What do you think about this?

I'm having a hard time believing it. I watched probably 10+ driving reviews of the turbo. The reviewers liked it, but all of them mashed the gas pedal and ran it to see how they pulled. None of them acted like it was "fast", and they all commented about the cvt feel. Quite a few had their cameras on the tach and mph gauge as well. It didn't seem like any were climbing like the si dash. If you put those same people in the si, you usually see people all perked up when doing the review. Idk
 
tacthecat said:
And just where did they get a production 2016 Civic Coupe to test?
Click to expand...
"1.5 turbos were handed out to a few lucky auto journalists"
vtec.net tends to always get press events/driving events/test cars
 
I think this is BS. No way 175 HP at the crank is going to make 165 HP at the wheels through a cvt.

Add to that motor trend got 14.5 quarter mile out of the 9th Gen Si. Either temple of vtec is fanboying over the new civic or they put in the data wrong on the vbox. Either way it's been apparent since day 1 that they hated the k24z7 and do nothing but talk crap about it.
 
I suspect it could be accurate. If anyone remembers a few years ago the base WRX was faster 0-60 than the much more powerful STI. It was due to the longer second gear on the base wrx that allowed it to reach 60 without shifting to 3rd. The STI had to shift into 3rd gear costing them a few 10ths of a second. Hence, the less powerful car was faster 0-60.

The CVT not needing to shift could make up the 0.1 or 0.2 difference. Also take into account that the torque curve on the non-Si cars has always been flatter and generally more powerful in the low RPM ranges. Since you have to rev the Si up much further to make peak power the non-Si engine probably has an advantage getting up to speed quicker. Obviously once moving the Si is always the faster car but may suffer from the new cars having a lot more torque to get moving.

Another factor to consider is that the non-Si cars have always been significantly lighter. A couple hundred pounds lighter and that slim hp difference, 174 vs 205, is not much to make up especially with that better tq rating.

I bet the new 1.5 turbo engines with a manual will be very very quick. Same with the ecoboost mustangs. A couple mods and the turbo mustangs are making the same power as the v8 GT with a lot less weight.
 
So they are comparing a vbox number to a random dyno number? Couldn't they just put a vbox on a 9thgen Si so the comparison could be more equal?

Also, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Honda set out to make the Civic better than it was.....looks like they are accomplishing that feat.
 
Nix said:
I suspect it could be accurate. If anyone remembers a few years ago the base WRX was faster 0-60 than the much more powerful STI. It was due to the longer second gear on the base wrx that allowed it to reach 60 without shifting to 3rd. The STI had to shift into 3rd gear costing them a few 10ths of a second. Hence, the less powerful car was faster 0-60.

The CVT not needing to shift could make up the 0.1 or 0.2 difference. Also take into account that the torque curve on the non-Si cars has always been flatter and generally more powerful in the low RPM ranges. Since you have to rev the Si up much further to make peak power the non-Si engine probably has an advantage getting up to speed quicker. Obviously once moving the Si is always the faster car but may suffer from the new cars having a lot more torque to get moving.

Another factor to consider is that the non-Si cars have always been significantly lighter. A couple hundred pounds lighter and that slim hp difference, 174 vs 205, is not much to make up especially with that better tq rating.

I bet the new 1.5 turbo engines with a manual will be very very quick. Same with the ecoboost mustangs. A couple mods and the turbo mustangs are making the same power as the v8 GT with a lot less weight.
Click to expand...
I can agree with some of this except for the cvt thing. I used to own a cvt and despite not having to shift the are extremely slow to get started and they add a lot to the drive train loss even compared to a normal automatic transmission. That and our k24 has much more torque at all ranges than the r18 or the new 1.5 turbo.

Think of cvt like really laggy turbos. The engine has to spin up then the transmission starts moving the car... slowly.
 
webby said:
but they're only available with a CVT. No turbo manual option.
Click to expand...

Well thats crap! I remember reading that the LX would have a 6-speed with a 2.0L and didn't even think that the 1.5T would not have a manual option. I must need to read better.

Bulkybear said:
I can agree with some of this except for the cvt thing. I used to own a cvt and despite not having to shift the are extremely slow to get started and they add a lot to the drive train loss even compared to a normal automatic transmission. That and our k24 has much more torque at all ranges than the r18 or the new 1.5 turbo.

Think of cvt like really laggy turbos. The engine has to spin up then the transmission starts moving the car... slowly.
Click to expand...

Good points.

Id like to see an actual 1/4 mile run between the new cars and the current cars. Im certain someone will.
 
Bulkybear said:
I can agree with some of this except for the cvt thing. I used to own a cvt and despite not having to shift the are extremely slow to get started and they add a lot to the drive train loss even compared to a normal automatic transmission. That and our k24 has much more torque at all ranges than the r18 or the new 1.5 turbo.

Think of cvt like really laggy turbos. The engine has to spin up then the transmission starts moving the car... slowly.
Click to expand...

What cvt did you drive? I had a 2013 Accord Sport with the cvt and its wasn't that slow.
 
meh, virtual numbers out of a vbox... much like using inflated edyno numbers to simulate a 1/4mile. Wont believe it until a see an actual race between the two.

Ive seen quite a lot of videos in wich it is running between 7.0 and 7.3 ... i dont get how you can cut almost 1sec on a 0-60 with a cvt equipped car. I mean, you cant either powershift or miss-shift and traction never seems to be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Nomar06 said:
What cvt did you drive? I had a 2013 Accord Sport with the cvt and its wasn't that slow.
Click to expand...
I had a company issued 2013 jeep patriot for a little while with a cvt and I've test driven a 2014 civic ex with the cvt. They both acted the same.
 
Doesn't even matter if it's faster, but I don't believe that it is. It's soulless and a 0-60 time can't change that.
 
jumilski said:
http://artofgears.com/2015/11/26/un...ivic-1-5l-turbo-faster-than-9th-gen-civic-si/

Thoughts anyone?
Click to expand...

They have the weight wrong. The '16 Ex-T Sedan is spec'd at 2899# - the '12- Sedan is 22-30# heavier than the coupe, 5 gallons of gas is 30# = 2900# - add the driver and you're carrying 3010-3100 pounds.
Punch that into your VBOX and I'm betting the '16 turbo is very close to .5 seconds slower - but the 9th Si has to get a good launch and 2 good shifts; the 10th turbo just gets power braked and floored.
Lets wait to get real numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top