Scotty says "Buy the 2.0 Civic over the Turbo".

[ebatr24]

Scotty's subscribers defend him to the death, even though he is a quack. My favorite is his video on "cold air intakes" where he spends the entire video discrediting them by using a Spectre intake from Autozone as an example. He should really stick to videos giving advice on which decade old Lexus or Camry his subs should buy to have a reliable used car.

Sponsored

 

[frontlinegeek]

They won't because they don't need to.

A boy can dream

 

[saz468]

The 1.5 turbo maybe more complex than the 2.0 liter if I wanted simple I would have kept my 2.0 liter Elantra coupe. And the 16 hp more over the 2.0 liter makes a difference plus the ext has more features than the ex . it being a Honda I’m sure the 1.5 turbo will be dependable as the non turbos

 

[NoelPR]

Don't know why all the fuzz.

The question was simple. What is more reliable the turbo 1.5lt or the n/a 2.0lt on the new civic.

As much as we love the turbo chances for more reliability are higher on the 2.0
You don't need a PHD or lots of experience that less moving parts are less possible problems in the future.


He was right until the engine size comment. I would take as valid if the 2.0 was making similar amount of power of the 1.5.

 

[Stook08]

Scotty Kilmer provides a Pro bono vehicle
advice service (with a minor subscription to Youtube Stream of course), in which he answers legitimate questions and/or provides sound professional opinion. He has +/-50yrs experience and is by far more knowledgeable than anyone on this forum and most other forums on the web.
Let Scotty answer the questions that are directed to him. If someone disagrees with his viewpoint(s), the prudent and mature direction to take is simply to stop watching the shows.

So if someone gives your friend dated advice you wouldn’t correct him?

 

[julianzh]

Any car made before 1980s will be the best and anything after that is a money pit.

 

[verbalj]

I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said (that this guy is a maniac), but when I read "Scotty" in the title, I immediately thought of this:

 

[AhabSnake]

I know the 2.0 is hated on a lot, but my opinion is that the 2.0 is a great engine in it's own right and has more than enough power, sounds surprisingly good, and is still pretty fun to drive and is good for people who want to save some $ and just have a car that works and does everything you'd expect. However, what Scotty said is bullshit and i've been calling this dude out for some time now (pretty sure I made a thread about this). The moment he said "it's a bigger engine so it doesn't need a turbo" is what confirmed to me that he's incompetent. Dude needs to lay off the crack. The whole oil dilution thing is so overblown its crazy, so that's also not a real reason to stay away from the 1.5.

I have no doubt the 1.5 will last pretty long if it's taken care of properly. Even on my "money-pit" German cars that Scotty loves to rant on, I have done nothing but routine maintenance at the dealer and they have been rock solid reliable including my Benz SUV is which is up to 85K miles with literally not a single issue besides a $250 fix for a CEL. Scotty doesn't seem to understand that times have changed and stuff that applied 10-15 years ago just isn't true anymore. Point is, if you take care of the car it'll take care of you (unless it's an FCA product).

I thinks he's just talking in general that the 2 litre is an all around winner, and the average person doesn't need the turbo to enjoy the car.

 

[gtman]

I think Scotty's opinion was based on the fact that the 2 liter offers more soda for the money than the 1.5 liter.

 

[dgordon7]

There is definitely an entertainment value aspect about his comments. No question. The 2.0 has a higher percentage chance of being easier to keep "long term" as it is non-turboed = simpler and less complex and less stressed as a result. The other big thing is Direct Injection. It is absolutely the best technology, but I personally am not sure it's had all of it's kinks worked out yet. Would I not buy a 1.5T for these reasons? Absolutely not = the two engines are built imho for two different markets. For performance and economy the 1.5 is the one = it does an excellent job of combining those two. For economy and a lower overall cost priority the 2.0 is an excellent option. Still has good power, sound and all a substantial number in the market are looking for. And with a stick it's a hoot. The 2.0 was the sweet spot for me.

 

[gtman]

There is definitely an entertainment value aspect about his comments. No question. The 2.0 has a higher percentage chance of being easier to keep "long term" as it is non-turboed = simpler and less complex and less stressed as a result. The other big thing is Direct Injection. It is absolutely the best technology, but I personally am not sure it's had all of it's kinks worked out yet. Would I not buy a 1.5T for these reasons? Absolutely not = the two engines are built imho for two different markets. For performance and economy the 1.5 is the one = it does an excellent job of combining those two. For economy and a lower overall cost priority the 2.0 is an excellent option. Still has good power, sound and all a substantial number in the market are looking for. And with a stick it's a hoot. The 2.0 was the sweet spot for me.

I'm not sure it's for two completely different markets but since Honda only puts the N/A engine in the "lower" models, it's clearly the budget option. But, the 2.0 is a fine engine and puts out plenty of power for it's mission as a reliable economy car with some fun to boot.

 

[GoodBytes]

In Scotty defense, he is considering that a car you buy, you'll also keep it for like 18 years. And so he goes with the logic that less complicated things are (mechanically, that is), the less problems you'll get.

Also, the 1.5L engine has gasoline and oil mixing issue.... which can be a problem if you live in a cold climate, and you park your car outside. It sucks for those affected, I don't know if Honda has a firmware update to alleviate or resolve this, but still sucks nonetheless, and pretty disappointing for a company like Honda, that has a reputation of making excellent engines. Of course, if you plan to replace your car after 7-8 years (maybe more), I doubt this issue, with proper oil replacement, will actually affect you or anyone, in the sense that the damage is probably not that much. But, it will probably won't last 18 years, if you get what I am saying.

 

[AhabSnake]

There is definitely an entertainment value aspect about his comments. No question. The 2.0 has a higher percentage chance of being easier to keep "long term" as it is non-turboed = simpler and less complex and less stressed as a result. The other big thing is Direct Injection. It is absolutely the best technology, but I personally am not sure it's had all of it's kinks worked out yet. Would I not buy a 1.5T for these reasons? Absolutely not = the two engines are built imho for two different markets. For performance and economy the 1.5 is the one = it does an excellent job of combining those two. For economy and a lower overall cost priority the 2.0 is an excellent option. Still has good power, sound and all a substantial number in the market are looking for. And with a stick it's a hoot. The 2.0 was the sweet spot for me.

I'm waiting for the 2019 model to come out, which has been annoying, since first they said feb, then mid feb, now it late feb/early march. But regarding the 2.0, what is it like to accelerate from a stop or when overtaking, as i read the cvt is abit slow. The corolla apparantly has an added gear for first, to make quicker acceleration, but i don't want the toyota. So how does the civic perform in everyday driving?

 

[dgordon7]

Gtman, very well said.

Sponsored