Market for a more extreme Type R variant

[optronix]

If everything is "special" then nothing is.

End of the day. It's a god damned CIVIC. I don't get it- if you want a tricked out track car that can also be driven on the street, why TF does it have to have four doors?

What are we even talking about anymore?

Let's get back to the basics. I think why most of us are here is they want a car that does all the "car" things pretty well, but also does not suck the soul out of driving and might even be able to hold its own in a track setting without falling apart. For that this platform is already overachieving. Whoever said the car isn't practical, go buy an SUV. That argument holds NO water. I've never had any issues fitting my dog, multiple golf bags, 4 wheels AND tires, or whatever nonsense my wife wants to bring home from Lowe's or Ikea. GTFOH with the "it isn't practical" talk, I won't hear any of it.

But for folks who legit want to actively CHOOSE this platform as a purpose-built race car- whether or not you want to drive it on the street- I just have to wonder at the legitimacy of that. There really isn't a better option? In all seriousness- for a car like what's described with this laundry list of mods that will all ruin whatever practicality you'd want out of it- and coming in at less than $80k all in- why not just get an MX-5? Or an Evora, if you like to lift your pinky? Or anything that doesn't have 4 doors and front-wheel drive... and ideally something that doesn't share underpinnings with a $30k econobox.

I wish this conversation was more entertaining but it appears that it's still dead on arrival... and the primary reason is that the FL5 is just not set up from the start to be a good candidate for a race car. Probably why the HRC prototype cars died on the vine as marketing gimmicks and you can't order one from your local dealer...

There isn't a market for them.

Sponsored

 

[tezzasaurusrex]

I feel like I built this very car (refer my build thread).
It has a full interior (albiet 2 seater), practical as all hell (I can carry 8 wheels in it), close to 500hp, destroys BMW's, wins trophies, very low maintenance, and drives fantastic on both the street and the track.
Not sure what the hate is about. I like my car very much. If I could buy one just like it but with warranty, I would. I liken to a FL5GT3RS

 

[Cueyo]

If everything is "special" then nothing is.

End of the day. It's a god damned CIVIC. I don't get it- if you want a tricked out track car that can also be driven on the street, why TF does it have to have four doors?

What are we even talking about anymore?

Let's get back to the basics. I think why most of us are here is they want a car that does all the "car" things pretty well, but also does not suck the soul out of driving and might even be able to hold its own in a track setting without falling apart. For that this platform is already overachieving. Whoever said the car isn't practical, go buy an SUV. That argument holds NO water. I've never had any issues fitting my dog, multiple golf bags, 4 wheels AND tires, or whatever nonsense my wife wants to bring home from Lowe's or Ikea. GTFOH with the "it isn't practical" talk, I won't hear any of it.

But for folks who legit want to actively CHOOSE this platform as a purpose-built race car- whether or not you want to drive it on the street- I just have to wonder at the legitimacy of that. There really isn't a better option? In all seriousness- for a car like what's described with this laundry list of mods that will all ruin whatever practicality you'd want out of it- and coming in at less than $80k all in- why not just get an MX-5? Or an Evora, if you like to lift your pinky? Or anything that doesn't have 4 doors and front-wheel drive... and ideally something that doesn't share underpinnings with a $30k econobox.

I wish this conversation was more entertaining but it appears that it's still dead on arrival... and the primary reason is that the FL5 is just not set up from the start to be a good candidate for a race car. Probably why the HRC prototype cars died on the vine as marketing gimmicks and you can't order one from your local dealer...

There isn't a market for them.

Average optronix ragebait. A mk5 supra has a payload capacity that's only like 80lbs less than a type R. I'll amend what I said, it's practical BUT it's not the most practical vehicle if you need to carry around more than 2 people and some golf clubs. Also you drive the ITS, significantly more dailyable than the type R in every way.

 

[Cueyo]

Not sure what the hate is about. I like my car very much. If I could buy one just like it but with warranty, I would.

