Review: 2024 Acura Integra Type S - In Defense of the Type S

[TemporarilyStairs]

Can someone link to that thread on the Civic XI channel where they are all hating on the ITS? I find this shit fascinating/strange as hell. I definitely understand the psychology of wanting to feel like you made the better choice, but still.. I've been seeing them do the same thing on the Civic Type R subreddit and it's honestly just funny to me.

Sponsored

 

[egxflash]

Can someone link to that thread on the Civic XI channel where they are all hating on the ITS? I find this shit fascinating/strange as hell. I definitely understand the psychology of wanting to feel like you made the better choice, but still.. I've been seeing them do the same thing on the Civic Type R subreddit and it's honestly just funny to me.

Right here: https://www.civicxi.com/forum/threads/driving-the-de5.53553/

 

[Tw1stedlog1k]

So. This is all anecdotal and by no means conclusive because 1. I'm a Type S owner by choice (I'll explain this) and 2. I'm just one (skewed) data point (see point #1 above).

My buddy dropped by with his long-awaited FL5 over the weekend, the car had 159 miles when it pulled into my driveway and I put another 100 on it myself through mixed, but mainly back road, driving.

Exterior Styling:
First impressions, visually it's a great car. Not "better" or "worse" than the Type S, just different. A more futuristic front end with the blended grill and headlights vs the Integra's more traditional 3-opening lower portions and distinct headlight & upper grill design. My preference obviously lies with the Type S. The big wing on the Type R is also cool and does not impede vision but, again, my preference there is with the Type S. Both cars have muscular, sculpted front ends, especially at the fenders. For the rear, I actually prefer the more pronounced, bulbous fenders of the Type S vs the massaged bulges on the Type R, reminds me of the Audi B6 S4. The Type R is bit more tame in that regard. The factory skirt extensions on the Type R fit its overall track-focused theme but I really dig the Type S and its aggressive bodywork too. Tie.

Interior:
Immediately, the seats are a huge improvement here vs the Type S. They hug even tighter than on my M2 Competition. I can see it being an issue for the wider folks but I'm not a big guy at 5'7" and 144lbs. Start up is a little more of an event in the Type R, their startup animation is cooler than our plain "Type S" logo. Akin to the intro screen to a video game. The LogR app and R+ gauges are pretty sick as well. Red lighting all around is also nice. The lack of HUD is a non-issue. Outside of the seats and gauges, the minor details like the passenger trim area that wraps around from the console to the glovebox, full-dash vent, and patterned shifter console, the cars feel pretty familiar otherwise. My buddy likes the more open space that the passenger has from the continuous dash but I prefer that area being enclosed like in the Integra. There's a little more road noise in the Type R and the Bose system sucks in comparison to the ELS lol. Overall I feel the Type R takes the win because of the more focused details.

Performance and Driving Experience:
We couldn't really push the car because it hasn't been broken in yet, but from the driver's seat, it's all the same as the Integra with the exception of R+. R+ suspension is tolerable and not as "unlivable" as some reviews make it to be but at the same time, I wouldn't be riding in that for any extended period of time save for some smooth roads. My buddy has his set to Comfort for individual mode. Candidly enough, I have mine set to Sport on the Integra. Where the Type R really falters is that the exhaust is noticeably more quiet in all drive modes. I know it's a global market thing that it doesn't get pops, bangs and a louder exhaust but that immediately stood out to me. I get it can be fixed with a tune but, out of the box, the Type S edges out the Type R here. I also didn't notice any throttle and steering difference in the different drive modes, I feel it carries over directly from both cars, only suspension is kicked up a notch in the Type R. For most, I assume they'd have more use for the Integra's Comfort setting than the Civic's R+ setting. YMMV.

Misc:
Headlights suck on both cars. I mean they work well for what they are but because of the cars' height, the lights are aimed straight/too low and cast a lot of shadows on dark roads. There's more intensity and width on the Integra but we would need a higher riding car to make use of that. Kinda sucks because the LED jewels on my wife's RDX are really good.

So full disclosure, the Type R never interested me despite it's pedigree and performance portfolio. I never considered it as a car I would ever own. I would have owned an Si before a Type R. When the Type S was announced and specs later revealed, along with the styling renders, I was all over it. These two cars are already in a niche market and the Type S even more so. The price difference between the two are a bit of a drawback but ultimately I think it's justified in what you get, that being not a lot more than the Type R. The visuals and overall driving experience are really what drove me to the Type S and I knew I had to have it. I really love the way it (mostly) blends in with regular traffic, you can't get that with the Type R. In my short 100 miles, I had more people try to engage the car (both negatively and positively) than I did in the Type S. That's a "me" thing but I just couldn't live with that Type R experience. That, plus the the better sound system and exhaust makes the Type S experience more pleasant and enjoyable for the everyday drive. Ultimately that's what I use the Type S for. It's my A to B car and I have absolutely no intention of tracking it. Just 100% street car with a bit of oomph and a lot of driving engagement to keep the drive interesting without breaking the law to do so.

