• Registered users are encouraged to enable MFA/2FA to add an aditional layer of security to their account. More information can be found here: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/top-tips-for-staying-secure-online/activate-2-step-verification-on-your-email

FN2 Old versus New

STAGED OR WHAT!!!!!!!!You can see the poor bloke in the ep3 backing off,he could have took the fn2 easily.What a load of b@@@ox.:mad:
 
Anyone else smell that?

I noticed they plumped for a Premier Edition CTR, so the heaviest of the EP3's (Recaro's weigh more than stock seats, and A/C). Although you'd need about 80bhp more to pull away at the speeds they showed in the Video.

Around a track the EP3 has shown to be quicker by various magazines, which is some feat given that it wears 205's rather than the 225's of the FN2.

I notice they claim the brakes are larger? I thought that the EP3 and FN2 both had 300mm Front Discs and 260mm Rear Discs?

Also, for those really concerned with performance driving the EP3-R sits 15mm lower than the FN2-R, any Evo MR or M3 CSL owner will testify light weight low roofs are the way forward.

Personally I'd like to see Evo do a back to back test of the EP3 and FN2 with performance driving in mind, not shopping or taking the kids to school, as that isn't what most people who buy a Type-R are after.
 
CTR_Paul said:
Personally I'd like to see Evo do a back to back test of the EP3 and FN2 with performance driving in mind, not shopping or taking the kids to school, as that isn't what most people who buy a Type-R are after.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't think that after reading half the comments by potentially new FN2 owners on the CTRO. :p
 
Sorry Evo mag spend too much time up their own asses, and blatantly contradict what they say half the time. They are no better in person either tbh.

I would also say that if you had read any of my reviews youd notice that it was just as quick as mine, and that is a smidge quicker than a premier :D. It just feels a little smoother so you lose that urgency, like the first time you fit a decent exhaust/ induction kit on your CTR and swear it goes 2 seconds quicker - 60. :D

Oh and I do use mine to go to the shops, drive to work as well as go for the odd fun blast around the local twisties. However to get my car where I wanted to it is perhaps a little raw for my commute, sometimes I wish it was a little more comfy.

Kindah like the FN2 :D

I do think it will be interesting to see how the tuning side goes, I reckon that rear bumper would be a mare to adjust to fit aftermarket systems too, and the engine bay is pretty cramped. Still I guess folks find a way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G said:
Sorry Evo mag spend too much time up their own asses, and blatently contradict what they say half the time. They are no better in person either tbh.
Click to expand...

The fact remains, they test Zonda Clubsports, Ferrari GTCs, Porka GT3s etc. Proper performance cars. Yes they are a tad Renault/Porsche biased but who else tests such an array of the finest driving machines? Auto Express/AutoCar and the like are concerned with Diesel Fiestas, next to which the FN2 will feel like Warp drive. Evo are used to driving performance orientated cars, and I don't think many other magazines are quite a focused in that respect.

Evo's review of a performance car should be like Nasa's review of a space shuttle, Autocars review on the other hand would be like asking the Doncaster rocket club to review one.

I'll grant you the front end of the new car isn't bad, but I'm still wondering how a car which is less adjustable, with more weight, a higher roof line, virtually the same engine and the same brakes can possibly out perform the old one in any area other than practical Golf Gti crap like going to the shops.:confused:

Anyhow, I shall be having a test drive soon to really check out the handling.
 
CTR_Paul said:
I'll grant you the front end of the new car isn't bad, but I'm still wondering how a car which is less adjustable, with more weight, a higher roof line, virtually the same engine and the same brakes can possibly out perform the old one in any area other than practical Golf Gti crap like going to the shops.:confused:
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly! the GT version that we saw looked more in competion with my runaround Golf GT TDi with all the toys than the old EP3.

It looked very overweight and and very uncustomisable. The head unit in the FN2 looks firmly welded in as are most of the body and engine parts.

Anyone purchasing the GT version with all the optional extras will struggle to pass a standard EP3 let alone a supercharged one :?
 
Foxy, have you not read my review? As I have said many a time it is as quick as mine. Even though mine is back to N/A it is hardly standard, yet I found the FN quicker. You need to stop thinking about figures on paper, and look at what makes a car quick (not necessarily in a straight line, though it is no slouch, look at it this way in real world terms when my car was Charged I had 40 bhp up on Carls car, yet they were to all intense and purposes neck and neck on the road) the fact that the chassis is so much better in the FN, and the steering feedback and front end grip is so responsive and sharp, THAT is what makes the FN better imho. A good driver can get more out of it, whereas for others it can be more forgiving.
 
Good to watch, but I can't trust the opinion of somebody who is on Honda's payroll!

"More refined" "Smoother" "Quieter" .... and that's better because???

bigger brakes... Yes, on the rear! You're hardly gonna see that difference in the real world, especially given the extra weight.

