1.5 6speed obsevations from an x 2.0 6speed owner

[xcivicx]

i got me a mt hatch days ago. I start this thread for 2.0 mt. owners . this is from my personal experience. one year exactly in the 2.0 sedan with the six speed. intended to let you know how you might compare with a tune. i know i always wondered.

THE 2.0

since this thread is for 2.0 owners it might be helpful. i'll give you what my thoughts on the 2.0 are. i really liked the 2.0 MT. i think i can say now that it (for me) only needed just a few more hp. but a hatch was for me.

why the trade
because

The 1.5
first never had a turbo before. second i don't have a lot of seat time.
so the first thing i noticed was that when you give enough throttle you get a tremendous boost in power at 3000ish and you find the rpm climbing faster. more throttle more power to a point. the level of power varies with how fast you push the peddle. which is faster to 3000 cant say. anyway the 1.5 has the same jump at 3000ish the 2.0 had only times 100. that jump in power lasts to 5800. the 1.5 takes every stress situation better than the 2.0 (high tq needs). seems to start off easier(1 up on tire dia possible). was asked what the torque was like below 3000, i guess i can only give a description: going up a hill - starting the ascent of the hill the 2.0 would have to down shift into 2nd if not going fast enough (we're talking a nice easy low speed say 20) while the 1.5 takes it in 3rd good enough that you can feel no down shift is required. it does pull harder down there. but not by much. 0 to 60 : i haven't done enough so i'm not used to the feeling but, it is not smooth like the 2.0, there is all kinds of stuff you can feel going on with the power output under the heavy throttle. so there may be something more there to figure. the 1.5 cruses the freeways better, you can feel more g's during acceleration in sixth.

so there you have it. would a tuned only 2.0 = a stock 1.5, no. close yes, really close- slight chance. put other stuff that works on and maybe its possible. all you 1.5 peeps don't get in a huff, i'm talkin modded vs stock. so don't throw in ya but we could. plus this is only 6 speeds. i test drove a cvt and sorry not for me. if the 2.0 were avail in the hatch which one would i have chosen- 1.5 me thinks

Sponsored

 

[dominican]

Thanks for the thoughts! I too think the 1.5t is a sweet engine!

 

[CEXT]

I find it hard to believe the 2.0 can make 1.5T power without revving to 8000 rpm. On a dyno chart, the k20 from the SI only made 155 hp @6500 rpm (but 175 @ 7800 rpm). 155hp at the wheels is probably the best case scenario for the 2.0 LX. In order for the LX to make 170 hp @ 6500, it will have to miraculously make 12 more lbft of torque compared to the SI at that rpm. Given the higher compression, more aggressive camshafts, and freer flowing intake manifold of the SI, I don't think this is possible. The LX will need to rev much higher to wring out more power, and this is not as simple as intake, exhaust and tune.

I'm not saying the 2.0 doesn't have potential, but it will cost a lot to make it keep up with the 1.5T. Keep in mind, we're only talking peak hp; the low-end and midrange of the 1.5T will still destroy the 2.0 even if both made 174 peak hp.

 

[xcivicx]

i have driven them both its my opinion.
the 1.5 would not destroy, it would just beat the 2.0, maybe as far as kick its ass but not destroy.
do you have the 6 speed

 

[Stock_07]

I have driven the 1.5t many times and recently back to back with my 2.0. The 1.5 in manual on feels a tad faster then the 2.0. Its mainly the torque when you don't want to down shift and press on the gas. I would say it s a drivers race when it comes to manual.

I know a cvt 1.5t would take me no problem. I remember driving a touring and was very impressed and at the time didn't feel any slower then my 9th gen Si. I know my 9th gen Si would take the the manual 1.5t. I know hondata has all their testing and its always beating the Si, but theirs is a cvt and I would like to know the altitude where its tested and also the drivers skill in the Si.

Normaly I would say the cvt car is way slower but when it comes to the 1.5 non si, the cvt is faster.

 

[xcivicx]

i have much respect for the cvt, just don't like Driving with them.

 

[CEXT]

i have driven them both its my opinion.
the 1.5 would not destroy, it would just beat the 2.0, maybe as far as kick its ass but not destroy.
do you have the 6 speed

I have a cvt, but i came from a mazda 3 6 speed manual with a 2.0 skyactiv and 13:1 compression, 155 lbft torque. It had an intake and exhaust. It would give a civic lx a run for it's money, but it was no where close to the 1.5T. Maybe off the line the throttle response of an NA engine is better, but after that, power and torque wins.
It's subjective as to what is significantly faster. On paper, the civic 2.0 is closer to acceleration to the Honda Fit than to the 1.5T, but most Civic owners would argue its significantly faster than the Fit, and most Fit owners will say they're about the same.

