Honda Civic Type R (FN2)
Car comparison
Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0vsRenault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonRenault Clio III (PHASE I)
RS 2.0 16V
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.6 s
- Fastest top speed235 km/h146 mph
- Most powerful201 hp150 kW
- Lowest highway consumption7.0 L/100 km33.6 mpg US40.4 mpg UK
- Largest trunk485 L
- Best overall score57/100
- Best performance score53/100
- Best practicality score67/100
Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V
- Highest torque215 Nm159 lb-ft
- Lightest1,240 kg2,734 lb
- Best power-to-weight161 hp/t120 kW/t6.2 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption8.9 L/100 km26.4 mpg US31.7 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption12.2 L/100 km19.3 mpg US23.2 mpg UK
- Best estimated range618 km384 mi
- Best economy score83/100
Specification comparison
| Model | HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 201hp150kW | 200hp149kW |
| Torque | 193Nm142lb-ft | 215Nm159lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,267kg2,793lb | 1,240kg2,734lb |
| Gross weight | 1,700kg3,748lb | 1,690kg3,726lb |
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 71.6s99% target: 233 km/h / 145 mph Calculated | 69.4s99% target: 213 km/h / 132 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.6s | 6.9s |
| 0-200 km/h | 26.5s Calculated | 36.8s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.3s Calculated | 6.5s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 9.1L/100 km25.8mpg US31.0mpg UK | 8.9L/100 km26.4mpg US31.7mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 12.7L/100 km18.5mpg US22.2mpg UK | 12.2L/100 km19.3mpg US23.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7L/100 km33.6mpg US40.4mpg UK | 7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.7s Calculated | 15.0s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 159hp/t118kW/t72hp/1000 lb Calculated | 161hp/t120kW/t73hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 152Nm/t102lb-ft/ton Calculated | 173Nm/t116lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 549km341mi Calculated | 618km384mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,998cc122cu in | 1,998cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,276mm168in | 3,991mm157in |
| Width | 1,785mm70in | 1,768mm70in |
| Height | 1,445mm57in | 1,477mm58in |
| Wheelbase | 2,635mm104in | 2,585mm102in |
| Front track | 1,505mm59in | 1,520mm60in |
| Rear track | 1,530mm60in | 1,520mm60in |
| Trunk volume | 485L | 288L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,352L | 1,028L |
| Doors | 3 | 3 |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Fuel tank | 50L | 55L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0: Power / Torque
- Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 7,800 rpm | 5,600 rpm | 8,050 rpm |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 7,250 rpm | 5,500 rpm | 7,500 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.3 s | 6.5 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.6 s | 6.9 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 26.5 s | 36.8 s |
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.5 s | 2.4 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.4 s | 6.5 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.6 s | 9.7 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.4 s | 12.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.7 s | 15.0 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 159 km/h 99 mph | 152 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 201 hp 150 kW |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 200 hp 149 kW |
Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0 has 1 hp more than Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V.
The biggest power difference is between Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V and Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0: 1 hp (1 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 193 Nm 142 lb-ft |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 215 Nm 159 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 1,267 kg 2,793 lb |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 1,240 kg 2,734 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 215 km/h 134 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 6.6 s |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 6.9 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0 and Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V: 0.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 9.1 L/100 km 25.8 mpg US 31.0 mpg UK |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 8.9 L/100 km 26.4 mpg US 31.7 mpg UK |
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 549 km 341 mi |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 618 km 384 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 201 hp 150 kW | 6.6 s | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 200 hp 149 kW | 6.9 s | 215 km/h 134 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 |
| 9.1 L/100 km 25.8 mpg US 31.0 mpg UK | ||||||
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V |
| 8.9 L/100 km 26.4 mpg US 31.7 mpg UK | ||||||
Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 9.1 L/100 km 25.8 mpg US 31.0 mpg UK | 6.6 s |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 8.9 L/100 km 26.4 mpg US 31.7 mpg UK | 6.9 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp | 9.1 L/100 km 25.8 mpg US 31.0 mpg UK |
| RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp | 8.9 L/100 km 26.4 mpg US 31.7 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | HondaCivic Type R (FN2)2.0 | RenaultClio III (PHASE I)RS 2.0 16V | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 201 hp 150 kW | 200 hp 149 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 193 Nm 142 lb-ft | 215 Nm 159 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.6 s | 6.9 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 235 km/h 146 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,267 kg 2,793 lb | 1,240 kg 2,734 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 9.1 L/100 km 25.8 mpg US 31.0 mpg UK | 8.9 L/100 km 26.4 mpg US 31.7 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 549 km 341 mi | 618 km 384 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 485 L 17.1 cu ft | 288 L 10.2 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 159 hp/t 118 kW/t 6.3 kg/hp | 161 hp/t 120 kW/t 6.2 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0 | Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 9.1 L/100 km25.8 mpg US31 mpg UK | 8.9 L/100 km26.4 mpg US31.7 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 15.92 LC100 km | 15.58 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 25.63 LC100 mi | 25.07 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,365 L361 US gal300 UK gal | 1,335 L353 US gal294 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,389 LC/year | 2,336 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Honda Civic Type R (FN2) 2.0
- Has 1 hp more
- Is 0.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 20 km/h (12 mph) higher top speed
- Has 197 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
Renault Clio III (PHASE I) RS 2.0 16V
- Has 22 Nm more
- Is 27 kg lighter
- Uses 0.2 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 3 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 69 km (43 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























