Turbo horsepower underrated

[redstang]

So after having the Touring for a couple of weeks and thoroughly enjoying driving it around, I've come to the conclusion that it seems like Honda really is underrating this motor. I saw the hondata dyno and I know there is some speculation as to whether the way the CVT works is having an affect on the readings. However, my butt-o-meter tells me that there is no way this motor is only putting out 174 horsepower. The Civic is my wife's car and I drive a 2014 Mustang six speed. It has an air raid intake and a premium fuel tune. I figure that is good for about 320 horsepower. It hauls for a V6 (plus the intake makes the stock exhaust sound better than a V6 has any business sounding, at least until you hear a 5.0). The other day I was in the Civic at a light that leads to the freeway. I had it in S and stomped on it when the light turned green. I was at 60 before I knew it. This car absolutely hauls for a car in this class. I had a 2013 Civic before the Mustang and acceleration wise it was pretty lethargic. The car we traded for the Civic was an Accord EX-L and the Civic even feels way faster than that car. Overall I am just stunned at how good this car is. Have had several Hondas and they were all good, but this is the first one I find myself looking for a reason to hop in and take a drive. My wife hates the Mustang so weekends and family trips are the only time I get to drive the Civic. I absolutely love it. If I had to get rid of the Mustang and get a sedan, I wouldn't consider any other car than another Civic. If only it was available in Ruby Red.

Sponsored

 

[Newflyer3]

It is probably underrated but it's also completely different power delivery. With traditional Honda NA motors, you stomp on the gas, and with electronic throttle, the response may be a touch delayed, combined with the fact that those engines are flaccid in the 1,2s and 3s and you dont make grunt until 4-7k rpm.

Here, you're getting max torque (162 rated) at 1800 RPM. K24s generally make the same amount give or take but dont come on until 4400, so you're getting 2.4L power off idle. That also contributes to the car's "faster" feeling.

 

[DX2000]

It's true; I drove the FR-S and the Mazda 3 and the Civic Turbo was the only one that actually felt fun to me.

 

[Design]

Most results put the 1.5T at around 14.9-15.9 sec in the quarter, which is about right for a CVT with a weight-to-power ratio of 16.5 or so. I think we'll see some fine-tuning in how the community dynos the CVT going forward.

This is one of many sites that can help interpret ongoing empirical data as we learn more about the platform:
http://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_horsepower_elapsed_time/horsepower_elapsed_time.php

 

[dastanli]

It is probably underrated but it's also completely different power delivery. With traditional Honda NA motors, you stomp on the gas, and with electronic throttle, the response may be a touch delayed, combined with the fact that those engines are flaccid in the 1,2s and 3s and you dont make grunt until 4-7k rpm.

Here, you're getting max torque (162 rated) at 1800 RPM. K24s generally make the same amount give or take but dont come on until 4400, so you're getting 2.4L power off idle. That also contributes to the car's "faster" feeling.

Where did you read that says the 1.5t maxes out on torque at 162lb at 1800rpm? On the dynojet graph for the Injen intake, the stock OEM intake run doesn't even hit 110lb of torque to the wheel at 4000rpm.

 

[totopo]

Where did you read that says the 1.5t maxes out on torque at 162lb at 1800rpm? On the dynojet graph for the Injen intake, the stock OEM intake run doesn't even hit 110lb of torque to the wheel at 4000rpm.

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/specifications.aspx

"162 lb-ft @ 1700-5500 rpm"

http://www.civicx.com/threads/2016-...technical-presentation-specs-pics-videos.454/

 

[dastanli]

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/specifications.aspx

"162 lb-ft @ 1700-5500 rpm"

http://www.civicx.com/threads/2016-...technical-presentation-specs-pics-videos.454/

How I take those numbers is that somewhere along that 1700-5500rpm it eventually hits 162lb-ft. I would love it if peak torque was reached below 2000rpm but from the dyno run that Injen did it doesn't seem possible, but then again the lowest rpm when numbers are recorded is above 3750rpm.


http://www.civicx.com/threads/injen-intake-for-10th-gen-2016-civic-turbo-huge-power-gains.1976/

 

[totopo]

How I take those numbers is that somewhere along that 1700-5500rpm it eventually hits 162lb-ft. I would love it if peak torque was reached below 2000rpm but from the dyno run that Injen did it doesn't seem possible, but then again the lowest rpm when numbers are recorded is above 3750rpm.


http://www.civicx.com/threads/injen-intake-for-10th-gen-2016-civic-turbo-huge-power-gains.1976/

yeah, so if you believe that injen dyno i have a bridge to sell you...

look at honda's engine dyno. that's what they mean. it means they hit that torque over that entire rpm band from 1700 all the way to 5500.

