Should Honda have kept VTEC engines in Civics or is the 1.5T a welcome change?

[HustedDrums]

1.5 turbo is definitely better than VTEC. No doubt. I was satisfied and shocked when I first test drove this car with the amount of pull it had when you needed it. The car does not feel like a 1.5L. Could only imagine on a base tune. My buddy has the TSP tune and it is definitely a noticeable difference how the car pulls.

Sponsored

 

[moverbaugh]

The 1.5T is what got me to finally buy a Civic, since all previous models were unimpressive at low rpms. I returned a V6 Hyundai Genesis Coupe precisely because it had crappy low-end power (The enormous turning circle didn't really help).

 

[Shankmeyster]

VTEC is old tech at this point. You won't see people dropping L's in the older models because the deck height is way higher on these motors than the old cars. That's why you see the hood having the downsweep on the sides before it meets the fenders. Not like the old cars where the hood lined with the top of the fenders.

 

[NotSerious]

There is one reason and one reason only that Honda went with the 1.5 liter motor. Fuel mileage.
They have to meet government regulations. If not, they would have probably used a different motor. We could only speculate what that motor would have been but it would likely have been a larger displacement motor.

Myself, I would have preferred the ILXs k2.4 motor with the 8 speed dual clutch transmission in the upper trim levels. The SI have the k2.0 turbo with about 250 hp and the Type R have the k2.4 turbocharged with about 350 hp and all wheel drive.

 

[mvela]

All I can say is I love my Vtec Lx. But I also love my 1.5t. The 1.5t is definitely impressive. Longevity is still up in the air. But for the amount of mpg you get while still able to pull the way it does is nothing short of amazing. Honda needed to make an engine that could beat the competition and they accomplished it. I can’t really think of any other car that can pull like this civic does while still maintaining high mpg at the same time.

 

[staylurkn]

Stock for stock, I think the K Series engines are superior to the L15. You still have to be in the upper rpms in the L15 to be moving, otherwise you get caught off-boost and you're reminded of how small the engine is. But once you factor in fuel economy, emissions, packaging and the aftermarket, I believe it was the right decision. The car came alive with the TSP Stage 1 I have as the power curve is much broader. Also, having less weight over the front axle is beneficial for handling. I was skeptical at first, but the reliable power potential of this engine has me excited.

 

[fenix-silver]

And you are basing that on what exactly? Turbo engines are no less reliable than an NA engine in this day and age. Sure, maybe you'll need to replace a turbo at 150K miles, but otherwise there's nothing inherently less reliable about turbo engines.

 

[The Vyzitor]

the 1.5 is already the aftermarket choice. At higher mileage, you just rebuild or replace the turbo. This is pretty much true of every OEM turbo car since the ‘80s.

 

[Shred]

A BRZ is not really a race car. It's cool that you passed him but that's a really low bar for comparison.

 

[Gruber]

You still have to be in the upper rpms in the L15 to be moving, otherwise you get caught off-boost and you're reminded of how small the engine is.

I don't see it. But I do remember some random posts from people complaining they don't see any boost at lower rpm. This is totally not my experience as I see boost way under 2000 rpm and don't seem to ever be "caught off-boost" except for the first two feet off the line. Practically, I see boost at any rpm when needed, so I'm afraid if you need upper rpms to get boosted, there is something wrong with your car.

 

[Gruber]

There is one reason and one reason only that Honda went with the 1.5 liter motor. Fuel mileage.
They have to meet government regulations. If not, they would have probably used a different motor. We could only speculate what that motor would have been but it would likely have been a larger displacement motor.

Myself, I would have preferred the ILXs k2.4 motor with the 8 speed dual clutch transmission in the upper trim levels. The SI have the k2.0 turbo with about 250 hp and the Type R have the k2.4 turbocharged with about 350 hp and all wheel drive.

But that "one reason only," fuel mileage, is a huge one. If not for fuel mileage, the US motoring history would be different during the last several decades, not just a motor in a Honda civic. And, although government regulations are obviously a big deal, fuel mileage is quite important by itself, even without regulations.

US became independent on foreign oil just recently. Otherwise, gas prices would look quite different too, and there would be much more drama and fear about it.

I have that great K24 in my 2009 CRV. It has a bit less power and torque than my civic and is rated at 20/23/27 mpg. And it's not so much heavier at all (it's not an Audi ) : my civic with just two fat passengers would weigh the same as my CRV with only the driver.

The L15 reaches the top thermal effociency of 37%. Obviously the K is far behind. A fraction of the gas savings will buy me a new turbo if ever needed.

 

[REBELXSi]

I'm good with the turbo. I enjoy the torque. I used to love revving the piss out of my B16 but man that thing had 111 lb/ft. and extremely short gearing... not exactly the best for daily driving.

 

[Hats_N_Hoodies]

A BRZ is not really a race car. It's cool that you passed him but that's a really low bar for comparison.

The BRZ let him pass. He was likely giving his engine a cool down after toying with a track virgin.

 

[charleswrivers]

I'll just add... I think the L15B7 is maybe more of a welcome change on the non-Si cars and a "good enough" change on the Si that was certainly a compromise engine and many would have preferred a K20C4 or something similar for more of a R-lite Si. It's worlds better than the outgoing R18 for the non-Sis. It matches the performance of the outgoing K24Z7 with a bit different power delivery... has functionally a 10% economy bump if you compare them on Fuelly… and the hypermilers seem to be able to stretch that a lot further... and for minimal money, you can reflash it and snag 50 whp and be in the mid-200 whp range whereas the K24Z7 for double the money for a bellmouth DP, intake and reflash would get you around 200 whp and you were pretty well stuck there until you added a turbo/SC for thousands. If we'd gotten the ILX engine which is a DI version of the gen 9 engine... I doubt we'd have much more headroom. That 8 speed DCT would have made a substantial difference though... even though manual junkies would have passed on it.

And as this is turning into a L15B7 vs K20C2... I'll say as I've said before... the K20C2 is a good motor... and yes, it has VTEC, but it is not a performance variant of the K-series. I would not lump it into the same category as a K24Z7 or K20A2/Z1/Z3. With a reflash and bolt ons… they'd be hard pressed to even match the 165-180 whp range those engines made stock. They dyno down in the 130-ish/100-ish range. Their also don't have exhaust side VTEC... so, like the K24Z7... well... it's just not the same. I didn't think the Z7 had much personality compared to the older engines. I never had a B-series car and wish I had... just for the experience.

Sponsored