Turbos

[CEXT]

Hello 190 hp turbo 1.5L http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2017-honda-cr-v-photos-and-info-news
Maybe the turbo is not a POS afterall. 190 hp on regular fuel?
It's quite possible the Civic SI may have this engine.

Sponsored

 

[Dicecube]

I like how this guy is so skeptical of turbos for these ridiculous reasons... but doesn't once mention about how it's a bladed wheel with a blade thickness of ~1mm spinning upwards of 200,000-300,000rpm. #Engineering

Seriously, the turbo was the biggest reason I bought this car. I never even considered a N/A.... but I guess out of the 4 cars I've owned in my life, 3 of them are turbo'd.

Agreed, when I test drove the 2L civic, I was really unimpressed, might as well get a Corolla. The 1.5T sold me as well.

 

[unr1]

To be honest, my turbo rarely gets into boost. Maybe 2 times for fun haha. Other than that, I'd be fine with a 1.5 without the T. I almost never ever see over 2k rpm lol.

Can you and SteveGG just trade cars. Let him have some fun.

 

[gunbunnysoulja]

Can you and SteveGG just trade cars. Let him have some fun.

hahaha!! If the 2.0 was nearly as efficient as the 1.5T, I wouldn't mind

 

[CEXT]

Car and Driver did the following times:
2.0L CVT
0-30 mph: 3.3 seconds
0-60 mph: 8.3 seconds
1.5T CVT
0-30 mph: 2.6 seconds
0-60 mph: 6.9 seconds

There is more lag with the 2.0L. You have to test drive the 1.5T to appreciate what Honda has done.
The turbo is hugely underrated. On paper, it only makes 10% more horsepower, but weighs 4.5% more, but according to those acceleration numbers, the 1.5T out-accelerates the 2.0L by 27% in the 0-30, and 20% in the 0-60. Since power is the amount of work done divided by time, a 20% faster time should mean 20% more power to the ground if the cars weighs the same. However, keep in mind, this is average horsepower during the acceleration test, not peak horsepower. It's safe to say, the 1.5T feels 20% faster than the 2.0L, more like 190hp vs 158hp--consistent with dyno tests.

 

[unr1]

6.9 seconds is impressive for a Civic!

 

[Tonysil]

Car and Driver did the following times:
2.0L CVT
0-30 mph: 3.3 seconds
0-60 mph: 8.3 seconds
1.5T CVT
0-30 mph: 2.6 seconds
0-60 mph: 6.9 seconds

There is more lag with the 2.0L. You have to test drive the 1.5T to appreciate what Honda has done.
The turbo is hugely underrated. On paper, it only makes 10% more horsepower, but weighs 4.5% more, but according to those acceleration numbers, the 1.5T out-accelerates the 2.0L by 27% in the 0-30, and 20% in the 0-60. Since power is the amount of work done divided by time, a 20% faster time should mean 20% more power to the ground if the cars weighs the same. However, keep in mind, this is average horsepower during the acceleration test, not peak horsepower. It's safe to say, the 1.5T feels 20% faster than the 2.0L, more like 190hp vs 158hp--consistent with dyno tests.

Steve isn't interested in seeing your facts, he knows how he feels about how laggy the 1.5T might be.

 

[SteveGG]

Steve isn't interested in seeing your facts, he knows how he feels about how laggy the 1.5T might be.

What I'm not interested in, is a bunch of ***** convincing each other of the superiority of the 1.5 L turbo with MT over the 2.0 L N/A with CVT. Yes it's slightly more powerful but that's not the whole story. They may not be included in this thread, but overall drive ratios and long term longevity are much more important to a good discussion IMHO :
MT CVT
1 14.95 11.82
2 8.54
3 5.59
4 4.39
5 3.41
6 2.82 1.91
See Y'all on the highway ...