 

[Stock_07]

I have a cvt, but i came from a mazda 3 6 speed manual with a 2.0 skyactiv and 13:1 compression, 155 lbft torque. It had an intake and exhaust. It would give a civic lx a run for it's money, but it was no where close to the 1.5T. Maybe off the line the throttle response of an NA engine is better, but after that, power and torque wins.
It's subjective as to what is significantly faster. On paper, the civic 2.0 is closer to acceleration to the Honda Fit than to the 1.5T, but most Civic owners would argue its significantly faster than the Fit, and most Fit owners will say they're about the same.

My friends that I drove his 1.5 back to back with my 2.0 just traded on his fit. The thing was a dog compared to the k20. I like the 1.5 but it's seems over hyped on alot of these forums. Even guys stating that they took a g35. It's a good engine but still a econo engine. We will see what the 1.5 sI will be like.

 

[syncro87]

Interesting post. Thank you for it. I've been curious to hear opinions from people who owned or drove both cars extensively.

 

[xcivicx]

guess i wasn't the only one who thought all of this. i like the 1.5 more and more though. for me it was for just that extra hp with the stock 1.5 vs what the 2.0 could be at this point. if HPD comes out with a boost solution for the 2.0 i think all the support will come its way. for me i don't any more than whats avail on a tune right now. and the hatch rocks.

 

[DarkLight]

I have a cvt, but i came from a mazda 3 6 speed manual with a 2.0 skyactiv and 13:1 compression, 155 lbft torque. It had an intake and exhaust. It would give a civic lx a run for it's money, but it was no where close to the 1.5T. Maybe off the line the throttle response of an NA engine is better, but after that, power and torque wins.
It's subjective as to what is significantly faster. On paperrolleyes, the civic 2.0 is closer to acceleration to the Honda Fit than to the 1.5T, but most Civic owners would argue its significantly faster than the Fit, and most Fit owners will say they're about the same.

You're killing me man. Yet again, you just keep making things up as you go along. Show me a Fit that does this:

 

[CEXT]

You're killing me man. Yet again, you just keep making things up as you go along. Show me a Fit that does this:

Hey Darklight, Don't get ur knickers in a knot. I'm talking acceleration numbers on paper. I don't think Fit is as fast as the LX. But if someone thinks 0.3 seconds difference in the quarter mile is not significant, than you have to accept that the LX is not significantly faster than the Fit. If you think 0.3 seconds is called smoking the Fit, then the 1.5T totally smokes the LX. It's all a matter of perspective. Make sense?
I just find some people give the LX too much credit because it can chirp stock tires.

2015 Fit (6 speed manual)
ZERO TO SECONDS
30 MPH ............................................. 2.5
40 MPH ............................................. 4.2
50 MPH ............................................. 5.8
60 MPH ....................................... 8.0
70 MPH ............................................ 10.6
80 MPH ............................................ 13.5
90 MPH ............................................ 18.0
100 MPH ................................... 23.2
110 MPH ............................................ 31.6
ROLLING START, 5–60 MPH .......... 8.4
TOP GEAR, 30–50 MPH ................ 10.3
TOP GEAR, 50–70 MPH ................ 10.9
Standing ¼-mile: 16.2 sec @ 86 mph

2016 Honda Civic 2.0 (6 speed manual)
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 12.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph

 

[xcivicx]

Show me a Fit that does this:

your videos are really one of the reasons that i believe in the 2.0, and my reasoning behind my opinion that the 2.0 is closer than we think to the 1.5 and just maybe under tuned at the factory
.

to me those comps on the fit don't figure, in that using the 2015 vs the '17 fit, that is way slower. ( only a real quick google).
maybe i'm in denial like some 1.5 owner that cannot accept the fact that 2.0 is so close to the 1.5.

again stock to stock its very clear the 2.0 would need real help to even feel as powerful let alone be as powerful.
to me this is not about numbers it about driving experience.
i like my 1.5 and i would choose it again with out reservation, even if boost were available as an add on.
this civic with the 1.5 turbo seems to be the perfect match. somewhat easier to drive, no much easier to drive, almost no throttle required to start off in first. easier to go slow too. how would the 2.0 tuned do in the easy driving test- real real close
having the most horse power or fastest times is not my goal. but i know that it is needed for my goal.

 

[CEXT]

You're killing me man. Yet again, you just keep making things up as you go along. Show me a Fit that does this:

I didn't hear the chirp from 1st to 2nd in your video.

 

[chuenoona]

Sponsored