Anyone prefer the 2.0 vs the 1.5t?

[stak]

The 2.0 is deliberately detuned so that it won't compete with the 1.5.

The big cam lobe won't even engage until it is almost redlining in 3rd gear. The stock ignition and fuel maps are absurdly conservative. The VTC is tuned in such a way that it merely acts as an EGR valve.

Tuning fixes all of these issues, and it is more than a match for a stock tune 1.5T. And with a couple bolt on parts added, it's not even a race.

And how would it do against a 1.5T with the same upgrades (tune and bolt on parts)?

Sponsored

 

[Dicecube]

Why don't you guys get an wrx sti instead...

 

[CEXT]

I think the 2.0 is more closely related to the civic si EP3 engine (160hp), than it is to the 6th gen civic si engine (197hp). It's not simply bolt-ons.
An engine swap would be cheaper.

 

[DarkLight]

I think the 2.0 is more closely related to the civic si EP3 engine (160hp), than it is to the 6th gen civic si engine (197hp). It's not simply bolt-ons.
An engine swap would be cheaper.

No. You just keep making things up as you go. This engine has virtually nothing in common with K20A3. Or the K24Z7 for that matter.

How many K-series engines have you tuned again?

How about actually referencing Honda's technical press release with all the pertinent data.

http://hondanews.com/releases/2016-honda-civic-sedan-press-kit-powertrain?page=2

2.0-Liter In-Line 4 Cylinder
Related to the European Civic Type-R 2.0 liter turbo charged engine, the Civic's new standard 2.0-liter i-VTEC powerplant produces more horsepower and torque at all operating speeds compared to the 1.8-liter engine it replaces.

It's got the same block, forged crank and rods, and head as the CTR. It just has no turbo, higher compression, and port injection, which makes it more upgradable than the CTR motor.

Not to mention, it is the first K20 to ever have dual VTC.

The K20C2 has so much potential, even from the factory, and it is very easy to upgrade. Once the aftermarket catches up, it will prove to be just as capable as the old K20's. Once the good tuners get some experience with these motors, they should readily produce 500+ whp on the stock block.

Hell, even the old SOHC R18 will do 400+ whp on the stock block.

http://blog.vittuned.com/andress-turbo-honda-civic-r18/

 

[chokesmaster]

To me the new K20C2 looks like an hybrid from the Old K20 and the r18. TBH the R18 was a really good engine at the time.

 

[DarkLight]

To me the new K20C2 looks like an hybrid from the Old K20 and the r18. TBH the R18 was a really good engine at the time.

It may look that way, but it really is it's own animal though. It has the "Earth Dreams" architecture, which means high-tumble intake ports, which are massive btw, and cavity-shaped pistons.

These provide a more uniform air/fuel mixture, but also significantly increases torque output, and is very effective at preventing knock in turbo applications, which is why the L15B7 can run 87 octane with 10.6:1 compression and boost. A huge upgrade from the old motors.

People just want to bitch because there's no VTEC lobe on the exhaust side, and a traditional header can't used due to the single exhaust outlet.

 

[TheWalkman]

2.0 for me. Simple is good. So far it's a smooth, efficient motor that's doing everything I need. Just wish I could have gotten leather and better trim options with the 2.0.

 

[CEXT]

The engis

No. You just keep making things up as you go. This engine has virtually nothing in common with K20A3. Or the K24Z7 for that matter.

How many K-series engines have you tuned again?

How about actually referencing Honda's technical press release with all the pertinent data.

http://hondanews.com/releases/2016-honda-civic-sedan-press-kit-powertrain?page=2



It's got the same block, forged crank and rods, and head as the CTR. It just has no turbo, higher compression, and port injection, which makes it more upgradable than the CTR motor.

Not to mention, it is the first K20 to ever have dual VTC.

The K20C2 has so much potential, even from the factory, and it is very easy to upgrade. Once the aftermarket catches up, it will prove to be just as capable as the old K20's. Once the good tuners get some experience with these motors, they should readily produce 500+ whp on the stock block.

