don't really buy that the 19's are truly put for real handling advantage for such car. I think it's all about marketing, coz people nowadays are so fixated on going bigger and bigger without much sense but just for show! I'd say using 18' or even 17' lightweight rims with properly sized tires (say 235/45 or 245/45) can actually make this car go faster on the straight AND in the corners.

As for the comparison with Evo, well this Civic especially with such outlandish look, similar engine type and power, and comes ONLY with manual gearbox cannot be compared to the standard barrier of a value for money 2 ltr performance turbo sedan like an Evo? How much is the price of this Civic anyway, is it similar to the Evo IX (when compared new to new last time)? If it does, then they should be comparable. Having more sophistication is not the real point coz in the end the main focus of this car is supposed to be high performance (especially with such look) so that's what I'd would be looking at if I'm shopping for such a car. The additional sophistication is just nice to have but not essential criteria. That's why Evo IX is still considered the last great Evo by many, while the more sophisticated and livable X is not.

As for the AWD, maybe if it has, then it would accelerate even faster matching the likes of Evos & WRXs. The Civic weight even without AWD is already a bit hefty, probably due to the additional sophistication/hi-tech features and creature comfort in it. I'd trade-off those features with a killer AWD system like in Evo so it would still maintain similar weight and retain the liveliness. Having an AWD also makes the power mod potential sky high as it would be able to handle much more power than std. Being FWD would just limit it to where it is now. But maybe Honda's aim is just to snatch back the FWD speed throne from the Megane RS, that's it.

I don't know, to me this car is missing the point just a bit. It looks so outlandish but yet the performance not as extreme as its appearance, right? Maybe if it tones down the look, I'd actually feel it's more suitable, but I guess I'm a bit old school so my views and taste might be outdated already. [emoji3]

A very good point on the EVO X being more efficient than predecessor yet has deviated from its legendary attributes.

The imperfections, thirstier, jerkier, harsher aspects are in fact the attractions of these legends.

Although the FK2R may have filtered a percentage of the above, but other than the new Turbo engine, I have to say they still did a great job retaining the extremities. There's still the Super hard suspension at a press of a button. The gears and pedals still has signature FD2R feel.

I think the biggest difference here is the engine and the extreme physique. But still a fan of everything else it's offering.

So in this case I don't think it's a case of a great car gone bad like the Evo X but a revolution.

A bit of a premium example but like the older NA BMW M cars, they're all great and addictive cars but with the introduction of newer Turbo Ms and engineering inputs these cars are just out of this world good.

such as the current M3/M4/M5 and the highly anticipated baby M2, once driven, one is likely to forget about the older one. I am guilty of that.

I suppose it all depends on purpose and current standpoint

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

 

[Izso]

All boils down to personal preference I guess.

I quite like the Evo 9 myself. But if I had that kinda money and had a choice, I'd go for a 2 door sedan instead. Even if it's slower or whatever, as long as it makes me happy when I drive it I'd be satisfied. Kinda like how I was satisfied driving my old wira. Sylphys just don't have that oomph.

 

[RENESIS VIII]

Dude.. the Countach uses 335/35/15. Size isn't quite a good comparison here. The surface contact is insane! And a Type-R using puny little rims would look so weird. I think the 225/40/18 suggestion might sacrifice its mechanical grip.

335/35/15 will probably give the Countach owner a headache when he is searching for new tyre replacement... Not even sure if such size is still being made or not today?

Car nowadays using bigger rims have various reasons. Wider tyres, lower profile, or just to clear the Bigger brake caliper and disc rotor...

The 235/35R19 seems a bit stretch since 19" rims usually comes quite wide

Wider tyres and lower profile can be done even in 18" isn't it? Lamborghini Murcielago comes with 335/30/18 as its stock rear tyres I think. As for the bigger caliper and rotor, I don't think anything under 400-500hp needs it to be so big?