 

[bvanlieu]

You lost me at the wing is cool.

Whats great is that both cars exists and people have that level of choice which is getting harder and harder with the advent of 80K 4 wheel sewing machines and a fleet of boring sport cutes posing as off road vehicles.

 

[NoelPR]

The majority of comparisons are ITS vs CTR, but they should also include the Accord. I have a 10th gen Accord 2.0T Touring, and one of the value questions for me is how the Accord 2.0T Touring retailed for over $10k less but feels more premium and has more luxury features. Moonroof, cooled seats, power passenger seat, memory seating, Homelink. The infotainment system seems better, the steering wheel is thicker and shaped better, and all the buttons and switches feel great. Still has the 2.0T turbo motor and adaptive dampers. My wife often says I now have two Accords. They drive totally different so there's that.

The single oddest thing to me is that the Accord Touring HUD has a S2000 style rev counter with a gear indicator, and the ITS does not.

Honda luxury trims usually come well equipped with lots of add ons.

The answer to the value is simple.
Inflation plays a primary role.
Then you have the different areas that the money goes in the ITS vs the accord.

One focuses in performance the other in comfort.

 

[StingertimeNC]

The kid in me wants the wing! I also like the seats in the CTR, weirdly, when I sat in the CTR, it felt more sporty or special or something. Maybe the red carpet, the extra alcantara, the red badges, the legacy of type R, hard to describe. We definitely have a better looking exterior, but I like the CTR's exterior almost as much.

 

[TemporarilyStairs]

The kid in me wants the wing! I also like the seats in the CTR, weirdly, when I sat in the CTR, it felt more sporty or special or something. Maybe the red carpet, the extra alcantara, the red badges, the legacy of type R, hard to describe. We definitely have a better looking exterior, but I like the CTR's exterior almost as much.

The 'more special' trope is so tiresome to me. Go to Motoring Obsession and there are 789 CTRs on site right now. Compare the ITS and there are only 342. Red interior = more problematic for me (we bring our dog with us all the time). Giant wing is definitely cool in your 20s but I'm nearing 40 now and my gf hated it lol. I also love having heated seats and my heated steering wheel.

 

[NoelPR]

The 'more special' trope is so tiresome to me. Go to Motoring Obsession and there are 789 CTRs on site right now. Compare the ITS and there are only 342. Red interior = more problematic for me (we bring our dog with us all the time). Giant wing is definitely cool in your 20s but I'm nearing 40 now and my gf hated it lol. I also love having heated seats and my heated steering wheel.

But but but the CTR is more exclusive and limited ....

How can you consider limited a vehice that is sold worldwide?

The ITS is sold only in MX and North America. That in my book is considered limited.

 

[TemporarilyStairs]

But but but the CTR is more exclusive and limited ....

How can you consider limited a vehice that is sold worldwide?

The ITS is sold only in MX and North America. That in my book is considered limited.

Mexico is part of North America for the record

 

[NoelPR]

Mexico is part of North America for the record

I thought it was central.

 

[pomegranate]

The majority of comparisons are ITS vs CTR, but they should also include the Accord. I have a 10th gen Accord 2.0T Touring, and one of the value questions for me is how the Accord 2.0T Touring retailed for over $10k less but feels more premium and has more luxury features. Moonroof, cooled seats, power passenger seat, memory seating, Homelink. The infotainment system seems better, the steering wheel is thicker and shaped better, and all the buttons and switches feel great. Still has the 2.0T turbo motor and adaptive dampers. My wife often says I now have two Accords. They drive totally different so there's that.

The single oddest thing to me is that the Accord Touring HUD has a S2000 style rev counter with a gear indicator, and the ITS does not.

I forget the 2.0t Accord exists sometimes. Even more so, I always think of the Accord Sport, but I think the top trim (Sport Touring) also came in the 2.0t.

Ventilated seats and nicer materials with the 2.0t definitely sounds nice. No manual, so it won’t appeal to those in this forum, but I see the appeal. 2.0t Accords are actually surprisingly cheap too. Too bad the only way to get it now is with the heavy, gas guzzling TLX.