 

[gunbunnysoulja]

What I'm not interested in, is a bunch of ***** convincing each other of the superiority of the 1.5 L turbo with MT over the 2.0 L N/A with CVT. Yes it's slightly more powerful but that's not the whole story. They may not be included in this thread, but overall drive ratios and long term longevity are much more important to a good discussion IMHO :

My big thing on the 1.5T isn't really about the power, it is about the efficiency (atleast when considering 1.5T CVT vs 2.0 CVT). It's a HUGE difference under hypermiling conditions, despite how close the EPA ratings are.

EX-T and above was #1 car in it's class for efficiency for non-hybrid on regular unleaded (in the hypermiling circle), until yesterday, when Wayne Gerdes tested the Hyundai Elantra ECO with the 1.4L GDI-T I4, and got 75.6 mpg across 82.1 miles, including 20 miles of stop and crawl, vs the 1.5T's 90 mile trip and 72.6 mpg.

The 2.0 got a terrible 52.4 mpg across 62.6 miles. Anyone interested in more details can check out cleanmpg.org.

 

[Sgtstaadanko]

What I'm not interested in, is a bunch of ***** convincing each other of the superiority of the 1.5 L turbo...

Yes yes, we've seen your posts about the ratios. You're getting your threads mixed up, you started this one about your perceived reliability issues with the turbo. So the discussion going is the one I would have guessed you wanted. Look at those acceleration numbers again, neither car has the MT.

 

[16ExTKyle]

I used to worry about turbos, but if BMW can make reliable ones, I figure Honda can certainly do it.

Well technically Mitsubishi made it...

 

[SteveGG]

Yes yes, we've seen your posts about the ratios. You're getting your threads mixed up, you started this one about your perceived reliability issues with the turbo. So the discussion going is the one I would have guessed you wanted. Look at those acceleration numbers again, neither car has the MT.

Didn't mix up my threads, just think drive ratios are paramount to any meaningful discussion. Well gosh darn, it's going to take, nearly a whole second and a half longer to blast off full tilt up to 60 MPH. I don't like to abuse my car that way, so I never noticed. Wouldn't nearly be a deal breaker for me, in any case. As for the longevity of this turbo, time will tell ...

 

[gunbunnysoulja]

Didn't mix up my threads, just think drive ratios are paramount to any meaningful discussion. Well gosh darn, it's going to take, nearly a whole second and a half longer to blast off full tilt up to 60 MPH. I don't like to abuse my car that way, so I never noticed. Wouldn't nearly be a deal breaker for me, in any case. As for the longevity of this turbo, time will tell ...

I'm not usually a 1st gen kind of person, and it's my first Turbo. I got it for the fuel efficiency (plus some other features the EX-T has)... I made sure to get a lifetime warranty which covers the turbo, as I know the 1st gen Mustang's with the 2.3T has all sorts of issues. So if and when there is an issue, I'm covered.

 

[Tonysil]

Then, the obvious question is, if this system depends on output as it surely does, then isn't it plagued by delays in calls for more power ? Is that what everyone means by spooling up ?

Didn't mix up my threads, just think drive ratios are paramount to any meaningful discussion. Well gosh darn, it's going to take, nearly a whole second and a half longer to blast off full tilt up to 60 MPH. I don't like to abuse my car that way, so I never noticed. Wouldn't nearly be a deal breaker for me, in any case. As for the longevity of this turbo, time will tell ...

You are literally the person that brought up the "delays in calls for power" so it seems that on Wednesday you were you were concerned about that extra second and a half to get up to speed.

 

[SteveGG]

You are literally the person that brought up the "delays in calls for power" so it seems that on Wednesday you were you were concerned about that extra second and a half to get up to speed.

I only mentioned delays in calls for power as it might be a possible issue, though not particularly for me since I have N/A, which immediately does what you tell it. You don't have to wait while a turbo spools up. The longer 0-60 time is not from a delay in a call for power. Delays in calls for power, can be quite annoying for some, as it is a form of non-responsiveness.

Sponsored