The Megane RS275 Trophy R runs on 19s as well. I suppose there's a certain look and engineering reason behind this especially coming from the RenaultSport guys. I doubt it's because of the bigger brakes

Perhaps someone with engineering degree here can shed some light into this big diameter wheels making way into FF hatches.

Perhaps it is for the owner to fit even larger/wider rims in the future? I mean if it comes with 19" as stock, it probably can be upsized to 20" or 21".

By the way, this is one reason I like to discuss about things in zth forums because members here goes into detailed technical discussion into things like this unlike other common automotive websites comment sections where people just talk about mundane and basic things about the car. It allows me to learn many things.

Naah, I don't really buy that the 19's are truly put for real handling advantage for such car. I think it's all about marketing, coz people nowadays are so fixated on going bigger and bigger without much sense but just for show! I'd say using 18' or even 17' lightweight rims with properly sized tires (say 235/45 or 245/45) can actually make this car go faster on the straight AND in the corners.

As for the comparison with Evo, well this Civic especially with such outlandish look, similar engine type and power, and comes ONLY with manual gearbox cannot be compared to the standard barrier of a value for money 2 ltr performance turbo sedan like an Evo? How much is the price of this Civic anyway, is it similar to the Evo IX (when compared new to new last time)? If it does, then they should be comparable. Having more sophistication is not the real point coz in the end the main focus of this car is supposed to be high performance (especially with such look) so that's what I'd would be looking at if I'm shopping for such a car. The additional sophistication is just nice to have but not essential criteria. That's why Evo IX is still considered the last great Evo by many, while the more sophisticated and livable X is not.

As for the AWD, maybe if it has, then it would accelerate even faster matching the likes of Evos & WRXs. The Civic weight even without AWD is already a bit hefty, probably due to the additional sophistication/hi-tech features and creature comfort in it. I'd trade-off those features with a killer AWD system like in Evo so it would still maintain similar weight and retain the liveliness. Having an AWD also makes the power mod potential sky high as it would be able to handle much more power than std. Being FWD would just limit it to where it is now. But maybe Honda's aim is just to snatch back the FWD speed throne from the Megane RS, that's it.

I don't know, to me this car is missing the point just a bit. It looks so outlandish but yet the performance not as extreme as its appearance, right? Maybe if it tones down the look, I'd actually feel it's more suitable, but I guess I'm a bit old school so my views and taste might be outdated already.

At this rate, performance cars are going to get more and more expensive to maintain. From around 20 years ago during the EK9 days where it uses only 15" rims to this FK2R that uses 19" rims. Tyre price is probably triple the amount that you need to pay for EK9.

Performance is not as extreme as its appearance could only be temporary for now. Since it is a turbocharged car, it will only be a matter of time until tuning companies tune it to produce even more horsepower as it is easier for a turbocharged engine.

Anyway, do you think that Honda might release another version of Civic Type R specifically for the Japanese market? Previously they did so with the FN2R and FD2R.

 

[Tom]

All boils down to personal preference I guess.

I quite like the Evo 9 myself. But if I had that kinda money and had a choice, I'd go for a 2 door sedan instead. Even if it's slower or whatever, as long as it makes me happy when I drive it I'd be satisfied. Kinda like how I was satisfied driving my old wira. Sylphys just don't have that oomph.

There used to be a time where I'd ignore certain new developments in new cars, pass them off as gimmicks for illiterate drivers and continue to stay loyal to the beaters, fuel guzzling horsepower carts I call cars.

But as time passed and having sampled these next generation monstars, it's kind of hard to worship last generation's creations as much anymore. Let's just say, many of which are great legends, but legends of their time.

So, you want to 2 door coupe and don't mind it being slow.
Are you thinking of a 86? Just saw one posted online for 132K izso

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

By the way, this is one reason I like to discuss about things in zth forums because members here goes into detailed technical discussion into things like this unlike other common automotive websites comment sections where people just talk about mundane and basic things about the car. It allows me to learn many things.