 

[Newflyer3]

How I take those numbers is that somewhere along that 1700-5500rpm it eventually hits 162lb-ft.

BHAHA so on the K24 the Si has, I can advertise 174 lb ft from idle to 7000RPM right because SOMEWHERE along the idle to 7000RPM, it eventually makes 174 lb ft amirite?

 

[dastanli]

yeah, so if you believe that injen dyno i have a bridge to sell you...

look at honda's engine dyno. that's what they mean. it means they hit that torque over that entire rpm band from 1700 all the way to 5500.

Looking at this I understand what you are trying to say and thank you very much for the image. Not trying to start an argument just my observation but reading on how honda underrated the number and seeing a few third party dynos it's hard to believe the numbers on the image you posted. Motortrend also did a dyno and reported 177hp and 190lb-ft of torque to the wheel and the torque curve isn't as flat either. I know this is a take it or leave it thing, but if peak torque was that low down in the rpm and stays that flat on the image you posted, shit, I'll take it lol.

 

[thepixelsedge]

Looking at this I understand what you are trying to say and thank you very much for the image. Not trying to start an argument just my observation but reading on how honda underrated the number and seeing a few third party dynos it's hard to believe the numbers on the image you posted. Motortrend also did a dyno and reported 177hp and 190lb-ft of torque to the wheel and the torque curve isn't as flat either. I know this is a take it or leave it thing, but if peak torque was that low down in the rpm and stays that flat on the image you posted, shit, I'll take it lol.

Do you have a 1.5T CivicX? I'm not a gear head by any means but my butt dyno definitely feels a big jump in torque at about 1700RPM... I'd say that the chart "feels" accurate bc at about 1700RPM she starts to pull and that pull doesn't let off for a long time.

 

[MyFirstHonda]

So after having the Touring for a couple of weeks and thoroughly enjoying driving it around, I've come to the conclusion that it seems like Honda really is underrating this motor. I saw the hondata dyno and I know there is some speculation as to whether the way the CVT works is having an affect on the readings. However, my butt-o-meter tells me that there is no way this motor is only putting out 174 horsepower. The Civic is my wife's car and I drive a 2014 Mustang six speed. It has an air raid intake and a premium fuel tune. I figure that is good for about 320 horsepower. It hauls for a V6 (plus the intake makes the stock exhaust sound better than a V6 has any business sounding, at least until you hear a 5.0). The other day I was in the Civic at a light that leads to the freeway. I had it in S and stomped on it when the light turned green. I was at 60 before I knew it. This car absolutely hauls for a car in this class. I had a 2013 Civic before the Mustang and acceleration wise it was pretty lethargic. The car we traded for the Civic was an Accord EX-L and the Civic even feels way faster than that car. Overall I am just stunned at how good this car is. Have had several Hondas and they were all good, but this is the first one I find myself looking for a reason to hop in and take a drive. My wife hates the Mustang so weekends and family trips are the only time I get to drive the Civic. I absolutely love it. If I had to get rid of the Mustang and get a sedan, I wouldn't consider any other car than another Civic. If only it was available in Ruby Red.

I agree. The 1.5L turbo feels more powerful than the numbers suggest. I'm impressed.

 

[themzlab]

It feels under-rated because a single value of peak horsepower is a crappy way to rate an engine for its ability to motivate a car.... and sound ok while doing it.

 

[jaboop35]

It definitely seemed underrated to me when I test drove it (still waiting for my Touring to come in at this point). In driving a 2.0T Audi right now, the Civic didn't feel that much less powerful, especially on the initial push.

 

[MyFirstHonda]

It definitely seemed underrated to me when I test drove it (still waiting for my Touring to come in at this point). In driving a 2.0T Audi right now, the Civic didn't feel that much less powerful, especially on the initial push.

Good perspective considering the comparison to Audi. When I test drove the Civic 1.5L turbo, I took it easy and didn't do any heavy acceleration. I left the test drive feeling the 1.5L turbo was easier to drive fast compared to the 2.0L, but didn't feel the 1.5L turbo was overly impressive. Looking back, it was a mistake on my part not to actualize the performance of the 1.5L turbo as much as possible during the test drive. I hope not to repeat this mistake in the future. After three months of driving, I'm more than impressed with the 1.5L turbo.

Sponsored