Integra type S vs Civic type R

[optronix]

It would be really tough for me to pass up a CTR at MSRP. I don't think I would, actually. Even over an ITS at MSRP. I think I prefer the ITS over the CTR and think it's worth the premium, but knowing the value prop of what the cars are worth is fiddling with my algorithm.

But getting a CTR at MSRP is a fool's errand. At least right now. Mark i.e., savagegeese is the only person I know on the planet who got one at MSRP. Not saying he is the only one just that he might be.

Lol. I'm even more of an authority since I posted the same conclusion hours before you.

Sponsored

 

[HvnterTheHvngry]

I can understand the Type R mark-up a little bit. The cars each have a number, they are made in Japan, it looks amazing (subjective) and the driving experience is second to none for its intended purpose. Is all that worth 15-20k over asking? Hell no, but I can see why the average is 54-55 ish.

I cannot understand the ITS mark-up other than leftover Type R hype and greed. The only special thing about the car is it comes in manual only and is somewhat of a call back to the 90s. Otherwise it is good not great behind the wheel compared to similarly priced (after mark-up) peers. Its also missing features that similarly priced (after mark-up) peers have. The rear fenders are offensive with how they didn't mold them into the door or quarter panel. The exhaust is about the only thing that couldn't have been done better.

People can spend their money how they want but I don't believe that this car is an objectively good or even neutral value considering the behavior of dealerships.

 

[VarmintCong]

Now that the ITS is available....anybody switching or planning on holding out for the CTR?

Mike

I can’t buy til summer 2025 when I return to the US, and by then if the CTR is going for MSRP, I’ll buy one.

I prefer the ITS overall for the ELS, more usable suspension range and color choices, but the ITS is really getting up there in price and size, while still missing some key luxury features, and I have to consider an IS500 or 6mT CT4V Blackwing.

by 2025 I’m hoping there’s a new GR Corolla coming that’s roomier with nicer interior, I’d really consider that. But that’s probably more like 2026 and I’ll need a car by June 2025.

 

[ChromaPop]

I can’t buy til summer 2025 when I return to the US, and by then if the CTR is going for MSRP, I’ll buy one.

I prefer the ITS overall for the ELS, more usable suspension range and color choices, but the ITS is really getting up there in price and size, while still missing some key luxury features, and I have to consider an IS500 or 6mT CT4V Blackwing.

by 2025 I’m hoping there’s a new GR Corolla coming that’s roomier with nicer interior, I’d really consider that. But that’s probably more like 2026 and I’ll need a car by June 2025.

There's a good chance that by 2026 or slightly thereafter you will have to be buying a used car to get a manual transmission and an ICE.

 

[VtecBuddy]

I cannot understand the ITS mark-up other than leftover Type R hype and greed. The only special thing about the car is it comes in manual only and is somewhat of a call back to the 90s. Otherwise it is good not great behind the wheel compared to similarly priced (after mark-up) peers. Its also missing features that similarly priced (after mark-up) peers have. The rear fenders are offensive with how they didn't mold them into the door or quarter panel. The exhaust is about the only thing that couldn't have been done better.

People can spend their money how they want but I don't believe that this car is an objectively good or even neutral value considering the behavior of dealerships.

Also, I think we can expect roughly the same ITS and CTR production numbers, but there's 4x as many Honda dealerships. It's weird enough that Honda dealers are charging a massive markup while they have 2-3 CTRs sitting for weeks, it'll be very strange for an Acura dealer to sit there with 8-12 ITSs on the lot with markups sitting for several weeks. However, if you're in a city with only 1-2 Acura dealers, that'll hurt because they have too much pricing power and know you don't have any other options to go to.

 

[Integra23]

I just did a quick search for the TLX Type S nationwide which is showing a little over 200 units(1 per a dealership). The standard TLX is showing 2700 units.
I am seeing similar numbers on the integra. With 200 Type S showing on the search and 2500 standard integras.