Consequence of people buying the car for different reasons. The type R is just good enough at everything that when it doesn't fit the mold someone wants its suddenly controversial.

The only thing that should be controversial is if someone slams these poor cars

 

[tezzasaurusrex]

Consequence of people buying the car for different reasons. The type R is just good enough at everything that when it doesn't fit the mold someone wants its suddenly controversial.

If you were a true Type R fan, why wouldn't you welcome the possibility of a lighter, faster, more focused RR version.

While extremely limited, the Mugen RR was a commercial success. The same can be done with the FL5. I am all for it.

 

[Cueyo]

If you were a true Type R fan, why wouldn't you welcome the possibility of a lighter, faster, more focused RR version.

While extremely limited, the Mugen RR was a commercial success. The same can be done with the FL5. I am all for it.

I've honestly been shocked that people didn't want one either (price agnostic ofc). You don't see those GTI guys saying they don't like those over the top GTI trims lol - the 50th edition one is $63k 🫪

 

[tezzasaurusrex]

I've honestly been shocked that people didn't want one either (price agnostic ofc). You don't see those GTI guys saying they don't like those over the top GTI trims lol - the 50th edition one is $63k 🫪

Wierd energy that's for sure.

 

[CG13]

Seems like what could be an interesting thread about how extreme people would want a special edition FL5 to be ends up being a place for people to make it a controversial topic.

With this type of thinking there wouldn’t even be a Type R and none of the special cars I listed in a previous post. There would be no TCR car and the only aftermarket parts would be aesthetic mods.

One of the things I love about Honda is that they will make a few vehicles that are not designed to be profit leaders on their own. The Type R, the ITS, the original NSX, the original NSX Type R, the RC30, RC45, the RC213V-S, the racing involvement (F1, MotoGP, WSBK, etc)- none of this makes sense if you’re trying to simply make the most money and build all purpose, maximum efficiency grocery getters.

The same can be said about Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and others. This is what I love about cars and it’s what goes away if enthusiasts won’t buy the niche cars or even show interest them.

I hope Honda continues to support this type of platform and doesn’t kill it because it doesn’t make the same margins as a Pilot or some future EV.

 

[ABPDE5]

Average optronix ragebait. A mk5 supra has a payload capacity that's only like 80lbs less than a type R. I'll amend what I said, it's practical BUT it's not the most practical vehicle if you need to carry around more than 2 people and some golf clubs. Also you drive the ITS, significantly more dailyable than the type R in every way.

I don't know that this is a fair response. I don't entirely agree with him that there's no market at all, but I think it's very limited, and his points about the platform's limitations are valid, even if his tone might seem to be somewhat condescending.

To Optronix's credit, he regularly AutoXs his car -- far more frequently than the vast majority of owners of this platform -- so it's not like he doesn't value the performance the cars bring or appreciate that aspect of ownership. To suggest his perspective is flawed because he owns an ITS over a Type-R is not fair either. The only "significantly more dailyable" element of the ITS is the damper module. Everything else is the same from that regard (minus, maybe, parking sensors or w/e). In fact, I'd venture to guess the FL5 has more cubic volume available in the hatch, based on its shape (complete conjecture), so you could argue the FL5 is "more dailyable" to some extent.

He is not wrong that the platform itself is extremely limited for an all-out track car and the primary appeal is the nexus of performance / engagement, flexibility / "dailyability", and price. I respect those that have built theirs to be track weapons first. I think it's a cool project, I appreciate the passion, and if you are interested, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit for personal fulfillment. I recognize you can make them fast, but... given the sacrifice and money spent, you could make other cars much faster. Suggesting that should not be met with disdain; it's reality. There is no getting around the limitations of a platform designed around a 30k economy car with FWD. I am not hating on this platform: I have one of these cars; I love it; I store it for the winter, and I plan to keep it as long as I can; I've taken steps to pursue addtl. engagement at the cost of comfort, etc. But, when it comes to a dedicated track weapon, it is far from the best platform to start with, especially if you are paying $80-100k (as would be the case with variants proposed here).