 

[porkster]

Honda luxury trims usually come well equipped with lots of add ons.

The answer to the value is simple.
Inflation plays a primary role.
Then you have the different areas that the money goes in the ITS vs the accord.

One focuses in performance the other in comfort.

Inflation is a good point, but I can't see the Accord ever being formally listed as a $50k+ car. I believe the new one tops out at $38k. If both cars were the same price, I would agree that they would have to "remove" features in the Accord as a compromise of what to add in the ITS. Since the ITS has more than a $10k buffer, I think the "standard features" like the homelink and ventilated/power seats and maybe some of the HUD features should have been included. The Accord already came with the 2.0 turbo motor and adaptive dampers, but certainly there's more to that in the name of overall performance. My Accord simply could not touch the ITS in the driving experience.

I forget the 2.0t Accord exists sometimes. Even more so, I always think of the Accord Sport, but I think the top trim (Sport Touring) also came in the 2.0t.

Ventilated seats and nicer materials with the 2.0t definitely sounds nice. No manual, so it won’t appeal to those in this forum, but I see the appeal. 2.0t Accords are actually surprisingly cheap too. Too bad the only way to get it now is with the heavy, gas guzzling TLX.

Both TLX 2.0T and Accord 2.0T owners and reviewers agree-- the Accord is the better performing car. Primarily because of the massive weight difference, regular gas in the Accord, and more space, it was just the elephant in the room that you get a compromised driving experience with paying more. Too bad because the TLX looks great. To me, the worst part was that the solution wasn't to make the TLX better, it was to nerf the new Accord and no longer offer the 2.0T as an option.

 

[pomegranate]

Inflation is a good point, but I can't see the Accord ever being formally listed as a $50k+ car. I believe the new one tops out at $38k. If both cars were the same price, I would agree that they would have to "remove" features in the Accord as a compromise of what to add in the ITS. Since the ITS has more than a $10k buffer, I think the "standard features" like the homelink and ventilated/power seats and maybe some of the HUD features should have been included. The Accord already came with the 2.0 turbo motor and adaptive dampers, but certainly there's more to that in the name of overall performance. My Accord simply could not touch the ITS in the driving experience.



Both TLX 2.0T and Accord 2.0T owners and reviewers agree-- the Accord is the better performing car. Primarily because of the massive weight difference, regular gas in the Accord, and more space, it was just the elephant in the room that you get a compromised driving experience with paying more. Too bad because the TLX looks great. To me, the worst part was that the solution wasn't to make the TLX better, it was to nerf the new Accord and no longer offer the 2.0T as an option.

The TLX just sucks. I can't stop repeating this, but look at this.

FWD i4 TLX 272hp gets 22/31 in fuel economy. ~3750lbs
AWD v6 TLX Type S 355hp gets 19/25 in fuel economy. ~4,420lbs $57k
AWD i6 BMW m340i 382hp gets 23/31 in fuel economy. ~3900lbs $62k

Now, people usually say others don't care about fuel economy when it comes to a "performance sedan", but then the same goes for value. Pay a bit more, and you get A LOT more car than the TLX provides. Better fuel economy, performance, interior space, badge, etc. What's the point in "value" when you're making it up in gas money too? Anyone who thinks Honda buyers looking to move up wouldn't care about fuel economy is exactly part of why Acura isn't so big, while Lexus is.

I'd get A LOT of hate for suggesting this, but I honestly think the TLX would be better of as an EV or with an EV version like BMW did with the i4. Firstly, it'd be a nice stopgap between Honda's own dedicated EV platform and nothing at all. The TLX already has a lot of space for a battery because of their decision to give it RWD proportions in sacrifice of everything else. The fuel economy and performance being the biggest weaknesses of the TLX is made up by an instant torque EV power train. And finally, Acura/Honda has already dedicated so much RnD into the TLX, so why not give it more life? The way the TLX is selling now, it doesn't justify another ICE generation, so Honda should reuse what they already have. Honestly, I'd purchase one even if it were only ~270ish miles of range.

 

[TheRas900]

After having two TLX loaners, I am still surprised how little I desire a car which should be an upgrade from the Integra. Other than interior materials, there is nothing it does better (in regular or Type S trims) than it's little brother.

 

[joemama]

Just bought an apex blue type S here in Houston on Saturday. Decided to join the forum and get in on the action with the community. This thread was especially interesting... couldn't help but think who gives a hoot lol. Just buy whatever car you want and enjoy it - personal decision.

Sponsored