2016 Civic Si turbo - welcome or not?

HondaGeek said:

I dare say that if the Si comes with any turbo engine, it will be very popular in the tuning scene. Even more so than the Type R, since it will have a much higher price of entry.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The Si has always been popular in the tuning scene and going FI will make it that much easier to modify... assuming it's got the block and internals for it. If it does I could see it being the darling of next year's SEMA show.

I will say though, for as good as turbo engines are for modifying, I'll still miss the high revving NA engine (a la 8th gen Si and earlier).

P.s. what do you drive now?

Tuttle said:

Agreed. The Si has always been popular in the tuning scene and going FI will make it that much easier to modify... assuming it's got the block and internals for it. If it does I could see it being the darling of next year's SEMA show.

I will say though, for as good as turbo engines are for modifying, I'll still miss the high revving NA engine (a la 8th gen Si and earlier).

P.s. what do you drive now?

Click to expand...

Currently do not own a car ( and I work for a Honda dealer). That being said, my last Honda was a 2011 Honda Fit Sport, which I loved. I also had three 8th gen Sis, including a Mugen Si.

As much as I want a Type R when it comes out, I almost feel that I will get an Si instead. 300HP is a lot for a FWD car, and I get snow where I live.

The market has really shifted (or been coerced) towards turbos, and Honda has acknowledged this. As much as I think something like the K24W7 would make sense for the Si in principle, I don't think sticking with a naturally aspirated engine fits with the generational leap Honda is trying to make. Every competitor I can think of has a turbo. Being that the Si is an enthusiast trim, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the potential power left on the table for a good tune to exploit, where the turbos can really pull ahead.

It almost feels like Honda has a Mexican standoff between their Civic trims. If they stick with big N/A, they run the risk of their 1.5T outperforming it with a tune, albeit CVT. External competition would continue to devour them. If they decide to run a massaged 1.5T with a manual, how is it much different from an EX-L? Suspension, steering, and gearing - are these enough to differentiate the trims? Even then, the 2.0 turbos in the competitions' enthusiast trims would likely outpace the 1.5T Honda. Finally, a detuned 2.0T could cannibalize the Type-R if the power is easy enough to tune back.

So a turbo is welcome in the sense that it would allow Civic Si to be competitive again. As for the Si's philosophy as a high-revving N/A, I'd say that went out the window in the 9th gen. The same can be said of the Type R now. The characteristics (or lack thereof) of the 2.0T were worth changing their philosophies to accomplish other goals. I'm interested to see what they do, but I'd rather reserve judgment until I can actually get behind the wheel to see how everything works together for the overall experience.

Emissions and fuel efficiency have pushed Honda towards turbo engines. That's the simple truth. That being said, having had both turbo and non-turbo engines, I love the character of the naturally aspirated four-cylinder engines from Honda more. I would rather have a 2.2 L naturally aspirated engine making 260 hp then a terrible one with the same horse power output, regardless if it makes less torque. And that engine already exist.

Everything will be turbo, so It would be nice to have the option of a naturally aspirated, high revving engine, for those who actually prefer that type.

I still have hopes that the Si will be naturally aspirated. Honda has said there will be at least one non-turbo and I'm hoping they did not mean the 2.0L base. The Type R is sure to be turbo with what it looks to achieve in terms of power and torque so I'm hoping the Si will be the last hurrah for the non turbos of this generation.

I really hope they stick with NA.

We should expect it won't be NA; but instead retain 98% of what made the NA fun.

After driving turbo cars for 7 years, the 8-9K redline is honestly overrated. Give it some power with good throttle response, like the current 9th Gen CTR, and Si fans will largely be satisfied.

Design said:

We should expect it won't be NA; but instead retain 98% of what made the NA fun.

After driving turbo cars for 7 years, the 8-9K redline is honestly overrated. Give it some power with good throttle response, like the current 9th Gen CTR, and Si fans will largely be satisfied.

Click to expand...

I half agree. An 8-9k redline is somewhat for bragging rights and bench racing yea, and a turbo usually gives more usable power in more accessible (lower) RPMs for everyday around the town driving than an NA engine, but nothing sounds as epic as a motor screaming at 7-9k rpm. So a high revving NA engine for me is also about sound and the sensory experience it gives, which turbo engines just don't match. Turbos sound lazy to me in comparison. Turbo exhausts also don't sound nearly as good as NA exhausts.

Reliability of turbos in the really long term is a concern. I like to keep my car for a long time. Scary reading about some of the fuel pump issues that 's affected modern turbo engines from BMW and VW.

M1160 said:

Reliability of turbos in the really long term is a concern. I like to keep my car for a long time. Scary reading about some of the fuel pump issues that 's affected modern turbo engines from BMW and VW.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if kept stock, current oem turbos can go forever. They are water cooled now, and with metal/bearing tech advancements there aren't too many problems. Issues however do make themselves apparent quick when you constantly run the turbo faster than is efficient.

