Any evidence that the 2.0 is detuned/overrated?

[SI_honda_2k17]

I’m surprise to see that the SI lost... it have a volume button!!!! Hehe

Sponsored

 

[lopcd]

This sums upy experience with my EX. I test drove the Touring for a few hours to see if I wanted to pass off my financing and go with an EXT but regardless of the faster 0-60 time, the feel and driving experience of the 2.0 felt way nicer to me than the 1.5T. The turbo needs to spool to get the torque, while the NA engine you feel the acceleration quicker and for longer before getting to speed. Takes a bit longer to get to speed but feel more satisfying, and the sound of VTEC at 5600rpm and the roar of the engine with a CAI just sounds awesome. I like how much control I have over my power instantly when I press or release the pedal, it feels precise, and it feels like it's begging you to make it roar.

Fuel consumption wasn't much different either and when I got into the "daily use" mindset, there wasn't a huge difference I noticed between the two power-wise, aside from the 1.5t power being slightly delayed

Love my NA, and I'm actually really glad I chose it!

sounds like you're just justifying your purchase, I am confident you'd be saying the opposite if you chose the 1.5T. Either way, there is no denying the 1.5T is faster. If you prefer the drive of the 2.0, all power to you. Ultimately, this is a pretty subjective topic.

 

[dallasjhawk]

sounds like you're just justifying your purchase, I am confident you'd be saying the opposite if you chose the 1.5T. Either way, there is no denying the 1.5T is faster. If you prefer the drive of the 2.0, all power to you. Ultimately, this is a pretty subjective topic.

the only subjective part is the part about someone thinking the 2.0 is better. better for what though. The hp/tq #s say the turbo is the faster engine. You wanna say your tuned 2.0 can run with the ext, ok let me put the ktuner on my turbo and then the difference becomes even bigger than it was at stock. I had the 2.0 for a rental for 2 months, yall can keep that thing. Without a tune its no fun to drive at all. At least the 1.5t is more fun stock.

 

[jayzon831]

Bone stock, the 1.5T is obviously better performing, but the 2.0 should theoretically have the greater potential after the same mods. I was actually disappointed that my hatchback didn't come with the K20 engine. I may be biased since my last car had a K20 (albeit different K20), but I know how much fun and punishment it can take. I'm not so sure how durable the 1.5T will be in the long run.

 

[Micah]

The 1.5T is a better starting point. When you factor in the costs of modding the 2.0, the same expense applied to the 1.5T would again put it far ahead of the 2.0. I will agree that NA engines tend to be more reliable though. The 1.5T is fairly new, and while there are some high mileage examples out there... only time will tell.

 

[lopcd]

the only subjective part is the part about someone thinking the 2.0 is better. better for what though. The hp/tq #s say the turbo is the faster engine. You wanna say your tuned 2.0 can run with the ext, ok let me put the ktuner on my turbo and then the difference becomes even bigger than it was at stock. I had the 2.0 for a rental for 2 months, yall can keep that thing. Without a tune its no fun to drive at all. At least the 1.5t is more fun stock.

I agree with that.

 

[xcivicx]

Who ever said better

 

[jred721]

the only subjective part is the part about someone thinking the 2.0 is better. better for what though. The hp/tq #s say the turbo is the faster engine. You wanna say your tuned 2.0 can run with the ext, ok let me put the ktuner on my turbo and then the difference becomes even bigger than it was at stock. I had the 2.0 for a rental for 2 months, yall can keep that thing. Without a tune its no fun to drive at all. At least the 1.5t is more fun stock.

I agree with you in the sense that if the Civic were my only car, I would 110% get the 1.5T (Ill admit that sometimes I want to trade for a sport touring hatch bc it looks so damn good), I am a person who needs to own at least a somewhat powerful car that I can mess with and get some good power gains off of it (although I would probably buy something with a bigger engine and a real auto if it were my only car honestly). You gotta remember though that this forum represents a small percentage of people who buy civics because most of us are enthusiasts and we actually care about this shit, the reality is most people just need a car that has a sub 10 second 0-60 and gets good fuel economy and the 2.0 hits all that criteria.

I personally couldn't justify getting a 1.5 because I needed a car that didn't get 10 MPG and kill my wallet and the 2.0 was powerful enough and it was (to me) a little smoother and more linear in power delivery even though real world the 1.5 is obviously faster. Also, there are people who buy these cars and keep them till the engine blows up and the 2.0 is undoubtedly the better bet. 1.5T is the better car for the enthusiast and people who really need that extra power (or they just want a more optioned out Civic) but if I were buying a car looking to modify it or have more power, I probably would not be looking at a CVT Honda in the first place.

 

[lopcd]

why do you run premium?

 

[jred721]

why do you run premium?

Im assuming he's tuned, and if he is KTuner makes the tune so that it is optimized for 91+ octane to actually get some horsepower gains out of it. If not though, running premium on a factory tuned engine is a colossal waste of money for something that will give you absolutely no performance gains since it is tuned to run on regular fuel from factory and not premium.

 

[marauderguy]

Stock 1.5t 0 to 100 17.7 seconds
Stock 2.0 0 to 100 22.1 seconds

This is according to Car and Drivers test results. Both Cvts with the 1.5 having a 120 lb weight disadvantage.

Glad I went with the turbo.

 

[Aurelleah]

sounds like you're just justifying your purchase, I am confident you'd be saying the opposite if you chose the 1.5T. Either way, there is no denying the 1.5T is faster. If you prefer the drive of the 2.0, all power to you. Ultimately, this is a pretty subjective topic.

Lmao. I'm not, because I had the option of passing off my financing to a girl I know who was interested in it. Taking only a 1.5k hit or so. I 100 percent had this choice dude, allowing me to upgrade to an ext or a touring. I test drove the touring for like 3 hours in traffic, twisty roads, getting groceries, spirited runs. In the end, I felt myself missing my 2.0L. Sure, the car is faster. But the 2.0L feels great to drive, and in a world with speed limits a speeding tickets, faster doesn't automatically make an engine nicer to drive. Unless you feel that the only defining factor in a car is how fast you can race to the speed limit, without caring about linear throttle response or "input lag" or engine sound or VTEC.

Sure, I had second thoughts about "what if" I had gotten the EXT, I actually test drove the touring 3 times on 3 separate occasions just to be sure. Each time I got that same feeling of missing the feel of the 2.0L. I also tend to use engine braking on all big hills or when I wanna slow down a bit without making the person behind me think there's a problem infront of me, where the 1.5 has almost no engine braking capability next to the 2.0 (this is just a side note, aside from the nice-to-drive feeling)

I shouldn't have to justify the reasons I gave. I didn't type this on my phone just to hear myself talk or to force confirmation bias on myself. I have better things to do, and so do you. Don't believe me that I feel the NA is a more pleasant engine to drive? That's nice! Move on to another thread then.

I never said the 2.0l was faster, either. I even stated specifically that the 1.5 was faster.... As a side note To be honest I feel it's extremely annoying how turbo users tend to come into some of the few few 2.0L threads and hijack it to talk about how the 1.5 is faster. It's like, that's nice? This is a NA thread, go circlejerk in a turbo thread

Let's get this thread back on topic.

 

[Aurelleah]

why do you run premium?

A tune allows the engine to make use of high octane gas, high octane gas allows for very tight knock control amounts, keeps it low cause it's resistant to knocking. On the stock tune the knock control is much higher by default and using premium fuel doesn't lower that. But the knock control lowers engine performance by regarding timings, so tuning+high octane makes for more power.

Sponsored