Good to know Renesis, I am eager to re-energize the forums to new heights. Let's talk more about performance and engineering.

Also motorsports specifics perhaps. Any devotees here? Engineers and Drivers?

 

[Izso]

There used to be a time where I'd ignore certain new developments in new cars, pass them off as gimmicks for illiterate drivers and continue to stay loyal to the beaters, fuel guzzling horsepower carts I call cars.

But as time passed and having sampled these next generation monstars, it's kind of hard to worship last generation's creations as much anymore. Let's just say, many of which are great legends, but legends of their time.

So, you want to 2 door coupe and don't mind it being slow.
Are you thinking of a 86? Just saw one posted online for 132K izso

Good to know Renesis, I am eager to re-energize the forums to new heights. Let's talk more about performance and engineering.

Also motorsports specifics perhaps. Any devotees here? Engineers and Drivers?

I call it "growing old" Tom. hahahaahha

I've had a few joy rides in Johnsons Evo X sometime back and it's undeniably fast with extraordinary handling. But I still prefer the way the Evo VII made me feel when I was chauffeured for a short distance. Whilst new is highly respectable the old is the one that makes me weak in the knees. Not worship, just excitement.

FT86? nah. I don't quite the look of that car even though I've never driven it. I was thinking more along the lines of a Lotus or a MRS.

Speaking of energizing the forum - is there any way to integrate it with FB? Like login with FB account or something so people can login easily and just post?

 

[Izso]

335/35/15 will probably give the Countach owner a headache when he is searching for new tyre replacement... Not even sure if such size is still being made or not today?

You know racenotrice.com featured a Countach sometime ago right? I know the owner. And no, it's not easy to find but money makes the world go round. Just special order la.

 

[vr2turbo]

Wider tyres and lower profile can be done even in 18" isn't it? Lamborghini Murcielago comes with 335/30/18 as its stock rear tyres I think. As for the bigger caliper and rotor, I don't think anything under 400-500hp needs it to be so big?

Perhaps it is for the owner to fit even larger/wider rims in the future? I mean if it comes with 19" as stock, it probably can be upsized to 20" or 21".

When use smaller rims usually is the width shrinks and profile goes up.

The ML350 that I detailed actually came with 20" rims. The tyre were difficult to find and was so expensive the owner switch to 19"....

 

[6UE5t]

...

At this rate, performance cars are going to get more and more expensive to maintain. From around 20 years ago during the EK9 days where it uses only 15" rims to this FK2R that uses 19" rims. Tyre price is probably triple the amount that you need to pay for EK9.

Performance is not as extreme as its appearance could only be temporary for now. Since it is a turbocharged car, it will only be a matter of time until tuning companies tune it to produce even more horsepower as it is easier for a turbocharged engine.

Anyway, do you think that Honda might release another version of Civic Type R specifically for the Japanese market? Previously they did so with the FN2R and FD2R.

IMHO it's getting quite silly actually this fixation with using bigger and bigger rims. The cars look funnier and uglier if you ask me coz size of the rims look too oversized compared to the body size. Some of them look too tall also above the ground with tires so thin yet the fender gaps still so big, bigger than the wafer thin tires! To make matter worse, those huge rims are heavier, hence make cars slower. But again, I'm probably still old school style hence not much into following this trend (probably many youngsters will call my sense of car styling outdated! )

Well they can easily increase the engine power but can the FWD layout handle it? That's the main limitation hence that's why I mentioned it would've been better if AWD. Now with the FWD layout, you cannot increase as much power before you destroy the balance of the car making it an understeering monster.

Don't know if they gonna have different models for Japan.

I call it "growing old" Tom. hahahaahha

I've had a few joy rides in Johnsons Evo X sometime back and it's undeniably fast with extraordinary handling. But I still prefer the way the Evo VII made me feel when I was chauffeured for a short distance. Whilst new is highly respectable the old is the one that makes me weak in the knees. Not worship, just excitement.

