1.5t vs 2.0 engine

[Gruber]

This discussion is mostly fueled by "mine is better".

A turbo engine will use less fuel in every comparable scenario.

The 2.0L at WOT after the VTEC kicked in, will use more fuel than a 1.5T keeping up head to head with it.

At low rpm the 1.5T will use less gas too, if just driving to remain head to head with the 2.0. Most 1.5T drivers will tend to drive more dynamically and waste some fuel, (because the boost is fun and available) but even then they will win on gas mileage by a little. Of course it is possible to use more fuel, if choosing to drive really "spirited" and leaving the 2.0L behind.

The turbo uses some of the exhaust energy, which goes totally to waste in a NA engine. For this reason, it is impossible for a NA engine of the same power to keep up in fuel economy. In this case, even though the 1.5T has noticeably more top power, and very noticeably more torque available at lower rpm, it still has better fuel economy over the entire range. When driving head to head with a 2L, the fuel economy advantage of the 1.5T will be greater than the EPA rating difference. Numerically, of course, not meaning real money savings, because you can't save a lot off an already low cost.

Sponsored

 

[xcivicx]

Sorry senior chief you are hating on the 2.o, you might not think so, but you are. Same as everyone that feels the need to expel the virtue of 14 hp.
I got the 1.5 after the 2.o for monetary reasons, cheaper to make more power, that is not possible yet, maybe never, for the 2.0.

 

[mvela]

Sorry senior chief you are hating on the 2.o, you might not think so, but you are. Same as everyone that feels the need to expel the virtue of 14 hp.

I have to agree that’s what it sounds like to me to. I like both the engines. And one thing I notice is my 1.5t gets better average gas mileage in city and highway combined by about 2 mpg then my 2.0. But we just got back from a trip on mostly highway with the 1.5t and my 2.0 gets better average mpg on those trips. I think that’s because the 2.0 stays pretty steady on the highway as far as the mpg gauge. And the gauge on the 1.5t is constantly fluctuating up and down with the slightest incline or decline in the road. I think this is due to the turbo spinning up and causing the engine to dump more fuel into the engine. Now in town the turbo helps a lot so you never have to give so much pedal to get it moving. But highway I get better mileage with my 2.0. Now I don’t know if this makes a difference, but my 2.0 is a manual while my 1.5t is a cvt

 

[Cornercarver]

Um..so far no issues with my 1.5 L Turbo engine on the SI. After 27 months and 47,000 miles.
I do have a longer commute - about 35 miles each way...to work, so not as many short drives.

The only oil dilution I am dealing with is when I hold a pizza slice the wrong way.

 

[Gruber]

I have to agree that’s what it sounds like to me to. I like both the engines. And one thing I notice is my 1.5t gets better average gas mileage in city and highway combined by about 2 mpg then my 2.0. But we just got back from a trip on mostly highway with the 1.5t and my 2.0 gets better average mpg on those trips. I think that’s because the 2.0 stays pretty steady on the highway as far as the mpg gauge. And the gauge on the 1.5t is constantly fluctuating up and down with the slightest incline or decline in the road. I think this is due to the turbo spinning up and causing the engine to dump more fuel into the engine. Now in town the turbo helps a lot so you never have to give so much pedal to get it moving. But highway I get better mileage with my 2.0. Now I don’t know if this makes a difference, but my 2.0 is a manual while my 1.5t is a cvt

You really don't know if this makes a difference? It's a poor excuse. I know it does.
Your mpg gauge is more steady on the 2.0? Lemme tell you why. That's because your foot is steady, and your gear is the same, so the mpg is steady too. Want to know what's not steady? Your speed. You are going slower uphill and faster downhill, which does save some fuel (duh...). The CVT works kinda like cruise control. You don't need to manipulate your throttle to maintain almost constant speed over minor grade changes. But you still can slow down uphill, if you wish, to save fuel, and that's the superiority of the turbo/CVT combo. Well, you live, you learn.

 

[Bosco72]

1.5 turbo has 18 more hp then the 2.0 not that big of a difference there both fun cars to drive

 

[Gruber]

Sorry senior chief you are hating on the 2.o, you might not think so, but you are. Same as everyone that feels the need to expel the virtue of 14 hp.
I got the 1.5 after the 2.o for monetary reasons, cheaper to make more power, that is not possible yet, maybe never, for the 2.0.

Sorry junior chef, I have a wonderful 2.4L iVTEC CR-V that I have been driving everyday for 8 years and enjoyed it thoroughly. Going uphill, fully loaded with people and luggage, after the VTEC kicked in, I left every minivan on the freeway in the dust. And it still runs like new after 10 years. I definitely don't hate it. I love it.
But it won't keep up with a turbo DI, not for power and not for fuel economy. It's just solid yesterday's technology.

The only thing that's more ridiculous than expelling the virtue of 14 hp is to expel the virtue of missing 14 hp. And make it at least 20 hp in my case.

 

[gtman]

1.5 turbo has 18 more hp then the 2.0 not that big of a difference there both fun cars to drive

Every dyno I've seen shows that the 1.5 actually outputs considerably more power than Honda stated officially. But forgetting that, acceleration has more to do with torque than top end hp. The 2.0 has 138 lb-ft. and a narrower power band than the 1.5T.

 

[xcivicx]

you haters win i will never again defend anything but the 1.5. i guess the 2.0 is the biggest pile o shit there is. i'll be laughing at everone who has one, knowing they are the fool. should i bash non si owners too.

if r owners want to jump on me, i can take it.

 

[gtman]

you haters win i will never again defend anything but the 1.5. i guess the 2.0 is the biggest pile o shit there is. i'll be laughing at everone who has one, knowing they are the fool. should i bash non si owners too.

if r owners want to jump on me, i can take it.

No one is bashing the 2.0...

How is it hating to state actual facts?

Not a single 1.5T owner posting in this thread has said the 2.0 isn't a good engine.

 

[xcivicx]

zip it.

 

[mvela]

You really don't know if this makes a difference? It's a poor excuse. I know it does.
Your mpg gauge is more steady on the 2.0? Lemme tell you why. That's because your foot is steady, and your gear is the same, so the mpg is steady too. Want to know what's not steady? Your speed. You are going slower uphill and faster downhill, which does save some fuel (duh...). The CVT works kinda like cruise control. You don't need to manipulate your throttle to maintain almost constant speed over minor grade changes. But you still can slow down uphill, if you wish, to save fuel, and that's the superiority of the turbo/CVT combo. Well, you live, you learn.

I know how a cvt works and I also know that you use more fuel going uphill then when going downhill. That’s simple physics. And my foot doesn’t make a difference since on these trips both cars are in cruise control duh. But you missed my point. My point was that the 1.5t compensates for these light inclines a bit more drastic then the 2.0. So the 2.0 gets better mileage while cruising at 75mph than the 1.5t. But I am not 100% sure if it’s due to the cvt or if a manual transmission on the 1.5t would still have similar results.

 

[Maroco]

Both good engines. Honda doesnt put out too many "shit" products. They have different trims and engines available for YOUR needs. Both are reliable and both make decent power for what they are.

Get what you like and can live with. Differences in fuel isnt huge but, the 1.5 has a more useable power band.

Test drive and buy. Thats your answer.

 

[Bosco72]

I have the 2.0 cvt and more miles I put on it the better it gets.i believe the 2.0 has more hp then they say I believe it's the trans

Sponsored