Anyone prefer the 2.0 vs the 1.5t?

I was wondering if anyone who has test driven both preferred the 2.0 and why?

I'm gonna direct the spotlight to SteveGG for this one... Again

Well,,, I bought the 2.0 since there were no 1.5T with manual Tranny.. coming from 5th gen prelude (manual), I could not stand the feel of CVT.

I seriously doubt it, except for the manual option. It's an awesome engine.

Newflyer3 said:

I'm gonna direct the spotlight to SteveGG for this one... Again

Click to expand...

While the turbo clearly out-performs the 2 N/A as indeed it should, I couldn't take a chance on possible long term reliability issues, so went with the 2 N/A.

I test drove both and decided on the 2.0. The 1.5 is faster but what sold me on the 2.0 is how much quieter the engine is. The 1.5 had the typical turbo growl and that was enough for me to choose the quieter engine. The 2.0 is no slouch anyways

I would also check into insurance rates for the Turbo over the CVT. It will probably be more since it's a faster car .I test drove the 2.0 Saturday and thought it was plenty fast enough for me and cabin very quiet as well.

IMO - nothing to show its more/less reliable than the 2.0. That's a wait-and-see type of affair. I'm at 21k and have had no issues whatsoever - but at 200k? Who knows. Gas mileage has been nothing short of amazing, especially on the highway. Dunno about insurance for the 2.0, but for my Touring I'm only paying ~$520 per year with Geico. Engine is loud at startup, but once warm, its quiet enough for me and it smooth up to redline.

Not knocking the 2.0 - because TBH I didn't drive one - but any reasons against getting either reason really don't have any merit *at this point*. 5, 10 years down the road, we may see.

Billy4202 said:

IMO - nothing to show its more/less reliable than the 2.0. That's a wait-and-see type of affair. I'm at 21k and have had no issues whatsoever - but at 200k? Who knows. Gas mileage has been nothing short of amazing, especially on the highway. Dunno about insurance for the 2.0, but for my Touring I'm only paying ~$520 per year with Geico. Engine is loud at startup, but once warm, its quiet enough for me and it smooth up to redline.

Not knocking the 2.0 - because TBH I didn't drive one - but any reasons against getting either reason really don't have any merit *at this point*. 5, 10 years down the road, we may see.

Click to expand...

He's banking on the principle that a naturally aspirated engine with port injection that Honda has been doing for 25 years is more reliable than a Turbo with a wastegate, intercooler, direct injection on the argument that there's more stuff to break without evidence to how unreliable a turbocharged engine is compared to an NA

When I was deciding which trim to buy, I was thinking the 2.0 is perfectly fine and the 1.5 is not necessary.

And then I drove up a steep hill, and instantly I decided on the 1.5. The torque different is substantial, when circumstances call for it. The powerband is vastly different too.

As for more parts = more breaking...well, time will tell.

I would rather get a Corolla over a 2L civic

I test drove cars with both engines before we bought our EX-T.

The standard engine was fine. The negative characteristics of the CVT are a little less apparent with the turbo engine, since the car has more power. The non turbo car seemed a touch quieter as far as engine noise. Our turbo '16 handles the CVT a lot better than our non turbo '14 Civic. The '14 is kind of annoying to drive with a CVT. Weak engine, noise, not much "go". Feels feeble when you really need some power. It will perform, but it doesn't like it. The CVT does better in the '16 non turbo I drove, but not as good as the turbo.

Where the turbo engine shines is when you have hills, or you have the car loaded down with people and gear. The torque characteristics of the 1.5T make the car a lot more pleasant to drive in hilly terrain and/or with passengers aboard.

In relatively flat terrain, with only the driver in the car, the difference is less obvious unless you are a hot shoe driver. Flat, city traffic kind of stuff, or interstate cruising at 65, the NA engine is perfectly adequate.

I bought the EX-T over the EX because the price difference seemed so small considering what you got, it seemed like a no brainer value for the money. But I could have lived with an EX just fine. If the price difference had been another grand, I probably would have gone EX. But as the price structure stood when I got our car, the upcharge was minimal, and I figure I'll probably get most of the difference back someday when I trade or sell it. So my net cost difference ex/EXT, over time, will be a lot less than the initial cost.

My wife's one little wish for this car was to have heated seats. She would have settled, but again, the modest upgrade charge and added features made the value proposition of going turbo pretty attractive.

I went with the EX-T because I wanted heated seats, the lip spoiler and the front fog lights...just the spoiler and fog lights would have pushed over the cost, so to me was a no brainier...as far as reliability, I don't think the turbo should be a problem, seeing as other can push more out of the cars than stock, I think Honda tuned it down to keep it reliable

Yeah. I tested both and while I liked the 1.5T I thought that the 2.0 would just be better. For me while Honda does build quality cars and engines, I was still a bit reluctant to go with a turbo. While turbos have come a long ways in the past 10-15 years, I still had my doubts. This civic is something that will be passed down and used for a good 10-12 years so I decided to go with something quite reliable. More parts = a greater possibility that something does break and needs repair. However, just because there are more parts doesn't mean that it will. It is just a numbers and probability game. I didn't want to take the chance. Also as mentioned before the noise of the car was a deciding factor. My previous cars had some pretty loud cabin noise *aka CR-V and pilot* and I wanted something that was quiet. Finally DI vs PI. All in all it was really just peace of mind for me.

Probably evidence could show there is no problems with the 1.5T but with no 100% substantiated evidence at this point I didn't want to take the risk.

The only reason I would get the 2.0 is to get the manual. I almost walked out of the dealership because they didn't have a 1.5t manual. The 1.5t has better fuel economy more power more cool factor more everything. I went with the 1.5t with the cvt obviously and haven't looked back and never will.