• Jun 20, 2009
Mugen Honda Civic Type-R hatch - Click above for high-res image gallery

Honda's Euro-market Civic Type R hatchback has been called out for being a successor that hasn't exactly succeeded. Seems a bit of the thrill is gone from the new car compared to the old one. Enter tuning firm Mugen, whose modifications to the Type R hatch should make it even better than it once was.

Not much is known about the changes in store. However, based on changes made for Mugen's Japan-spec Civic Type RR 4-door sedan, these pictures, and the fact that this car might take on the Renault R26.R, you can expect much: upgraded suspension and 18-inch wheels, giant front splitter and rear wing, huge exhaust, and a powerplant putting out 237 bhp and 160 lb-ft.

If the pictures don't lie, however, it looks like the bigger Brembo brakes might not appear, and the back seats will remain in place. You can check out the details for yourself in the high-res gallery below. Thanks to Ryan for the video



[Source: 4 Wheels News]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 43 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think I like the back more than the front! Less ostentatious vents, holes and bits. Still that's like saying I prefer getting punched in the face over getting shot in the knee...
      • 5 Years Ago
      if it's priced like the old one, what a freaking joke! Save money and get a RalliArt Lancer! The Lancer has more HP and lots more torque AND you get a trick AWD system AND you wont look like a complete tool.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Alright, so you are all a little confused about the torque deal. That given, you are slightly correct though, in different ways.

      I'll start by saying that torque IS the bottom line when in comes to acceleration, but not in the context brought up so far. So read on. The force accelerating the vehicle is:

      F = T/r , where F is force, T is torque AT THE WHEELS, and r is the radius of the tire. The greater the F, the faster the car will accelerate given constant mass, period. Yes, I can see that a greater T here will give a great F, but ask yourself where this torque is being observed.

      Where the statements made by others about rated engine torque being all important break down is that they assume the engine torque is equivalent to the torque at the wheels, as indicated in the equation above. This, in general, is completely inaccurate. You have a transmission, don't you? Transmissions are not all the same, are they?

      The basic goal of a transmission is to either:
      a) increase torque and decrease rotational speed, or
      b) increase rotational speed and decrease torque.
      This can happen in varying degrees of magnitude, obviously.

      Lets take the Civic Si and GTI example brought up earlier. The GTI makes its power and torque at a much lower engine rpm. So, lets take a snapshot sometime during the 0-60 mph acceleration run. Say, when the vehicles are at 40 mph.

      I'm not going to get into exact numbers from here on in because I don't feel like looking up all the gear ratios for the two cars. If you feel like doing so, then great.

      At this time, assuming similar outside tire diameters for the two cars, the wheels are turning at the same rate. But the two engines are not turning at the same rpm, likely. In all likelihood (like i said i haven't checked the gear ratios) the engine of the Civic is rotating at a higher rpm. But since the wheels are turning at the SAME rpm, then the transmissions must be converting the engine torque differently, correct? The transmission of the civic is transforming more rotational velocity (rpm) into torque than the transmission of the GTI which requires a "taller" or "longer" gear ratio.

      Note: this whole "transforming" lingo I'm using is meant to be non-technical. If you'd like to see numbers and proofs, go get an engineering textbook. Don't question me.

      The end result is that the torque AT THE WHEELS could be similar and given similar diameter tires, the acceleration force would be similar. This is despite the different rated torque values of the engines.

      The bottom line and point to my post is that just looking at the rated torque for an engine does NOT tell you how much acceleration force the car will experience. You need to include the transmission ratios and tire sizes along with the engine rpm at which this torque is reached. Then you can make an assessment on how much you will be "pushed into your seat".

      So please, stop making statements like "no replacement for displacement" and "torque is what presses you into your seat" and "torque is what gets you to 60 faster" and "all hp gets you is top speed". Consider the whole situation, as discussed above. tankd0g, you may notice that most of those quotes are yours. You, my friend, need to consider that you might not know what you are talking about.
      • 5 Years Ago
      How does Mugen stay in business?
        • 5 Years Ago
        By catering to a niche market.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Too bad we don't get one here, but we do have the Mugen Civic Si though.
      • 5 Years Ago
      How are you supposed to see out of the back of the car? I mean the window is pretty small as is, but the massive ugly wing makes it look that much more difficult.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Awesome looking little Civic 2 door hatch. Why can't we have this in the US??? I don't need the Type R, or various other tuning and aero bits, just a factory 2 door hatch. I seriously miss my old '89 Civic and the practicality of that hatchback. It was definitely ahead of its time with, if I'm not mistaken, the 4 wheel independent wishbone suspension and the 4 valve per cylinder engine (unusually with a single overhead cam). It was so easy to drive and regularly got nearly 40 miles per gallon.

      • 5 Years Ago
      I love redneck posts that think torque is everything. Some math to stop the idiocy:

      (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower

      The higher the RPM for the horsepower, the lower the torque. That's just the nature of high-revving N/A engines. High engine speed = lower torque. An earlier poster said "wrx had more torque!" It was also 2.5L, made 165hp, and is slower than a 2.0 K20A engine. Learn how an engine works.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes really, you've just proven my point, the only vehicles you couldn't get up to their top speed have a hp to weight ratio that rivals any car.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Sigh, let's do a torque comparo shall we.

        Civic Si makes 197hp. Mk GTI makes 200hp.

        Civic Si makes 139 lbs/ft of torque. GTI makes much more, 207 lbs/ft torque. By redneck math, this would mean the GTI is 50% faster than the Civic Si.

        But wait, the Civic Si and GTI according to Motortrend had identical 0-60 times. Almost 60 more lbs/ft of torque in the GTI, yet they're similar in speed. Unless the Civic Si was cheating, that means torque isn't everything.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I love higher than mighty posts that don't have a clue that hp is nothing more than marketing trickery. Torque is what's important in that equation, not horsepower. Torque is what gets you to 60 faster, torque is what presses you into your seat, torque is what pulls out out of those corners. All hp gets you is top speed, which you'll never reach anyway.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Wow that car is ugly...
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is the is the first Honda I would buy
      • 5 Years Ago
      Just release Tom Chilton's car with a full interior for christ sake.
      • 5 Years Ago
      "Restores former glory"?

      Not with THAT rear spoiler it doesn't!
        • 5 Years Ago
        no one is allowed to complain about the new STIs anymore after this civic
    • Load More Comments