"1.5 turbos were handed out to a few lucky auto journalists"And just where did they get a production 2016 Civic Coupe to test?
but they're only available with a CVT. No turbo manual option.I bet the new 1.5 turbo engines with a manual will be very very quick.
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.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.
but they're only available with a CVT. No turbo manual option.
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.
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.
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.What cvt did you drive? I had a 2013 Accord Sport with the cvt and its wasn't that slow.
BOO!!!! [emoji24]@Pauly99to17 found this. Hondata testing the new turbo 1.5 versus the 9th gen si.
View: https://www.facebook.com/hardmotionusa/videos/947786635276186/