FT86? nah. I don't quite the look of that car even though I've never driven it. I was thinking more along the lines of a Lotus or a MRS.

...

Well I'm already uncle's age and yet I still prefer the older cars like Evo. Maybe I'm older but not yet grown up to match the age!
Btw there are a few 2008-2009 Elise now on sale for around rm115k-125k.

When use smaller rims usually is the width shrinks and profile goes up.

...

This Civic only uses 235 width on 19' which is still rather skinny leh. I'm using 17' only but yet with 245 tires already. So going smaller especially in this Civic case, would not have to shrink the widths too. It could still easily go down to 18' and yet use 245/40 tires, or at least 235/40 to maintain the widths.

 

[RENESIS VIII]

There used to be a time where I'd ignore certain new developments in new cars, pass them off as gimmicks for illiterate drivers and continue to stay loyal to the beaters, fuel guzzling horsepower carts I call cars.

But as time passed and having sampled these next generation monstars, it's kind of hard to worship last generation's creations as much anymore. Let's just say, many of which are great legends, but legends of their time.

So, you want to 2 door coupe and don't mind it being slow.
Are you thinking of a 86? Just saw one posted online for 132K izso

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- 6 hour anti-bump limit - Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------



Good to know Renesis, I am eager to re-energize the forums to new heights. Let's talk more about performance and engineering.

Also motorsports specifics perhaps. Any devotees here? Engineers and Drivers?

Well, you can say that the next generation monsters are in a different category/segment compared to the monsters in previous decades. Just like there are categories like 80s and earlier old school JDM cars, 90s to early 2000s JDM, old 70s American muscle cars and so on. Perhaps we can say that these latest cars belong to a newer category where they do things differently than their predecessors.

I'm happy to see that you are eager to re-energize this forum. I like reading old posts in zth where many of those sifus went into highly detailed discussion back in 2005 to 2008. Occasionally I search back old posts to read and learn more from there. Interesting read indeed especially those about how they compare 4A-GE vs MIVEC vs VTEC or NA vs Turbo threads.

You know racenotrice.com featured a Countach sometime ago right? I know the owner. And no, it's not easy to find but money makes the world go round. Just special order la.

345/34/15. That is even wider than what you mentioned earlier. I never knew that tyre size went as wide as 345. All these while I thought that 335 should be the widest that you can go.

When use smaller rims usually is the width shrinks and profile goes up.

The ML350 that I detailed actually came with 20" rims. The tyre were difficult to find and was so expensive the owner switch to 19"....

Currently the latest Mercedes GLE 63 AMG (Merc's answer to BMW X6M) is using 22" rims... Even the latest Audi RS6 I heard is using 21". Now anything above 20" seems to be the new trend for supercars.

IMHO it's getting quite silly actually this fixation with using bigger and bigger rims. The cars look funnier and uglier if you ask me coz size of the rims look too oversized compared to the body size. Some of them look too tall also above the ground with tires so thin yet the fender gaps still so big, bigger than the wafer thin tires! To make matter worse, those huge rims are heavier, hence make cars slower. But again, I'm probably still old school style hence not much into following this trend (probably many youngsters will call my sense of car styling outdated! )

Well they can easily increase the engine power but can the FWD layout handle it? That's the main limitation hence that's why I mentioned it would've been better if AWD. Now with the FWD layout, you cannot increase as much power before you destroy the balance of the car making it an understeering monster.

Don't know if they gonna have different models for Japan.



Well I'm already uncle's age and yet I still prefer the older cars like Evo. Maybe I'm older but not yet grown up to match the age!
Btw there are a few 2008-2009 Elise now on sale for around rm115k-125k.




This Civic only uses 235 width on 19' which is still rather skinny leh. I'm using 17' only but yet with 245 tires already. So going smaller especially in this Civic case, would not have to shrink the widths too. It could still easily go down to 18' and yet use 245/40 tires, or at least 235/40 to maintain the widths.