Personally, I think there are clearly people who like the idea of a more hardcore Type-R, but I'd question how many that like the concept would actually end up paying an $80k MSRP (likely meaning $90k OTD before ADMs). For a lot of people that end up spending that kind of money on the platform, a big part of the appeal is the project itself and the individual aspect of the build, not just the objective performance. I'm not saying Honda couldn't sell 350 or something -- they could -- but I really don't think there's a broader market for it. It would become a collector's item, not a car that's regularly driven or tracked. And, considering Honda's approach to the market, it does not seem like something they'd pursue.

 

[CG13]

I don't know that this is a fair response. I don't entirely agree with him that there's no market at all, but I think it's very limited, and his points about the platform's limitations are valid, even if his tone might seem to be somewhat condescending.

To Optronix's credit, he regularly AutoXs his car -- far more frequently than the vast majority of owners of this platform -- so it's not like he doesn't value the performance the cars bring or appreciate that aspect of ownership. To suggest his perspective is flawed because he owns an ITS over a Type-R is not fair either. The only "significantly more dailyable" element of the ITS is the damper module. Everything else is the same from that regard (minus, maybe, parking sensors or w/e). In fact, I'd venture to guess the FL5 has more cubic volume available in the hatch, based on its shape (complete conjecture), so you could argue the FL5 is "more dailyable" to some extent.

He is not wrong that the platform itself is extremely limited for an all-out track car and the primary appeal is the nexus of performance / engagement, flexibility / "dailyability", and price. I respect those that have built theirs to be track weapons first. I think it's a cool project, I appreciate the passion, and if you are interested, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit for personal fulfillment. I recognize you can make them fast, but... given the sacrifice and money spent, you could make other cars much faster. Suggesting that should not be met with disdain; it's reality. There is no getting around the limitations of a platform designed around a 30k economy car with FWD. I am not hating on this platform: I have one of these cars; I love it; I store it for the winter, and I plan to keep it as long as I can; I've taken steps to pursue addtl. engagement at the cost of comfort, etc. But, when it comes to a dedicated track weapon, it is far from the best platform to start with, especially if you are paying $80-100k (as would be the case with variants proposed here).

Personally, I think there are clearly people who like the idea of a more hardcore Type-R, but I'd question how many that like the concept would actually end up paying an $80k MSRP (likely meaning $90k OTD before ADMs). For a lot of people that end up spending that kind of money on the platform, a big part of the appeal is the project itself and the individual aspect of the build, not just the objective performance. I'm not saying Honda couldn't sell 350 or something -- they could -- but I really don't think there's a broader market for it. It would become a collector's item, not a car that's regularly driven or tracked. And, considering Honda's approach to the market, it does not seem like something they'd pursue.

Solid post here that adds to the discussion.

The one point I’d make regarding the track car piece is that most people I know who are tracking their cars are are NOT looking to build the fastest car. They’re looking to have the most fun, and make the fastest version of THEIR car. That is a huge distinction that is very important.

There aren’t even very many racing series that aim for the fastest possible car design. Most have an objective to have some level of parity through rules and regulations and some connection to vehicles the public can purchase so the manufacturers involved see an ROI (brand value, sales of lesser vehicles, parts, trickle down technology, etc).

The TCR car is proof you can make a highly capable (and I imagine a highly enjoyable) track car that has the FL5 as a starting point.

When I bought the FL5 I was very quickly close to my Evora GT lap times at the same track. The Evora is a mid-engine, NA car that is a much better fit for the typical “track car” platform. I find both very enjoyable on track, with the Evora’s primary hangup for me being the transmission and throttle response (as well as parts availability and reliability of the electronics). The FL5‘s biggest challenges for me were the cooling and the stock alignment limitations. The FWD vs RWD vs AWD is not as important to me because I’ve owned them all and they can all be enjoyable.

