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

[dgordon7]

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?

Ahab, I believe there is a sport setting for the CVT which works quite well. I had a test drive in a CVT and it was okay. If I was driving it in traffic then it's the way to go. But fortunately I don't have to commute and my driving is more local town and country. The Honda manual setup is really excellent. Frankly the best I've ever experienced. In a Civic, who'd guess? The worst, a 370z. Very tough as the engagement point is razor thin and pedal feel nil.

Sponsored

 

[ebhaynz]

Scotty does give out very good general car advice and yes, he is cheap which I admire to a point. However, he even talks about how cheap he bought his house 84 years ago and how much the land it's on is worth millions. These kind of cheapos take things too far imho and I've known plenty of them.
I've watched a lot of his videos and he almost always says any car other than Honda or Toyota has a bad automatic transmission(true). He always says #1 maintenance is to change your oil regularly(true). He always says Toyota or Honda are the cars to buy(True). He always says Chrysler and Fiat and Mercedes and Porche's are money pits(TRUE). He always says Korean cars have improved but still have a ways to go(True). He always says cars aren't built to last like they used to(true). He always says it's the coke that keeps him talking non-stop for days on end(TRUE TRUE TRUE).

 

[GoodBytes]

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?

Yes it is a bit slow. It is mostly visible when you don't completely stop and take off again at high velocity. (not an issue in stop and go traffic)
If Eco mode is enabled, you'll get the worst effect. Having it off, the car is a bit better, and having it on Sport mode, it is diminishes further (but now you RPMs pretty much doubles, so you'll burn more oil and fuel).

Personally, I am ok with it, I enjoy the smoother ride you get form CVT (no gear shifting), and the fuel economy is welcomed. And, also... well might as well get used to this sensation, as electric cars don't have transmission boxes in any case. Like I said to my brother who is nuts for manual transmission, I told him to get a Tesla, and mod it to install a fake pedal and manual gear box that connects to nothing and just pretend. In any case, manual transmission today is computer assisted to some degrees, so meh. (yes, I was kidding with him)

 

[jred721]

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?

I have a 2.0 EX so ill give my honest opinion. The Car is only "slow" if you're trying to race people. For daily driving, it has more than enough power and it has never put me in a position where I felt like the car was under powered. The only gripe I have with the 2.0 Liter is that there isn't a lot of torque down low so there's kind of a dead spot in the lower rev range, but you only notice this when you're trying to take off in a hurry. The power delivery is also extremely linear so as you go higher in the rev range the power comes in nice and smooth. Overtaking is also pretty easy in this car, especially when you put it in Sport the overtaking is very easy and not all all stressful on the engine. This is all on a stock 2.0 though.

My 2.0 is Tuned with KTuner on 93 Octane and Throttle Responsiveness set to Level 2. This means that VTEC is lowered to 5600 RPM, there is more mid-range and top end power, and the car is ready to respond on a dime whatever the situation is. Even if you're not particularly into modifying cars and that stuff, I HIGHLY recommend tuning the 2.0 because it makes daily driving so much better. The increased throttle response means that virtually all the CVT lag is pretty much gone, the car is much more eager to rev and get up there, and the increased power is definitely noticeable when merging onto highways and overtaking.The driving experience becomes pretty fun and the engine sounds great as well. Especially when accelerating from a stop and flooring it, it hits VTEC sooner so the changeover is noticeable. Overall, i'd say that the 2.0 is more than enough for daily driving in stock form, but it gets even better when you tune it and solves most of the issues. I'm obviously bias but I wouldn't hesitate in buying one at all.

 

[GoodBytes]

I have a 2.0 EX so ill give my honest opinion. The Car is only "slow" if you're trying to race people. For daily driving, it has more than enough power and it has never put me in a position where I felt like the car was under powered. The only gripe I have with the 2.0 Liter is that there isn't a lot of torque down low so there's kind of a dead spot in the lower rev range, but you only notice this when you're trying to take off in a hurry. The power delivery is also extremely linear so as you go higher in the rev range the power comes in nice and smooth. Overtaking is also pretty easy in this car, especially when you put it in Sport the overtaking is very easy and not all all stressful on the engine. This is all on a stock 2.0 though.

Well said, and I fully agree.

 

[dgordon7]

Joining the chorus as GoodBytes stated.

 

[gtman]

Bottom line here is that the Civic is blessed with a bunch of great models, transmissions and engine choices...

2.0 versus 1.5T, CVT versus manual, coupe versus sedan versus hatch are all interesting topics, for sure. But, that's what makes the Civic so great. There's something for just about everybody and they're all really good.

 

[jred721]

Bottom line here is that the Civic is blessed with a bunch of great models, transmissions and engine choices...

2.0 versus 1.5T, CVT versus manual, coupe versus sedan versus hatch are all interesting topics, for sure. But, that's what makes the Civic so great. There's something for just about everybody and they're all really good.

Agreed. Every trim of the Civic is has something going for it and I love how versatile these cars are. They seem to make the perfect blend of a car with the Civic. Good fuel economy, reliability, fun to drive in any trim, and a decent interior to boot. Can't complain much really.

 

[Gruber]

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.

He discredits what he sees and he is 100% right. A lot of people see those intakes at some Autozone or Pep Boys and just bolt them on hoping for the "Up to 20 hp more" on the box. If they need advice on "should I install this?" the answer is no, like Scotty says, and the advice is for them.