 

[slo_its]

Now that the ITS is available....anybody switching or planning on holding out for the CTR?

Mike

I still have a deposit on a CTR after nearly two years. I'm taking delivery of an ITS in a few weeks at most. Will hold off on pulling my CTR deposit until I decide I won't be drooling over the CTR each time I see it while having the ITS.

It's likely for me to pick CTR for a straight up trade for ITS. But I won't hold my breath. For that. Lol. I already had to pay a bit of a premium on the ITS and I can't justify losing its creature comforts and pay more for CTR exclusive features. I'd rather just bring those features to the ITS.

Really I think fl5 CTR will have the better looks 20 years from now. I'm not sure I can say the same about ITS. Though that's my point of view. I feel like I've grown to love the looks of the old EK9 type R, but I can't say the same about DC5 type R. Not that I don't like DC5 looks, I just don't love it as much. Maybe I'm just crazy .

That being said, I would not feel bad to mod the hell out of the ITS as opposed to the CTR, which I feel I have a bit of an obligation to retain a piece of automotive history. Lol

 

[lumper]

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-acura-integra-type-s-first-test-review/

Triggered. The s is slower.

No reason to compare then in a vs IMO.
The CTR is more track-centric, the ITS is a street premium performance car, daily driver with bite, that yes you can track but it wasn't built for the track necessarily in mind.
the CTR has the logs, gauges, seats, weight reduction, suspension, etc.. for the track as compared to the ITS.
I think they are both great cars, with different drivers in mind.
I never ever track my cars or have any interest, I like comfort, performance and styling for me the ITS is the better car, but not better in a literal sense, just better for me and my style.
Id love a CTR if I could get one for under 50k.

 

[Azkyrie6]

There's a good chance that by 2026 or slightly thereafter you will have to be buying a used car to get a manual transmission and an ICE.

I still have severe doubts that will ever come to fruition. Too many worldly and technical variables involved to shut people out of ICE cars. As an Electrical engineer, I don’t own an electric vehicle. None of my colleagues do either. I’ll leave it at that

 

[VarmintCong]

There's a good chance that by 2026 or slightly thereafter you will have to be buying a used car to get a manual transmission and an ICE.

I believe the public will turn on EVs in the next couple years and governments will be forced to back off their ridiculous campaign to eliminate ICE. Manuals are another story.

 

[ChromaPop]

I still have severe doubts that will ever come to fruition. Too many worldly and technical variables involved to shut people out of ICE cars. As an Electrical engineer, I don’t own an electric vehicle. None of my colleagues do either. I’ll leave it at that

Curious of your thoughts on Solid State Battery Technology and it's benefits as Toyota is investing heavily in? And yes I agree with you, but I stated both ICE with a MT.

 

[Azkyrie6]

Curious of your thoughts on Solid State Battery Technology and it's benefits as Toyota is investing heavily in? And yes I agree with you, but I stated both ICE with a MT.

I follow two companies that develop solid state batteries, Solid Power and Samsung, both of which are developing solid state batteries with contracts for car manufacturers. It’s a step forward; which increases the range of electric cars and helps eliminate battery explosions and battery size. The cost is still high and materials; toxic to the earth. Currently we’d have to dig up 500k lbs of earth for the materials needed for one EV battery. Toyota has been in the hybrid development for quite some time and there are benefits.

The real issues are with electric power generation and transmission. We’re talking about generating electricity to replace abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) and solar/wind will never cut it. Hydroelectric power is the best renewable we’ve got and even that is but a fraction of generation. What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos.

Our power grid is grossly outdated and congested. Small businesses in America are embedded with infrastructure that relies on gas and oil, we’d need money and decades to replace all of that.

USA has enough oil to extract and develop for at least a century, not too long ago we were a net exporter for the first time. Yet, how can a state like California expect to ban ICE vehicles by 2030 when they’re constantly scarce on electricity limiting people from usage?

