Talk:Honda Type R

Cleanup
Massive re-hashing of article. Less like a magazine editorial and more like an encyclopedia bit. Unfortunately, it's very hard to find specific information on the Type-R models other than the Integra. -- MadmanNova 06:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Cleanup, someone said ... ... just copying that here. -- sabre23t 00:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Honda Type-R- Article obviously written by a British Honda fan. Too much opinion, lists only British-market Type-Rs (ie. no Japanese NSX Type-R or US Acura Integra Type-R)

Perhaps a rename from Honda Type-R to Honda Type-R (UK) is all this article needs? -- sabre23t 00:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There's nothing exceptionally notable about Type-R in the UK except that certain combinations of models are sold there.  I could be convinced that this page really needed to be Type-R (UK) if it contained only UK-specific information and if (and this is a big if) there was already a well-developed Type-R article.  At present, this just needs to be expanded to included information from other non-UK models.


 * I recommend moving this back to Honda Type-R and fleshing out the data more. Commentary?  --Milkmandan 08:35, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move this page into a general Type-R page, & info from US & JDM Type-Rs can be added in, creating a Type-R listing that deals with US/JDM/EU markets.

On second thought, I concur that this page is somewhat unnecessary. For example, the Acura Integra Type-R is sectioned under the Acura Integra page. Perhaps a disambiguation for Honda Type-R models with linking to the particular models? Mike Tigas 06:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Original "R" definition not "Racing"
The first Type R model was the NSX-R. The R in this form was not to denote "Racing" - The Japanese used "R" to denote "REDUCED WEIGHT". Following its success, later models like the Integra and Civic enjoyed popularity and a cult following in Western culture where Honda marketing denoted "R" for "Racing", tying in with Honda's racing philosophy and involvement in Formula One.

The Accord Type-R only ever existed in the EU...
...comment from original author, mortified at some of the unnecessary pap which has appeared on this page...

Any mention of USDM or JDM model Accords in the Accord Type-R section are irrelevant. Only the EU had the Accord Type-R, the SiR and Euro-R have no relevance to the "Type-R" name/brand. A separate article should be written if required for these models.

merge with EK9 Type R
I feel that the EK9 article should be merged in, currently the article contains little appropriate info not present on this page. The technical specs could be merged in if desired, but I don't really feel that they are encyclopedic. Having a entire page devoted to one trim level of one generation of one model seems a little like overkill to me. Of course if an encyclopedic article were written about the EK9 it would be appropriate, but as it stands it is little more then a stat sheet. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but me and all ek9 honda civic type r lovers want a private space to see information just of the car we love, not just general info of all the cars. So please don't modify our article. rveram.
 * Please see WP:OWN, there are no private pages. Currently there is no encyclopedic content not covered on the main Type R page that is on the current EK9 page.  If you want to have a separate page please add actual content and please do not remove the merge tag until others have had a chance to discuss. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not a private page, its a article only for ek9 honda civic type r information, why should I merge my article with a page that only uses a photo of my original article, please don 't edit it and do what ever you want with your article and leave my article alone. thanks. rveram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rveram (talk • contribs).
 * Again please read WP:OWN. Neither article is yours or mine and do not remove the merge tag again.  Wait for other editors to comment. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

mesasge from blinx9900: hi guys i stumbled across your discussion and i just wanted to say, if the wiki can have an entire page dedicated to 1 Anime character (which is hardly encyclopedic) then it should be 100% acceptable for a single model car to have its own page. i see no reason for the merge. there are a million things on wiki that arent encyclopedic, i think the ek9 page is very informative and should remain "stand alone". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * What is informative about it? It contains largely the same info as the Type R page. Also the presence of other encyclopedic pages is not a reason to keep one. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