Hehe, but I think your Mark X is using quite large rims too at 17". These are supercar size few decades ago. I remember the legendary McLaren F1 also uses 17" but at 315/45/17 for rear.

I think to solve the problem of FWD layout, they will revert to modern technologies to solve it. There are those kind feature that can help to apply braking independently into each specific wheel.

Or perhaps the 19" on Civic is for aesthetics purposes like what you said earlier about just for show. Let's say it is using 235/45/17 which is the size for stock Evo 8, then it probably won't look that good on this car? For me, even I think stock Evo tyres looked a little high profile from afar. But not that it matters because Evo is more about function rather than form.

By the way, the latest Impreza WRX STI S207 uses 19" too but on 255/35/19. But this is more understandable as it is more powerful than FK2R.

 

[6UE5t]

....
Hehe, but I think your Mark X is using quite large rims too at 17". These are supercar size few decades ago. I remember the legendary McLaren F1 also uses 17" but at 315/45/17 for rear.

I think to solve the problem of FWD layout, they will revert to modern technologies to solve it. There are those kind feature that can help to apply braking independently into each specific wheel.

Or perhaps the 19" on Civic is for aesthetics purposes like what you said earlier about just for show. Let's say it is using 235/45/17 which is the size for stock Evo 8, then it probably won't look that good on this car? For me, even I think stock Evo tyres looked a little high profile from afar. But not that it matters because Evo is more about function rather than form.

By the way, the latest Impreza WRX STI S207 uses 19" too but on 255/35/19. But this is more understandable as it is more powerful than FK2R.

Well I'm using lightweight forged rims so my 17x8.5 is about 3kg lighter per piece than the stock 16x7 rims! Further more the car at stock 215/60 tires were handling like a boat, easy to spin out (mine is without VSC & TRC), plus it cannot fit my 4 pot calipers anymore. I also want the size that at least minimum where I can get more top UHP tires up to 235 or 245 wide yet still within my purchasing power. So yeah, the 17' upgrade is bare minimum size for the purpose of my car and this upgrade is indeed still functional first, appearance secondary! If I were to prioritize on looks, I'd have bought normal cast 18' using crappy cheapo tires like many people have done.

Again I'd say using smaller 18' would look much better on a car size like this Civic. 17' might look a bit small due to the fat profile of its body plus won't fit the brake calipers anymore it seems. If the body is not as fat looking and more lean/stream line like the FD2R, then 17' would still look fine. (If I would to buy an FD2R, I'd surely downgrade it to 17' but wider rims!) CT9A already looks perfect with 17' and 235/45 tires! If I were to upgrade a CT9A rims, I'd still use 17 but just a bit wider 8.5j and lightweight rims, that's it.

The newer Imprezas also are better with 18 if you ask me. 19 or larger are more fitting for big size cars like BMW 7 series or Mercs S class.

As for fixing the FWD limitation in term of power, maybe in the next 5-10 yrs it can get up to say 400+HP? It's already a great achievement that the current FWD cars (FD2R, Megane RS, Golf) can handle nicely with 200-300hp. However while FWD only now manages to achieve 300hp with good balance, other layouts are already like multiple times this number for decades, so in the end FWD is always left far behind. The fact that the front wheels need to multitask to steer and deliver power is already an inherent disadvantage for performance and balance. That's why the A45 with about 350hp is already an AWD and you see how much faster that car is!

 

[RENESIS VIII]

Well I'm using lightweight forged rims so my 17x8.5 is about 3kg lighter per piece than the stock 16x7 rims! Further more the car at stock 215/60 tires were handling like a boat, easy to spin out (mine is without VSC & TRC), plus it cannot fit my 4 pot calipers anymore. I also want the size that at least minimum where I can get more top UHP tires up to 235 or 245 wide yet still within my purchasing power. So yeah, the 17' upgrade is bare minimum size for the purpose of my car and this upgrade is indeed still functional first, appearance secondary! If I were to prioritize on looks, I'd have bought normal cast 18' using crappy cheapo tires like many people have done.