My OEM K04 turbo went 150K before we suspected a leak. Even after replacing, it was still a good turbo with plenty of life still left (50K+). Minimal shaft play, no propeller damage, no oil stains. Ran most of it's life at 250+ WHP.

Use synthetic oil and keep all fluids in check; modern turbos will go 200K+ easily.

M1160 said:

Reliability of turbos in the really long term is a concern. I like to keep my car for a long time. Scary reading about some of the fuel pump issues that 's affected modern turbo engines from BMW and VW.

Click to expand...

I owned one of those BMWs. The fuel pump is just that, and not related to the turbos. It was the high-pressure fuel pump related to the direct injection system. It would fail intermittently, causing a lean condition to which the ECU would respond by going directly into limp mode. BMW extended the warranty on that part out to 125k miles, and it was a relatively quick fix.

There was, however, a problem with the turbos, mostly due to BMW not doing their usual over-engineering on a major engine component, of all things. Compact car weighs 3800 lbs due to "German engineering", but the turbos were designed with an integrated wastegate with an ill-fitting butterfly valve. The valve didn't seat correctly from new, so it would move around. That movement caused it to wear and loosen, eventually leading to the dreaded "death rattle" and boost loss. Even worse was the valve was not serviceable; permanently fixing it required replacing both turbos. I traded mine in before it got that bad, though.

Both BMW and VW have supposedly either switched to an external wastegate, or improved the design of an integrated one so that isn't an issue anymore. With Honda's history, I don't expect they'd make such a mistake, especially in an engine that will be so mass-produced.

Design said:

My OEM K04 turbo went 150K before we suspected a leak. Even after replacing, it was still a good turbo with plenty of life still left (50K+). Minimal shaft play, no propeller damage, no oil stains. Ran most of it's life at 250+ WHP.

Use synthetic oil and keep all fluids in check; modern turbos will go 200K+ easily.

Click to expand...

Even with the wastegate issues, the turbo housing, impellers, all the plumbing, and all related things aside from the wastegate valve were operating perfectly on my car at over 150k miles. Even the wastegate was fine until around 120k. If that didn't happen, I expect the turbos would survived for the life of the car. It's not like the 90s anymore with fluid bearings that would get starved by bad oil plumbing.

Luckily on the 1.5t, the turbo/wastegate/bypass valve are all located within easy reach at the front of the engine bay should something go wrong.

cae said:

The market has really shifted (or been coerced) towards turbos, and Honda has acknowledged this. As much as I think something like the K24W7 would make sense for the Si in principle, I don't think sticking with a naturally aspirated engine fits with the generational leap Honda is trying to make. Every competitor I can think of has a turbo. Being that the Si is an enthusiast trim, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the potential power left on the table for a good tune to exploit, where the turbos can really pull ahead.

It almost feels like Honda has a Mexican standoff between their Civic trims. If they stick with big N/A, they run the risk of their 1.5T outperforming it with a tune, albeit CVT. External competition would continue to devour them. If they decide to run a massaged 1.5T with a manual, how is it much different from an EX-L? Suspension, steering, and gearing - are these enough to differentiate the trims? Even then, the 2.0 turbos in the competitions' enthusiast trims would likely outpace the 1.5T Honda. Finally, a detuned 2.0T could cannibalize the Type-R if the power is easy enough to tune back.

So a turbo is welcome in the sense that it would allow Civic Si to be competitive again. As for the Si's philosophy as a high-revving N/A, I'd say that went out the window in the 9th gen. The same can be said of the Type R now. The characteristics (or lack thereof) of the 2.0T were worth changing their philosophies to accomplish other goals. I'm interested to see what they do, but I'd rather reserve judgment until I can actually get behind the wheel to see how everything works together for the overall experience.

Click to expand...

I agree with you with the exception that de tuned 2.0T in si will cannibalize Type R. For starters the hardcore type r enthusiasts will opt for it regardless of what engine si has. You have to remember type r differences from si will be far greater than just engine, factor in transmission, steering, suspension, brakes, chassis, aero dynamics, etc. Mitsubishi did it with ralli art lancer, Hyundai Genesis is detuned evo 4b11 as well, focus st will not effect rs for same reasons. Wrx doesn't hurt sti sales as well.

The engine is 20% of the the car. The rest is in the chassis and suspension.

A "detuned" 2.0T isn't really the same motor at all. Same block but different head, valvetrain, turbo, intake, IC, IM, DP, exhaust, transmission, etc. The CTR really only needs a 40 HP gap to distinguish itself from its cousins.

It's been done before. The ITR was a modest 18% increase over the GSR. Better gearing combined with a modest weight reduction ensured the GSR could never compete with the ITR out of the box.