message from blinx9900: the only part of the page i disagree with is the mods section which discusses modifications, i would remove that only becuase it is highly subjective and people will have different opinions on what should be dont if any mods at all (i see now that part has been removed). to answer your question about what info i feel is informative: dimensions/weight/bore/stroke/all engine specs/drivetrain/gear ratio's/ also info on suspension/brakes/fuel capacity/ all of the main equipment listed and all of the exterior equipment listed which just made me realize LSD should be under drivetrain, but yeah, it has A LOT of info not covered on the type-r page, if it were merged the all the other type r chasis info would be pale in comparison, uneless we are to add ALL that info for ALL the type r cars, then i could see a merge happening if all the info is retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * A page who's only purpose is to store statistics is a violation of WP:NOT specifically not a collection of statistics. It would be better to link to an off site page that contained the less important stats like bore/stroke and gear ratios. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What statistics ? my personal opinion has been removed from the article and right now the article doesn't violate wp:not. Thanks anyways for your recommendation. rveram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rveram (talk • contribs).

message from blinx9900: Statistics? the page lists absolutely NO statistics at all, the page lists specifications, there is a major difference between the two words hence the page is not in violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I think it would be more appropriate to merge it into the Honda Civic Type R page, considering this page covers a wider area of Honda models. Willirennen 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Civic Type R main page
I was thinking that this might be a good idea in line with BMW M3 or Audi S4. I would imagine shortening this page to just the lead and linking to the Type R sections for the NSX and Accord as they are much less ubiquitous then the Civic Type R. I would still support a merge of the EK9 page into the Civic Type R page, but I think this would serve as a good compromise. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

civic type r
honda civic type r has a vtec

Punctuation?
"Type R" and "Type-R" are both used here-and-there on Wikipedia's Honda articles. Any chance of picking (an official) one and sticking with it?--Charles Gaudette (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this need its own article?
I mean really...CJ DUB (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this page is an appropriate summary of a range of trim levels that share a common heritage. It is similar to Special Vehicle Team, Audi S and RS models and BMW M. --Leivick (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh no, those are all separate departments of the OEMs. The "R-designation" is nothing more than a trim level with some go fast parts under the umbrella of the parent company. CJ DUB (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RS and S are just trim levels, no different than Type-R. BMW M used to be more of its own department, but the current M range is exactly the same as the Type-R ranges in that they are the top of the line trim level, made in the same factory.  If you want to delete this article, WP:AFD is that away. --Leivick (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote for rapid deletion. I don't see separate pages for Audi and Porsche trim levels (e.g. Carrera 911 S, GT3 RS), but i do for M-motorsport, SVT, and AMG, which are not trim levels but separate enitities. CJ DUB (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Audi S and RS models is a separate page for an two Audi trim levels. In any case, typing "Vote for rapid deletion" on this page isn't going to get this article deleted.  You will have to use AfD. --Leivick (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Even as an owner of a "Type R", a UK Market Civic, it is just a trim level. It shares a body with a US Market Si, shares some bits with a US market "Type S" and has a totally different engine than the Japanese market "Type R". This page is an odd conglomeration of fan boy marketing hype. 222.68.240.131 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Accord Type-R, the chassis was made stiffer and the addition of bigger brakes, a hand finished H22a7 engine, Limited slip differential, this is somewhat more than "trim level". (user Timmy2Shooz)

Sigh. There is not a single citation in this article. What's this "Type R was originally designed for the track"? lol. Has there been a Type R in professional racing, I mean EVER? Don't think so. Therefore statement is redundant fancruft. Prove me wrong, guys.

True, but in the US the Type R did run well in the SCCA Showroom stock. Um what massmarket car with A/C is raced by "professional racers?" I can't think of one.

I entered recent data from Inside line, I also edited out the 9000 RPM red line, as all ITR have the same tac and they all sit at 8400 RPM, the rev limiter is different in each country, The USDM is 8600 RPM, the South Asian market is 8800? or so I've been told. There were no ITRs with a "9000 rpm red line" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.143.21 (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa
This page is infected by Integra fanboyism. There is a lot of trivial details which don't match the style of the other sections. CJ DUB (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)