If you know what you are doing, you're paying money to someone to tune the engine, then you have no business asking "Dear Scotty should I buy this pipe?"

Scotty's knowledge comes from the best source: experience. He sees the cars people bring to him. Like those Mercedeses and BMW's some suckers bought used and thought they made a great deal. Then they face repairs they can't afford and they ask Scotty for a cheap fix.

 

[charleswrivers]

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.

Oh, c'mon... it's not that much more girthy.

Y'know, it's interesting to me how, in all I've ever read, the L (N/A variant mind you) was quite a bit lighter than a K engine. K's are consistently billed as being around 400 lbs. I've seen one thing put the L-series as low as 220s (seems way too light). Other things claim it's 10% lighter than a D series which was right around 300 lbs... so I don't see how it isn't 100 lbs lighter, or more than a K20, block alone.
I spent awhile poking around my engine bay this past weekend between some Odyssey work and realized there's a practically cavernous void behind the engine compared to what I remember on the K20s and K24 I had. Adding an intercooler, beefier transmission, turbo and ducting and sure, it gains a lot of weight back. I'm just not sure what puts them back well over the 2.0 powered cars which are in the 27XX lb range. When I bought that Accord intercooler off a 1.5t to see if it was any bigger/better than ours, the thing was just a 5-10 pounds and most of the ducting is plastic. That L-block really is petite. Must be a bunch of other things that add up (springs, sway bars, extra speakers... a lb here... a lb there that get us Si follks in the 29XX range).

I will hand it to Honda for taking what really is a nearly old-Accord size car and making it pretty light despite all the safety equipment and body strengthening that's happened to modern cars over the decades. They're close to the same weight as the old base RSX based on a 7th gen from neatly 20 years ago, and that was a lot smaller car. Light weight can make a engine with middling power perform very well. I sure wish my Si was only 2700 lbs... though I wouldn't be willing to strip it down to get there.

 

[Snoopyslr]

I'm not sure why everybody keeps saying the non-turbo is less complicated... Because it has 4 less parts? Turbo, intercooler, bypass valve, and wastegate? Those parts make the difference between reliability and not?

This thread is ridiculous... Based on that logic, the most reliable engine on the planet would be...

 

[charleswrivers]

I'm not sure why everybody keeps saying the non-turbo is less complicated... Because it has 4 less parts? Turbo, intercooler, bypass valve, and wastegate? Those parts make the difference between reliability and not?

This thread is ridiculous... Based on that logic, the most reliable engine on the planet would be...

Those are more reliable... until they have to be rebuilt. At least they're (relatively) cheap to rebuild.
It must be all that extra fuel they drink to stay so [little] big and strong.

I think a lot of folks... especially older ones hear 'turbo' and they think 'extra part that many engines don't need'... have seen or heard of second or third hand about a car blowing smoke because the seals in their turbo are shot... then they had to spend money to get it fixed that was due to an 'unnecessary part'. They're stuck thinking of the early days when early emissions equipment wrecked big power for large displacement engines and a flood of smaller turbo engines in the late 70s/early 80's era... when things like a turbo Mustang was hated. It was a bad time for cars... the economy... and I'd say the country as a whole. I think this has a lot to do with the negative image of smaller displacement turbocharged cars from a lot of older folks... folks like Scotty, who would have been a younger man working in his trade, seeing essentially the death of American muscle and these early upstart turbo engines who could beat the geared up, lowered compression heavy old V8s who were neutered. The Trans-am from 'Smokey and the Bandit' fame lost about 1/2 it's power once Pontiac was done with it. Just look at an early 80s stingray corvette with a V8 hurting to just get 200 hp (good torque though still, granted) getting encroach on by a bloated S130 turbo 280zx with 1/2 the displacement compared to the earlier S30s.

Most modern cars die with their original turbos still installed because they outlive the car. Most cars for decades have had water cooling lines to keep them from getting oil coked up after shutdown to the point no one has cars that don't have them unless they're eligible to have a antique tag. I think the combined mpg difference between a K20C2 and L15B7 is about 5 mpgs. Even with todays fuel costs, someone running an regular gas the average amount of miles annually ought to have saved enough money to cover the current $400 ebay price of a low mileage stock turbo if it were to fail, and I bet that price will drop as the markets get flooded with our tiny stock turbos once L15B7 cars start dying early deaths.

I can understand why folks, especially older folks don't want a car with a turbo... but, IMO, it's from an impression that they had on an era where the economy was crap, automakers were trying to stick unrefined turbo powertrains with longevity issues to overcome economy and emissions standards they were struggling to meet and they got a bad wrap. It's an impression that's decades out-of-date at this point.

 

[latole]

He said the 2.0 is a bigger engine so it doesn't need a turbo.... Shittin me!

Nobody need a turbo , neither a bigger engine.
Many people want a turbo or a bigger engine, that is not same than need ....

 

[baillieul]

I am an old guy now, and his point is of course valid. Back in the day, I had a nice white 2007 GTi. Great car, Turbo expired 1 month before the warranty was over. Very much $$.

That being said, I have a 2.0 LX and would love to have a 1.5 turbo for performance/tunability.

 

[dgordon7]

Snoops, the only flaw to your argument is that the reciprocating engine is a proven technology. The rotary,,, not so much. Seals were their Achilles heal. But I understand what you were driving at.

Sponsored