 

[Cueyo]

The only "significantly more dailyable" element of the ITS is the damper module. Everything else is the same from that regard (minus, maybe, parking sensors or w/e).

Disagree here, the seats alone are the biggest daily factor for myself. I've had multiple people complain about how difficult it is to get in and out of the car because of the bolsters and I don't disagree. Sitting in the type R for a road trip for someone like myself is one of the least comfortable experiences I've had. The ITS also has better materials, much better sound deafening, the HUD, better sound, how the vehicle is tuned (larger band where torque is useable) - just overall a better package for a daily vehicle (if you consider dailying a car to hinge on comfort and reliability).

By no means does that subtract from what it can do on track, I just think it's not the same as the type R for daily driving.

He is not wrong that the platform itself is extremely limited for an all-out track car and the primary appeal is the nexus of performance / engagement, flexibility / "dailyability", and price. I respect those that have built theirs to be track weapons first. I think it's a cool project, I appreciate the passion, and if you are interested, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit for personal fulfillment. I recognize you can make them fast, but... given the sacrifice and money spent, you could make other cars much faster. Suggesting that should not be met with disdain; it's reality. There is no getting around the limitations of a platform designed around a 30k economy car with FWD. I am not hating on this platform: I have one of these cars; I love it; I store it for the winter, and I plan to keep it as long as I can; I've taken steps to pursue addtl. engagement at the cost of comfort, etc. But, when it comes to a dedicated track weapon, it is far from the best platform to start with, especially if you are paying $80-100k (as would be the case with variants proposed here).

Don't disagree that the platform is limited here, Honda themselves admitted the aerodynamics of the type R were severely limiting (hence the prelude racecar adoption). However Honda is competing at the nth level in racing, with cars producing more HP and having extreme aero. Saying something like "this isn't a track car" when Honda only advertised it as such is ignorance. Honda making a more track oriented variation that takes advantage of the racecar DNA doesn't come close to touching that actual racecar. With the mindset present here, the Elantra N TCR is a stupid vehicle, yet it's keeping up with cars faster than it. That's to say, asking for a more extreme variation of a car only benefits us, it shouldn't be met with condescension. Skepticism is completely different.

I'm not saying Honda couldn't sell 350 or something -- they could -- but I really don't think there's a broader market for it.

Again, price is the factor here. If the Elantra N TCR, GRMN Corolla, WRX TS, etc. can exist, so can this. I don't think Honda even makes money on the type R tho.

 

[Higgs Boson]

Honda absolutely makes money on the Type R.

That's not the same thing as whether or not a Honda dealer makes money on a Type R, to be honest, there are not many makes/models that are actually profitable for a new car dealer, new car departments lose money, many times even after the factory money comes into play (which it doesn't always). Used cars, finance dept, parts, and service are where the money is made, new car dept is basically a neccesary evil that enables a dealer to have a more legitimate business and create a customer base for future service (and for the factory to hammer the franchisee on).

 

[ABPDE5]

The one point I’d make regarding the track car piece is that most people I know who are tracking their cars are are NOT looking to build the fastest car. They’re looking to have the most fun, and make the fastest version of THEIR car. That is a huge distinction that is very important.

There aren’t even very many racing series that aim for the fastest possible car design. Most have an objective to have some level of parity through rules and regulations and some connection to vehicles the public can purchase so the manufacturers involved see an ROI (brand value, sales of lesser vehicles, parts, trickle down technology, etc)...

...The FL5‘s biggest challenges for me were the cooling and the stock alignment limitations. The FWD vs RWD vs AWD is not as important to me because I’ve owned them all and they can all be enjoyable.

