Rumor: Honda Civic Mugen RR hatchback in the works

Another Torque deprived Honda. No Thanks!

What a stupid Comment? Torque is what you feel in your back when you accelerate. If you think that torque is only needed for trucks or "Towing"? Then you have a lot more to learn about cars. LOL!!!

Wow! The lack of car knowledge here is amazing.

Lol both of you fail. Torque is all relative. If you have a 300hp car with 200ft-lbs of torque and gearing that redlines at 60mph and a 300hp car with 400ft-lbs with gearing that redlines the engine at 60mph they will both get exactly the same force at the wheels. The 300/200 engine will be lighter weight, while the 300/400 engine will operate at lower revs which usually translates into less frictional losses and better fuel economy.

-Joe_Limon,

Do you agree with the other poster that stated that Torque is only needed for towing? That really was the only thing that I was trying to dispute.

The Honda is a 198/160 engine. Where does that stack up against your 300/200, 300/400 examples? The point I was trying to make is that the Honda doesn’t have enough torque. There are variables, but a 3000 lbs, normally aspirated car, with a 2.0 liter engine. Will not make enough torque at the lower revs to satisfy. Cars like that are dogs down-low. You will have to always shift the thing to keep it in the power, and power runs out fast in each gear. With the Civic ONLY having 160lbs ft of torque that car will never feel (or drive) like a car that has 300 lbft of torque.

HP and torque are relative but it’s not the type of relationship that you can develop a formula for just by having the 2 numbers alone. You need revs and depending on the engine type, you still will not be able to calculate a torque number from the revs and the HP numbers alone.

A 2.0 liter engine can have 189hp and 160lbft of torque. Install a Turbo and those numbers can increase to whatever number you want. You can tune the HP and Torque numbers to be the same. So instead of having 189hp/160lbft, you can end up with something like 300hp/300lbft. If the HP number and Torque are truly relative then you would get the same percentage increase across the board. There are several other variables. Stating that HP and Torque are relative isn’t 100% true. They are relative but one number doesn’t have to affect the other depending on engine tune.

Almost every car out there is faster than a BMW 328. This includes the Camry, the Accord, Altmima. If it was quicker than a 335 then you can brag.

Sort of off-topic but a VERY valid point.

This thing is fast around a race course - if you aren't interested in this type of thing, go buy a lazy, mega torque, behemoth for your suburban red light drag strip showboating....

My drive to work doesn't consists of a race course.

Then you are not the intended buyer...the person who buys this car will find a way to get it on a race course. In that sense, I think are viewpoints might be more similar than you think - it would be a waste to regulate this car to commuting back and forth to work...(although, i still think a car enthusiast would find a way to have fun with this car zipping in and out of traffic)

BTW, turbo's have their own 'disadvantages'. For their size, Honda's naturally aspirated engines have plenty of torque - it just looks and 'feels' low when compared to the relatively high hp numbers they make for their size. Please name all the NA engines of the same size as Honda's 2.0 that make more hp and torque...plus, It's Honda's choice and philosophy to go this route...do you actually think they couldn't create quality big displacement, slow revving or turbo engines?

But the opposite is not true...not many companies can go the high rev route while having the same refinement/reliability...that's why VTEC has become legendary in some circles and copied (and surpassed in some ways) by so many...

"Then you are not the intended buyer...the person who buys this car will find a way to get it on a race course."

- PuhLeeze. Maybe 1 in 50 of these things will see a race track.

"It's Honda's choice and philosophy to go this route...do you actually think they couldn't create quality big displacement, slow revving or turbo engines?"

- They should. That way they wouldn't be getting their asses handed to them by the Subaru STI and the Lancer Evo X. Both of those cars are more "track ready" than the Honda.

Considering how many will be made, 1-50 is a pretty good ratio...

STI's and Evo's are great...but completely different, maybe Honda should make that type of car - I'm sure SH-AWD in the right car would destroy any Subbie/Mitsu, but again true Honda fans rightly or wrongly would not be pleased with a turboed, AWD 'rally' sports cars...

And where exactly is Honda getting decisively whupped?