...and as for dropping the EP3 off on the straight.... LOL. That's like the difference between a standard EP3 and a JRSC'd EP3! :rolleyes:

I'll believe it's has a true back to back test when I see it in a best motoring battle round Tsukuba. And I'll bet my right knacker that it cant set a faster lap time than an EP3, EK9, DC2 or DC5 ;)


....Looks nice though :p
 
G said:
Foxy, have you not read my review? As I have said many a time it is as quick as mine. Even though mine is back to N/A it is hardly standard, yet I found the FN quicker. You need to stop thinking about figures on paper, and look at what makes a car quick (not necessarily in a straight line, though it is no slouch, look at it this way in real world terms when my car was Charged I had 40 bhp up on Carls car, yet they were to all intense and purposes neck and neck on the road) the fact that the chassis is so much better in the FN, and the steering feedback and front end grip is so responsive and sharp, THAT is what makes the FN better imho. A good driver can get more out of it, whereas for others it can be more forgiving.
Click to expand...

No I hadn't mate - but that's cool. I understand the car has been altered by Honda to make it more comfortable and more stable.

The thing that get's me though that I was tryign to put accross, is the difference in weight (eg between my car GT TDi and the skoda- The skoda has the same engine as mine, yet pulls far better than mine ever would. The only difference was the 'toys' inside. The duduction I made was more toys (AC etc) = a slower car. The top speck'd FN2 GT version would appear weigh a lot- but on paper appears to be pushing the same figures as the stripped out version :? I take it it's the fact Honda have altered the engine to have more torque and altered the chassis etc that have improved it against the EP3 and allowed for the extra weight??
 
It in fact has a little less torque tbh. But it is how the power delivery arrives and the gearing is what makes the difference. Also in reall world on the road terms the odd bhp makes little difference. But you have to consider all the other factors as to what makes a car quick accross country. A well set up chassis, that is stable, good feedback that inspires confidence. These are more important. It is all well and good having lots of power, but you need to be able to use it. I would rather have a car in which I am able to use 100% of the power, than be able to tell my mates down the pub that I have 250....but can only use 70% because I am wheelspinning it away.
 
But according to the Top Gear magazine it isn't quick. Left my magazine at my mums house so can't remember exactly but there was 2 secs between the Megane/Astra to the Civic. Thats a hell of a lot of time on a 1.30 lap. I know thy said the Type-R was the best package but going up against an Astra etc on a country road won't we lose?
 
Depends on the driver, the Stig may be able to control the VXR easier, but for regular joes, like me say, the CTR is mutch easier to to drive quicker in the real world. But don't think I do not mean by that it takes the fun out of it, far from it, it can still pose a challenge.

For me the bottom line is it is irrelevent weather a car is quicker round a track by a second or two or even more. Likewise 0-60 times, what does it matter if you can say to someone 'my car is quicker by half a second to 60 than you. I have never found anywhere that I needed to be so bad an extra .5 of a second matters :D. Besides I daresay whatever you end up with, a new car will come along that is even quicker by another fraction of a second.

More important to me is it fun to drive, does it have a good engine and does it reward the driver... even if they are not Alonso.

Of course I am not niece enough to think that the new CTR is going to be everyones cup of tea. We all want different things from a car. I personaly just think numbers in a magazene are the pervue of the young who want to brag to their mates.

Then again maybe I am just getting too old :D
 
Have to agree with G. Opinion seems to be roughly split between those who think it looks rubbish, and those who've driven it and found it to be really good. I think it all boils down to one thing: feedback. Those who have driven the FN2 on here have said it has better feedback than the EP3. I've never driven either, but as an ATR owner i can categorically say that being fully aware of what all four tyres are doing all of the time is a considerable advantage to driving fast. My DC2 was the same, my sisters EG3 is the same, the Beat we share is also the same, if not better, and the ATR is an absolute paragon. Before you ask, i've also driven dozens of cars where the steering was absolutely mute, and it really is no help at all, not to mention being a rubbish safety feature if it's icy. Gonna get a go in the FN2 to see if it has old skool Type R Braille spec feedback or not. Meanwhile, i'll just marvel at how good the ATR is.

Marge
 
I am sure it has been mooted that the ATR has one of the most sophisticated suspension setups any road car has ever had. Honda poured a lot of research time into the handling aspect of the Accord rather than going for outright power.

Anyway, I follow with the overall total drive mindset now I am def' getting old. In the real world, my little sister has shown me what she can do in her MX5 - it may not be fast but it makes driving a lot more fun. :D
 
Well said you two. I mean if speed was the only issue I in theory should be able to have spanked Hasnic in his DC2, when driving on the twisties, but tbh most of the time I was just trying to keep up with him :D.
 
Don't get me wrong, I was purley querying the weight issue, not insinuating that I wouldn't buy the car due it's speed on paper.

I havn't yet driven the FN2, but I totally understand and would myself go for a car that had an 'overall' appeal. For me, as others have said, it's about the overall experience of the car, not a particular aspect (speed/looks etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top