2.0L Torque specs for 6 speed manual LX

[mvela]

I know that an automatic transmission has more torque loss than a manual transmission. Well I noticed that the 1.5t shows the different torque specs for the manual and automatic transmission. The manual has 15 lb/ft more torque due to less power loss which makes sense. But the 2.0NA only shows the specs for the automatic transmission and nothing about the manual transmission specs. So it shows 138 lb/ft for the automatic, so the manual should have more. If you add the 15 lb/ft that the 1.5t gained with the manual transmission, then the 2.0NA with the manual transmission should be more like 153 lb/ft of torque. I wonder why they left this information out.

Sponsored

 

[turbo lover]

Power and torque are rated at the engine crankshaft, not the wheels. So power loss through the transmission is irrelevant in this case. The manual and CVT 2.0 are both rated at 138 lb-ft.

 

[mvela]

Power and torque are rated at the engine crankshaft, not the wheels. So power loss through the transmission is irrelevant in this case. The manual and CVT 2.0 are both rated at 138 lb-ft.

I thought the same thing until I went to the Honda website and they give the 1.5t a manual and automatic rating. But the 2.0NA only has an automatic rating. Here is the sport touring which has an optional manual transmission

 

[fenix-silver]

Those figures are still rated at the crank. Oftentimes manufacturers just de-tune certain transmissions for reliability or other reasons.

 

[mvela]

Those figures are still rated at the crank. Oftentimes manufacturers just de-tune certain transmissions for reliability or other reasons.

Well this is a dyno run from a 2.0NA manual transmission that ktuner programmed. If you look, you’ll notice at 4200 rpm is the peak torque. The dyno shows around 138 at the wheels stock. There is no way that it has the same torque at the crank that it has at the wheels. So the 138 lb/ft rating that the 2.0NA has is for the automatic and not for the 6 speed. The 6 speed puts more power to the ground

 

[turbo lover]

The numbers are still rated at the crankshaft. It looks like Honda has just underrated the numbers in this case. Go look here and you can see the ratings are the same.
https://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2018/Civic-Sedan/specs#mid^FC1E3JJW

 

[gtman]

A few points.

That dyno showing the 138 peak wtq (123.6 @6390) is from a tuned 2.0, not stock.

The same dyno shows the stock power (green numbers) at 127.8 whp and 105.1 wtq at around 6400 rpm.

As far as the 1.5T Sport models having a few more hp, my guess is it's mostly the 91 octane. Honda may also have tuned the manuals for a bit more torque. Last but not least, all the other posters are correct, the Honda published numbers are at the crank.

 

[mvela]

A few points.

That dyno showing the 138 peak wtq (123.6 @6390) is from a tuned 2.0, not stock.

The same dyno shows the stock power (green numbers) at 127.8 whp and 105.1 wtq at around 6400 rpm.

As far as the 1.5T Sport models having a few more hp, my guess is it's mostly the 91 octane. Honda may also have tuned the manuals for a bit more torque. Last but not least, all the other posters are correct, the Honda published numbers are at the crank.

Those numbers you are reading are the biggest delta. The stock peaks are about 138 lb/ft at 4200 rpm and 146 hp at 6700 rpm.

 

[gtman]

Ah, my bad. My phone's brightness was set dim and I never even noticed the stock red dyno graph line.

So it looks like midrange peak to peak gains with the tune are fairly small. The top end looks vastly improved though.

 

[gtman]

Sorry for separating this post but I wanted to change gears slightly.

This is coming from a car guy of many, many, many decades. Ok, I'm old.

Here's the thing about dynos and 0-60 numbers. In so many ways they are useless to compare car to car. For example, each dyno tends to read differently. Some read higher than others. Then there are environmental factors. And with 0-60 times there are even more variables like tires used, driver skills, elevation, ambient temps etc, etc, etc...

I know us car guys tend to want to compare "who's is bigger" so to speak, but in all honestly, the most important thing is this...

Is your car quick enough FOR YOU?

 

[mvela]

Sorry for separating this post but I wanted to change gears slightly.

This is coming from a car guy of many, many, many decades. Ok, I'm old.

Here's the thing about dynos and 0-60 numbers. In so may ways they are useless to compare car to car. For example, each dyno tends to read differently. Some read higher than others. Then there are environmental factors. And with 0-60 times there are even more variables like tires used, driver skills, elevation, ambient temps etc, etc, etc...

I know us car guys tend to want to compare "who's is bigger" so to speak, but in all honestly, the most important thing is this...

Is your car quick enough FOR YOU?

You are right about the variables. My ideal car would be a type R motor in a sedan, but I’ll never see that. But I’m just trying to figure out how my 2.0 lx 6mt sedan can hang with the 1.5t. The power numbers of the 1.5t are a good amount higher but the quarter mile times aren’t to far apart. They are only a half a second apart.

 

[gtman]

Are you talking about your tuned LX compared to your stock 1.5T?

One other point that may be getting overlooked. Weight. The LX manual weighs in at only 2,742 pounds. The EX hatch weighs 2,950 pounds. 208 pounds will make a difference.

 

[fenix-silver]

You are right about the variables. My ideal car would be a type R motor in a sedan, but I’ll never see that. But I’m just trying to figure out how my 2.0 lx 6mt sedan can hang with the 1.5t. The power numbers of the 1.5t are a good amount higher but the quarter mile times aren’t to far apart. They are only a half a second apart.

Need to take into account that the 1.5t isn't the quickest off the line until the turbo starts to spool. From a roll I'd imagine the 1.5t would smoke the 2.0.

 

[mvela]

Need to take into account that the 1.5t isn't the quickest off the line until the turbo starts to spool. From a roll I'd imagine the 1.5t would smoke the 2.0.

It actually doesn’t. I have a 1.5t and a 2.0. Me and my girlfriend raced them on a roll and she beat me but not by much. What I noticed about the 1.5t is it doesn’t require you to give it much pedal to take off. It’s almost like it delivers almost all its torque at half throttle while the 2.0 has to be floored and revved to the max to get that same feeling. So they are both fast but delivered in a different way.

Sponsored