[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Nah, the cars are not comparable. The ITR is so jarring, it's almost not drivable on the street. And with current safety standards, it's more difficult to make cars that low. That the FT has decent clearance and a COG height of 460 mm is a testament to today's technology and engineering. Especially when you also consider that that FT is RWD, has more power, more torque, better MPG, and 250 pounds less over the front wheels than the ITR!

I don't find the ITR rough at all for a performance oriented car. It was softer than the S2000 was and softer than my GS-R before I put stock suspension bits back on it. It's loud though, that is the only thing that makes it someone annoying as a daily driver (well that and every honda theif in the area will follow you around to try to find out where you work/live so they can steal the damn 14 year old honda...). We haven't seen real MPG stats (ie EPA city/highway) yet, but I get mid 30s in the ITR on the highway so I'd guess it's fairly similar. The FT does have 2 more HP and a decent amount more torque, but it may not have more wheel torque due to gearing (I mean real wheel torque, not what will be measured on a dyno but with gearing multiplication). We don't know the gearing to figure that out yet

You bring up a good point about the sunroof, but the FT is still more like the GSR and RSX-S than the ITR in terms of livability (at least going by reports so far).

Maybe, we will have to see. I wish the ITR had cruise control (it's easy to install though but it only starts bothering me after 15 hours or so of driving, I've gotten use to not having it) but other than that the ITR is very livable and very useful to haul stuff with the hatchback. For long distance trips to tracks I bring 2 spare wheels/tires, tools, supplies, cooler, etc with no issue and space for a 2nd person (If I didn't have expensive stereo equipment in the back I probably could fit 2 passengers). I suspect the FRS will be quieter and will have cruise control, both of which I'll welcome if the rest of it meets my wants/needs

According to what I read in this thread, the FT's COG is 5 mm higher than the ITR's. However, the JDM FT ground clearance is 25 mm higher than the JDM ITR (and 15 mm higher than the USA ITR). Lower the FT so it has the same ground clearance as the ITR, and it will have a lower COG than the ITR.

We know the ground clearance of the FT? I didn't see the number, what is it? 5.5"? Most of the ITRs loss of ground clearance is just the front lip (which obviously isn't making the CoG much lower by itself). GS-R's are 5.9" and the ITR is only 15mm lower excluding the front lip, so it's real ground clearance is in the 5.3" range except for the damn lip. Luckily it just gets scratched and the bumper flexes so they rarely break when hitting the ground

I'd suspect the FT would be around 5-5.5" stock, but not sure.

Meh. I remember reading somewhere that someone said it would have the lowest COG of any production car (I forget if it was an engineer or marketing person), but I knew at the time that wasn't going to happen. I suspect it was an embellishment that wasn't meant to be quoted, or a misunderstanding from bad translating.

The Chief Engineer stated 17.8" specifically. That random "lowest of any production car" type quotes I don't pay attention to but when I get a specific number I want to hold them to it..