There’s a lot to dive into here this is only scratching the surface. Acura Honda Toyota vw etc., developed manual for their high end sports cars recently for a reason. Clearly much demand still there.

There’s a place in the future for both ICE and EV, certainly hybrid. We’re still decades out from having super batteries and even longer to replace infrastructure and a power source beyond abiotic and electric.

Edit: batteries degrade, capacity severely decreases in extreme cold conditions. The cost to replace electric car batteries is astronomical on the order of 10k-15k, owners will find that out soon. EV batteries are made specifically for certain models, car companies don’t just produce off the shelf EV batteries sitting in a warehouse waiting for people to buy for replacement. Too expensive and it degrades while sitting there

 

[SierraOne]

The real issues are with electric power generation and transmission. We’re talking about generating electricity to replace abiotic fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) and solar/wind will never cut it. Hydroelectric power is the best renewable we’ve got and even that is but a fraction of generation. What would the implications be if the countries that have oil no longer had people to sell it to? War and chaos.

That being said, there absolutely should be incentives to convert to EV for places where most of the power is hydroelectric or nuclear. Specifically thinking of Quebec, where 94% of power comes from hydro.

"But it gets too cold for BEVs!" you might think. "Rural areas don't have charging infrastructure!" others will say.

That's why I don't think banning ICE or levying taxes on ICE is the way to go. We should be subsidizing EVs in these places so that there are no barrier to entry for people for whom BEVs make sense (i.e. city folk, indoor parking, residents of high rises). It doesn't make sense to ban or tax ICE for people where there are no realistic alternatives. For everyone else, just leave it as it is, and instead focus the time, money, and energy (pun intended) on developing more renewables, so that EVs will start making sense for everyone.

 

[VtecBuddy]

I believe the public will turn on EVs in the next couple years and governments will be forced to back off their ridiculous campaign to eliminate ICE. Manuals are another story.

Can you expand on why you think people will turn on EVs? Consumer adoption of EVs seems to gradually be increasing.

 

[Azkyrie6]

That being said, there absolutely should be incentives to convert to EV for places where most of the power is hydroelectric or nuclear. Specifically thinking of Quebec, where 94% of power comes from hydro.

"But it gets too cold for BEVs!" you might think. "Rural areas don't have charging infrastructure!" others will say.

That's why I don't think banning ICE or levying taxes on ICE is the way to go. We should be subsidizing EVs in these places so that there are no barrier to entry for people for whom BEVs make sense (i.e. city folk, indoor parking, residents of high rises). It doesn't make sense to ban or tax ICE for people where there are no realistic alternatives. For everyone else, just leave it as it is, and instead focus the time, money, and energy (pun intended) on developing more renewables, so that EVs will start making sense for everyone.

If you’re in Quebec it’s mainly ABB, Inc. I’ve worked with them on a number of large contracts for hydroelectric powerplants.

Banning and taxes on ICE is more of a political play than it is a practical purpose. We’re talking hundreds of millions of ICE cars, trucks, utility trucks, law enforcement/health service vehicles, semi-trucks, airplanes to be replaced and the amount of batteries that would be needed.

Take a look at the money that’s gone into solar/wind the past two decades and where has that gotten? It’s not a reliable and efficient replacement. How realistically can solar panels be dropped everywhere? Then you’re dealing with geographical limitations and destroying wildlife. By the time the DC to AC conversion is done solar cells have to be replaced. Hydropower is tapped out, we’ve installed dams at all the feasible locations.

To make a jump to all EV, we’d still be burning more oil coal and gas and need to dump trillions to upgrade power grid transmission. It’s not about renewables but rather a cheap and efficient power source along with super batteries, both of which we do not have.

I do agree that in heavily populated condensed areas, electric transportation can be beneficial. At present time, every house and commercial business has buried gas lines. Replacing that infrastructure and pumping out equivalent energy generation isn’t going to happen any time soon

Sponsored