Much of this sentiment I agree with, and it's part of the reason I think that many people spending $80k+ total on an FL5 build wouldn't necessarily be the same people spending $80k+ on an OEM offering from Honda (although I'm sure they'd be among its biggest fans). A huge aspect to the hardcore FL5/DE5 builds (and of modifying cars in general) is the individual character or that build in particular. Part of the motivation is that it's your version of unique, so-to-speak.

Disagree here, the seats alone are the biggest daily factor for myself. I've had multiple people complain about how difficult it is to get in and out of the car because of the bolsters and I don't disagree. Sitting in the type R for a road trip for someone like myself is one of the least comfortable experiences I've had... The ITS also has better materials, much better sound deafening, the HUD, better sound, how the vehicle is tuned (larger band where torque is useable) - just overall a better package for a daily vehicle (if you consider dailying a car to hinge on comfort and reliability).

The interior of the ITS is nicer, but I don't think you can say that the FL5 interior isn't dailyable, either. It's nicer than standard trim Civics, which are only bought to daily, so it feels weird to me to count that against the FL5 re: being dailyable.

Your point about the seats is valid, to some extent, but I think a lot of that hinges on build / preference. Personally, the FL5 seats don't qualify as hardcore enough a bucket to detract from dailyability for me, although I will say my experience with them is always for short periods of time, so I can't speak to the roadtrip experience, and I'll defer to you there.

That said, the sound deadening aspect of the ITS is overblown. Reviewers parrot it because it's part of the marketing material from Acura, and it does have a bit more than the Type-R, but as someone who has ripped the entire interior out of their ITS to apply effective acoustic treatment because they wanted to be able to have a conversation with those riding in back, I can tell you it's a couple of 8"x8" squares of rigid foam that are maybe 5mm thick. It makes some difference, sure, but it's really hardly anything. The sound deadening in the ITS is a joke, and it's one of the biggest complaints from ITS owners who thought they were buying a luxury car and didn't realize they were buying a Civic with a vinyl interior on par with "EXL" Hondas (or w/e the trim line is now).

Again, price is the factor here. If the Elantra N TCR, GRMN Corolla, WRX TS, etc. can exist, so can this. I don't think Honda even makes money on the type R tho.

Toyota is making 750 GRMN Corolla's worldwide (check that -- that's based off memory). I think that's relevant to this discussion. It, too, will be a collector's item.

The WRX TS comes in at less than the FL5, and the Elantra N TCR comes in at sub-$40k (all pre-ADM, of course). That puts them at approx. half of what Honda would presumably charge for something like this. They're competing with the existing FL5 / DE5, not Porsches, M cars, etc. I don't think you can use them as a good comparison for what is being discussed here.

 

[Cueyo]

Honda absolutely makes money on the Type R.

That's not the same thing as whether or not a Honda dealer makes money on a Type R, to be honest, there are not many makes/models that are actually profitable for a new car dealer, new car departments lose money, many times even after the factory money comes into play (which it doesn't always). Used cars, finance dept, parts, and service are where the money is made, new car dept is basically a neccesary evil that enables a dealer to have a more legitimate business and create a customer base for future service (and for the factory to hammer the franchisee on).

This is the first time I'm hearing about this, my understanding was that profit was built into MSRP. Dealer markups also are incredibly common. I was basing the idea that Honda doesn't turn on a profit on the type R from other car companies that use their halo model to get people in the door (ie: nsx, lfa, etc).

 

[CG13]

I don’t know if there’s a way to know if the Type R makes money. The cost of R&D, the unique engine, body panels, chassis components etc, the manufacture in Japan and the logistics that go with that, lead me to believe it probably does NOT make money in the traditional sense (profit on each unit sold). The value to the brand is where I think these special vehicles (and all the racing involvement) potentially “make money.”

US Civic Sales in 2025: 238,661 (from Honda Digital Factbook)
US Type R sales in 2025: not called out, but the sales in 2023 were 1.7% of Civics (Motor1.com)

If that holds at 2%, they would have sold less than 5,000 in the US last year. Compare that to over 600,000 CRVs sold.

Sponsored