Again I'd say using smaller 18' would look much better on a car size like this Civic. 17' might look a bit small due to the fat profile of its body plus won't fit the brake calipers anymore it seems. If the body is not as fat looking and more lean/stream line like the FD2R, then 17' would still look fine. (If I would to buy an FD2R, I'd surely downgrade it to 17' but wider rims!) CT9A already looks perfect with 17' and 235/45 tires! If I were to upgrade a CT9A rims, I'd still use 17 but just a bit wider 8.5j and lightweight rims, that's it.

The newer Imprezas also are better with 18 if you ask me. 19 or larger are more fitting for big size cars like BMW 7 series or Mercs S class.

As for fixing the FWD limitation in term of power, maybe in the next 5-10 yrs it can get up to say 400+HP? It's already a great achievement that the current FWD cars (FD2R, Megane RS, Golf) can handle nicely with 200-300hp. However while FWD only now manages to achieve 300hp with good balance, other layouts are already like multiple times this number for decades, so in the end FWD is always left far behind. The fact that the front wheels need to multitask to steer and deliver power is already an inherent disadvantage for performance and balance. That's why the A45 with about 350hp is already an AWD and you see how much faster that car is!

Now I understand that your 17" is for functional purposes like clearing the calipers, lighter and better handling.

I think in the case of CT9A, at most probably you can only go until 255 width tyres without modifying the fenders? I'm not sure for CT9A but for WRX STI, that seems to be the case at least from what I heard about the GDB chassis. But I have also read before in Option magazine about those time attack machines in Japan went as wide as 295/30 size for their Evo and STI....

18" already suits newer Impreza quite well. 19" can also be more fitting for 2 door large coupe/GT cars like 350Z, 370Z, Supra...

Well, FWD is always not the pioneer or 'front-line' in the performance car world. The ones who always gone for breakthroughs are either RWD or 4WD. Perhaps FWD is more towards the entry level category in performance cars? We can't really expect them to be on par with RWD or 4WD.

 

[6UE5t]

Now I understand that your 17" is for functional purposes like clearing the calipers, lighter and better handling.

I think in the case of CT9A, at most probably you can only go until 255 width tyres without modifying the fenders? I'm not sure for CT9A but for WRX STI, that seems to be the case at least from what I heard about the GDB chassis. But I have also read before in Option magazine about those time attack machines in Japan went as wide as 295/30 size for their Evo and STI....

18" already suits newer Impreza quite well. 19" can also be more fitting for 2 door large coupe/GT cars like 350Z, 370Z, Supra...

Well, FWD is always not the pioneer or 'front-line' in the performance car world. The ones who always gone for breakthroughs are either RWD or 4WD. Perhaps FWD is more towards the entry level category in performance cars? We can't really expect them to be on par with RWD or 4WD.

I think the CT9A can still use 255/40/17 provided with proper offset 17x9jj rims to clear suspension and stay clean within the fenders, that should grip like on rails and will look so damn mean to boot!

Fairladys, Supras, and Skylines are still best using 18' just go even wider like 10-11jj at the rear.

Entry level yes, but FWD can never be the front line for performance due to that inherent weakness. That is why I feel this Civic is missing the point a bit with its extreme, look-at-me-I'd-kick-your-ass-so-get-the-F-out-of-my-way look, but yet it's still a FWD and the performance not really matching that extreme appearance. Probably it's also marketing coz it seems nowadays people also like such outlandish looks so just follow to sell more lor!

 

[vr2turbo]

This Civic only uses 235 width on 19' which is still rather skinny leh. I'm using 17' only but yet with 245 tires already. So going smaller especially in this Civic case, would not have to shrink the widths too. It could still easily go down to 18' and yet use 245/40 tires, or at least 235/40 to maintain the widths.

Can go wider but depends on the profile also, so depends on the owner what they want, thicker or thinner tyres.....