182 Cup or Civic type R

[clio_zak]

Currently driving a 1.2 but next car is most likely going to be 1 of these 2 what would you have i would like the one with better performance. not sure if this ritte but:

Type R - 0-62 = 6.6 secs Top Speed 146 mph BHP 197 (I think)

182 cup - 0-62 = 6.8 secs Top Speed 139mph BHP 182

Correct me if im wrong.

cheers guys

 

[nobblebonce]

type r

 

[Lagerlout]

CTR is faster, better built. Clio is better handler, more fun, cheaper, far better specced and doesnt look like a wedge of cheese.

 

[seb]

but everyone likes a bit of chedder.... or maybe you would prefer the sexy brie number?

 

[Munson]

CTR if you dont like steering feel. Other than that it owns the 182Cup on engine/gearbox, although its not faster up to triple figues.

 

[Toypop]

Clio is quicker on the brakes, round the bend and accelerating off the bend.

CTR is quicker once you straighten up but only as you get to 70 and above.

Clio has lots of feel and feedback, the CTR has a lot of power assistance on the steering so you get no feel but it is a more relaxed drive if doing longer journeys.

CTR engine sounds less aggressive and you have to really change gear like crazy due to the shorter ratios.

CTR costs more and has less toys. Probably is better built but my mates has more faults than my 182.

I dont really have a preference between the two. Clio was cheaper and had more toys so that just tipped it for me.

 

[Ben H]

Neither is conclusively faster than each other (not like a 182 and Cooper S for instance), but I think the appeal of both is quite different.

From a driving point of view, I see the CTR as the urban dual carriageway dueller - and the Clio as the car to take for long drives on your favourite B-road.

 

[The Bear]

When the V-Tec kicks in on the Type-R at 6000rpm it gives a much more noticeable boost compared to the Renaults 5000rpm push.

 

[Toypop]

Quote: Originally posted by The Bear on 19 April 2005

When the V-Tec kicks in on the Type-R at 6000rpm it gives a much more noticeable boost compared to the Renaults 5000rpm push.

I jumped out of my 182 and got in my mates CTR and found that to not be the case. As both a passenger and driver if anything the kick in the 182 was more noticeable in particular I think because of the aggressive engine note.

The CTRs power delivery was more even than I expected. It doesnt pull as well as the Clio at low revs but it isnt as gutless as people make out.

 

[sh33n]

Clio

 

[KDF]

Clio as I dont like the Hovis look.

performance differences are negligable.

 

[geordiepaul]

If your at all worried about running costs then Clio if not then CTR!

The Clio is considerably more economical...I would still rather have the CTR (I have owned both)

 

[SOOTY]

I used to have a Black CTR, here are the problems. Too light on the front end, its always spinning off the mark and going round corners. If you use the ITEC then be prepared to drink fuel. There basic as hell and a heavy arse car, you will notice when you open the door on one!. The good points is that when the ITEC kicks in you know about it and its alot more of a noticeable kick than a Clio. If you have an induction kit on a CTR they sound amazing when the ITEC is in. You are looking at more expensive overheads than a Clio. If your wanting to lower the CTR then think again, i had mine lowered and when you steered the springs used to clunk more so over some big bumps. You will also find that the CTRs are so basic inside apart from the Reccaro copy bucket seats theres nothing to them.

From a person thats had both, i would say get a clio. I love mine and would have another. You can throw them round corners, theyre light and you can do loads to them for little expence. Hope my experience has helped you!.

 

[1.2Tone]

ill be honest i have never been ib either let alone driven, but upto last night id have said the CTR, but after watching the Clarkson top gear review last night, i gotta say that 182 does look way more fun

 

[Jay]

Wheelbarrow over breadvan.

Cheaper, more gadgets, better colours, better handling (so Ive heard). Havent driven a breadvan though.

 

[cfc1967]

top gear stig tested both round the track: clio was 4 seconds quicker round the track than ctr

nuff said

 

[SOOTY]

CTR = Heavy Arse Car, Your all right its an engine powered Bread Bin, also now extremely common. They are round Newcastle anyway! everyones got one. Thats why i smile when i kick ass in my little Silver Bullet!.

 

[team_penetrator]

CTR looks like a people carrier. Whats going on with those headlights???

 

[Iain C]

id like the ctr cos its got a nice cabin. Clio is better looking outside tho. Imo

performance very similar but the clio is much cheaper...donno really then. Its very even

 

[SAX_MAN]

CTR

I test drove a 182 and while it was fast, it didnt excite me like the Type R does everytime i get into it or enter VTEC and hear that gorgeous howl.