Hell, even the old SOHC R18 will do 400+ whp on the stock block.

http://blog.vittuned.com/andress-turbo-honda-civic-r18/

I understand that it's not the same engine from 14 years ago. There has been some updates to improve fuel efficiency, not power, obviously.
Being a type R engine without a turbo doesn't mean that much. That's like saying the R18 is the same as the 400+ whp R18...but without the turbo. That doesn't make a stock R18 a fantastic NA engine that reacts well to bolt ons--it means it reacts well to turbocharging.

 

[WCELingad]

I drove both the EX and EX-T and I went with the EX simply because it felt a lot smoother and this was the first year that Honda put turbo engines on their civic so I didn't want to take the risk. The 2.0L NA engine is based off the K-Series which has been proven and tested through time to be a very reliable engine that can handle 300k+ miles. Maybe after 5 years I will trade my car for the current civic models then and by that time we should already see how truly reliable or unreliable these turbo engines are.

 

[Negan]

I drove both the EX and EX-T and I went with the EX simply because it felt a lot smoother and this was the first year that Honda put turbo engines on their civic so I didn't want to take the risk. The 2.0L NA engine is based off the K-Series which has been proven and tested through time to be a very reliable engine that can handle 300k+ miles. Maybe after 5 years I will trade my car for the current civic models then and by that time we should already see how truly reliable or unreliable these turbo engines are.

This type of thinking always seemed strange to me. If your concern is engine repairs due to the turbo, trading in your car after 5 years makes no sense. You'll lose far more on depreciation when you trade in your car and buy a new one, than on any potential extra repairs a decade or more in the future.

 

[WCELingad]

This type of thinking always seemed strange to me. If your concern is engine repairs due to the turbo, trading in your car after 5 years makes no sense. You'll lose far more on depreciation when you trade in your car and buy a new one, than on any potential extra repairs a decade or more in the future.

I like to purchase cars that are known to be reliable that can last 10+ years regardless whether I will trade it in earlier than that timeframe or not. Besides it's not definite that I will trade my car in within the next 5 years I just said maybe, but knowing that my current car can last 10+ years takes all my worries away whether I should decide to keep it that long or not. If I decided to get the turbo I would always have that worry that I may have a lot of trouble later down the road should I decide to keep it for 10+ years.

 

[CEXT]

I think the TD03 turbo is used in many other cars from Volvo to BMW. It's not a new technology and made by Mitsubishi, I believe. Usually, the rule is: don't buy the new generation in the first year. This applies to the 2.0 as well as the 1.5T. I'll take my chances because it's Honda.

 

[syncro87]

I think the TD03 turbo is used in many other cars from Volvo to BMW. It's not a new technology and made by Mitsubishi, I believe. Usually, the rule is: don't buy the new generation in the first year. This applies to the 2.0 as well as the 1.5T. I'll take my chances because it's Honda.

This is one of the best posts I've seen lately.

If you're worried about issues/reliability, you should be avoiding the first year regardless of engine. I also took my chances because it's a Honda.

 

[SteveGG]

I like to purchase cars that are known to be reliable that can last 10+ years regardless whether I will trade it in earlier than that timeframe or not. Besides it's not definite that I will trade my car in within the next 5 years I just said maybe, but knowing that my current car can last 10+ years takes all my worries away whether I should decide to keep it that long or not. If I decided to get the turbo I would always have that worry that I may have a lot of trouble later down the road should I decide to keep it for 10+ years.

Amen to that. +1 ...

 

[WCELingad]

I think the TD03 turbo is used in many other cars from Volvo to BMW. It's not a new technology and made by Mitsubishi, I believe. Usually, the rule is: don't buy the new generation in the first year. This applies to the 2.0 as well as the 1.5T. I'll take my chances because it's Honda.

Agreed, I took my chances with first year model because it's Honda, but the fact still remains that the 1.5T has more moving parts and generates more heat than the 2.0 NA. Between the two engines the 2.0 NA will be the one with cheaper maintenance and easier to fix. How reliable was the TD03 turbo they used on other cars such as BMW and Volvo? Another reason why I went with the 2.0 NA was because a friend of mine had issues with his turbo car and he had to pay over $2,000 for repair cost. I was willing to take the risk with first year model for the 10th generation civic but not with the turbo. Maybe I'll go turbo in the next 5 years and most likely by then they would probably phase out all NA engines and all base models will only have turbo.

Sponsored