Official Sport Hatch 0-60 CVT 6.9, Manual 7.5

[CIVICSPORT]

Well finally a few of these cars have had instrumented tests.

The CVT's are quicker 0-60 at 6.9 Seconds and the Manual is in fact a DOG on the 0-60 at 7.5 Seconds. Which is what I felt on back to back test drives.

Since the Si Seems to be a let down, a CVT Sport Hatch with a Vit Tune is looking like the way to go!!

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-cvt-automatic-review

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/civic/2017/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-sport-first-test-review/

Both cars click off a mid 15 1/4 mile. (15.4 CVT, 15.5 Manual).

Sponsored

 

[mrobison12]

The commonly given reason for a longer 0-60 for the manual is that you can't reach 60 in second gear, requiring a second shift.

I don't particularly care about the numbers, since I'm not doing 0-60 runs at any point in my day to day driving and the manual is more fun, but it's nice to see it quantified I suppose.

I'm also planning on a Vit Tune down the line, I can't wait to see how much fun this thing is with another ~60-80 horsepower/torque on tap.

 

[TimberWolf]

Also, C&D tested the manual sport hatch at 7.0s.

Also, it shouldn't come as a surprise that an auto is faster than the manual. Of course it is. That is why all the performance cars come with auto transmissions. You don't buy a manual for better performance or fuel economy. There is no objective reason to get a manual. You get one solely because you enjoy them.

 

[julianzh]

Year 2017, still can't find a reason to drive a stick.

 

[BarracksSi]

I want to see an acceleration chart like Road & Track uses. I want to know where the manual loses ground to the CVT.

Still...

I'm gradually being won over by the CVT in mine.

If it weren't for the paddle shifters, I'd hate it. But clicking into my choice of "gear" when needed -- preparing to pass, or during a freeway on-ramp, or engine braking on a long downhill -- is starting to remind me of when I spent twenty bucks on Virtua Racing the day it arrived at my local arcade. Click-click-click, vrrrrrrrrr-RRRRRRR... I had fun with my manual EP, doing rev-matching double-clutch downshifts on those same on-ramps (which entertained my wife, too), but these paddle shifters make it so easy.

It also doesn't have the drawbacks of a dual-clutch. The torque convertor lets it piddle along with the usual bumper-to-bumper rush hour slog with no bucking or overheating. It can do the CVT trickery of fully optimized revs-per-mph-per-throttle-position, too.

I miss my EP's funny dash shifter. But I'm enjoying the paddle-shifting CVT.

 

[CIVICSPORT]

Also, C&D tested the manual sport hatch at 7.0s.

Also, it shouldn't come as a surprise that an auto is faster than the manual. Of course it is. That is why all the performance cars come with auto transmissions. You don't buy a manual for better performance or fuel economy. There is no objective reason to get a manual. You get one solely because you enjoy them.

Can you post a link to support this? I think you are mistaken. I have only seen slower numbers for the manual between 7.8 and 8.0 seconds 0-60. I also went to C&D Instrument reviews and there is no test there with the numbers you mention.

They go on to state that it took them 20 launches to get the car to run this quick (slow?) 0-60 and the car went into heat soak. As far as I know this is the best 0-60 anyone source with instrumented testing has been able to get out of the 6 MT Civic.

Having driven both, the 6MT feels doggedly slow, like its dragging an anchor versus the CVT. I'd like to know how many of the 20 x 0-60 runs they made were over 8 seconds.

 

[turbo lover]

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6

0-60 7.0s.

More useful is the 5-60 times, 7.3s for the CVT and 7.7s for the manual. The manual is faster 0-100 and through the quarter mile. It's hardly dragging an anchor versus the CVT. In some situations it's faster and in others it's slower.

 

[360glitch]

I remember someone reported faster quarter mile times by launching the 6MT in second gear.

 

[CivicChina]

is Steve back? I feel we need his advice in this discussion.

 

[NeoDragons]

is Steve back? I feel we need his advice in this discussion.

 

[VarmintCong]

Can you post a link to support this? I think you are mistaken. I have only seen slower numbers for the manual between 7.8 and 8.0 seconds 0-60. I also went to C&D Instrument reviews and there is no test there with the numbers you mention.

They go on to state that it took them 20 launches to get the car to run this quick (slow?) 0-60 and the car went into heat soak. As far as I know this is the best 0-60 anyone source with instrumented testing has been able to get out of the 6 MT Civic.

Having driven both, the 6MT feels doggedly slow, like its dragging an anchor versus the CVT. I'd like to know how many of the 20 x 0-60 runs they made were over 8 seconds.

He's right. Civic Hatch Sport 6MT:
0-60 in 7.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.2 sec @ 94 mph.

It's faster than the CVT except for having to shift right before hitting 60 mph.

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ng-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6

 

[Pur3MotioN770]

The Sedans run about .1 - .3 faster than the hatch counterparts.

 

[Civics4Ever]

And the coupe with CVT runs a 6.6!

 

[Enly]

The cars with a manual transmission can be modified to produce more HP than their CVT equivalents tho, just a factor to be taken in

 

[ACG12]

I remember someone reported faster quarter mile times by launching the 6MT in second gear.

That can't be good for the clutch....

Sponsored