Clio is more chuckable but im growing up and wanted something that looks grown up and not a little hot hatch.

On my 2nd CTR now, just traded my 52 plate one in for a brand new 05 plate in cosmic grey, cant wait to get it

 

[Pete]

CTR purely on the build quality.

 

[soepy]

The CTR is like the bloke everyone knows - hes fine till he has a drink, then could go either way:



the greatest laugh, or the beast wholl start waving his fists about.

 

[davyboy]

For similar age cars there is a massive price difference which put me off the CTR.

1 year old Clio 10k

1 Year old CTR £15k

That 15k puts you in to a whole new range of cars.

 

[TheJesus]

CTR deffo. Dunno about the brakes being better on the 182 either, the CTR can out brake a 911 Ive heard! Its also no more common than the 182, but I guess that depends on where you live. I used to see loads of CTR, but not anymore, 182s are popping up all over the place.

I can see the Clio handling better tho, the CTR handles crap from when I drove it... well, not crap, but vague and dull... to the point it could be dangerous actually, theres so little feedback. Build quality and looks it wins it for me tho... now, brb, Ive got some bread in the oven...

 

[SOOTY]

TheJesus - "Ive got some bread in the oven..." Well at least if you had a CTR you would have somewhere to keep it!. in the boot.

 

[JJ!]

drive both and see what you prefer!!! its going to be your car - who cares what people on here think!!

 

[cupsportmad]

Round a track or on a twisty country road the clio is boss. If you want straight line performance get a bike with the money you save buying a clio over a ctr.

 

[JJ!]

new shape clio looks based on a bread van too!!

 

[Lee]

Drive them both, Ive driven the CTR numerous times with a view to buying one but each time Im put off by the steering. The brakes, clutch, gearbox and seating position are fantastic though, but you never really feel part of the car, its all a bit clinical for me.

The CTR is a quick and competent car, but its not got the grin factor of the Clio. After a short while youll get bored of hitting the VTEC. Also, dont believe all this hype about them being reliable, I know from mates whove got/had them that they arent. The Clios have lots of small faults, the Hondas have few but they are much bigger!!

 

[SOOTY]

People on here keep saying VTEC... this system was pre Type R, the Integra had VTEC and the old Civi LSIs and so on but the Civic Type R has a new system called ITEC.

 

[182_blue]

ctr, lcr, ibiza cupra, Anything but the 182

 

[Munson]

The CTR is a nice car with a superb engine/box, but I find it curiously unrewarding to drive once the ohhh listen to the engine thing wore off.

Ive not driven the revised car though, which has a couple more ponies and a tuned suspension setup apparently. The phase 1 cars that I drove were not a patch on my 182Cup for steering feel and seat of your pants fun.

Still a great choice of car though, even if they are now common as muck.

 

[182_blue]

true, also the civic now looks curiously dated (i know the clio does too)

 

[rabbos]

All the honda literature/cars have a system caller iVtec, not ITEC (on the latest type rs/hrvs etc)

 

[rabbos]

Ive owned a CTR as a company car and yeah it was pleasant enough but I always thought it the really sensible, clinical choice. Ive had several vtecs and I far prefer the sound of my cup when gunning the engine.

I think I know of about 3 182s/172s in my town. I see thirty CTRs go past my house every hour all with baseball capped chavs and then one grandad whos been sold one to potter around in!

 

[rory182]

i see shed loads of civic s-types now or whatever the call them (Sport) - they on special offer or something?!

 

[ChrisE]

182 all day long...!!!

 

[geordiepaul]

Quote: Originally posted by SOOTY on 21 April 2005





People on here keep saying VTEC... this system was pre Type R, the Integra had VTEC and the old Civi LSIs and so on but the Civic Type R has a new system called ITEC.





Incorrect its i-VTEC on the current Type-R

 

[Munson]

Sure is

 

[Phill1978]

182.

the ctr is very common. doesnt make it a bad car but there isnt the same buzz when another 172/182 driver flashes you.

i think the reason ctrs can keep pace with 182s is that although the have lss torque and only 10hp more in theory when put on RR with induction kit fitted they can put out as much as 220hp. now considering ive kept up with a 220 hp impreza 1400kgs i think its safe to say the CTR pushes more power than quoted.

its also a hell of a lot more money considering the type of person who couldnt afford a ctr new. the clio is just about the only choice.