Turbo vs. Non Turbo

[ulieq]

So I tested both civics today. And this is what I think.

Turbo. Very slightly more power at higher speeds. Much louder city/hwg driving.

Regular. Almost the same power (more than my 2013 - more than mazda3) and much quieter.

Is it worth the 1100? To me it doesn't seem to have enough difference, plus the added noise.

Sponsored

 

[16extsense]

People value different things differently. I have the EX-T. Turn back back the time and I would get the EX and spend the change on spoiler and other things.

 

[CEXT]

No, the turbo is not worth it based on your experience. The turbo is quite a bit faster, but the feeling of speed is subjective. If you can't feel the difference, and you don't race around town, don't waste your money. Although you might make it back in gas savings.

 

[Sman]

I don't know where you live in IA, but I live in SW Wisconsin. The turbo will have an advantage when going up hills, and if you drive on a highway a lot. Even though the EPA estimates are similar, the turbo will get better mgs at higher speeds.

 

[ulieq]

I don't know where you live in IA, but I live in SW Wisconsin. The turbo will have an advantage when going up hills, and if you drive on a highway a lot. Even though the EPA estimates are similar, the turbo will get better mgs at higher speeds.

How much money does 1mpg save per year? Yeah, Iowa has not one hill in sight....

 

[Billy4202]

If you feel it doesn't work for you, then get the 2.0. I appreciate the 1.5T's added power that I can feel, effortless acceleration, and Prius-like highway MPG. To each their own.

 

[Sman]

For the extra savings...36 mpg vs 42 mpg average at $2.50 per gallon is a savings of $300 when driving 30,000 miles a year. I may be a one off, but I drive 30k - 40k a year on a car and > 90% hwy. Then you add the hills, extra power, torque, and I believe that it is worth it. That is my opinion looking at my situation. The 2.0 might be better for city traffic with stop n go situations, or they may be the same. At that point it wouldn't be worth the extra $$$$

Also, my two cars have over 200k on them, and I will drive this for that long also.
The hp/torque are greater then what my Alero's 3.4L engine.

 

[ulieq]

For the extra savings...36 mpg vs 42 mpg average at $2.50 per gallon is a savings of $300 when driving 30,000 miles a year. I may be a one off, but I drive 30k - 40k a year on a car and > 90% hwy. Then you add the hills, extra power, torque, and I believe that it is worth it. That is my opinion looking at my situation. The 2.0 might be better for city traffic with stop n go situations, or they may be the same. At that point it wouldn't be worth the extra $$$$

Also, my two cars have over 200k on them, and I will drive this for that long also.
The hp/torque are greater then what my Alero's 3.4L engine.

Uber driver?

 

[WCELingad]

If you plan to keep the car for the long run then the 2.0 NA is a much better choice and despite the power difference between the two engine, the 2.0 NA is definitely not lacking as much as others may think compared to the 1.5T. The 2.0 NA will also have a better value later than the road especially when the Civic SI and Type R comes out.

 

[bembol]

Honda adding the Turbo is one of the reasons (aggressive design is the other) why the Civic finally got my attention. I love it so much I got my boy to buy the 2016 Coupe Touring and ordered the Sport Touring Hatchback!

 

[kyle_agronick]

I've only driven the 2.0. If I could go back I'd probably get the turbo. But I'd need to drive it first to see if its worth it. My dealer didn't really explain the options. One thing I've noticed with the 2.0 is the gas seems to matter. I try to get good quality gas even when I get regular. I got regular at Speedway and the car felt sluggish. The next time I got midgrade at Shell and the car felt like it got it's pep back. Premium does not fare any better but cheep regular definitely cuts down on the power.

 

[UberCivic]

So I tested both civics today. And this is what I think.

Turbo. Very slightly more power at higher speeds. Much louder city/hwg driving.

Regular. Almost the same power (more than my 2013 - more than mazda3) and much quieter.

Is it worth the 1100? To me it doesn't seem to have enough difference, plus the added noise.

The Turbo is noticeably louder, but has a nice aggressive growl that most car guys would prefer to the whisper quiet hum of the 2.0 so it's a personal choice there. As for power there is a night and day difference, it's not even remotely close. The Turbo traps 10mph higher in the 1/4 mile, and will be more tuneable with bolt-ons. You also get upgraded suspension and tires along with xm radio, climate control, heated seats, fog lights, rear spoiler.

 

[LoveToDrive]

The 2.0 NA will also have a better value later than the road especially when the Civic SI and Type R comes out.

Why is that?

 

[Sman]

Uber driver?

No.....50 miles to a well paying job

If you plan to keep the car for the long run then the 2.0 NA is a much better choice and despite the power difference between the two engine, the 2.0 NA is definitely not lacking as much as others may think compared to the 1.5T. The 2.0 NA will also have a better value later than the road especially when the Civic SI and Type R comes out.

I would think the other way around. The extra mpgs that you gain by the turbo will pay for itself in the long run.

 

[Leetcivx]

Other than the power/mpg argument:
i dont like the 16" wheels on the EX. I think the trunk looks funny without the little spoiler. I like the look of the shark fin antenna on turbo especially after seeing a civic without it. The front looks much better with foglights than without.

To me all of that makes the small difference in price worth it.

Sponsored