Anyone driven both the 2.0 and turbo ?

The 2.0 is only available on the LX and EX. The appeal of this motor is slightly lower cost of ownership due to less moving parts. If that appeals to you, do the 2.0. Otherwise the 1.5T is both more efficient and powerful. Ride quality is exactly the same in the upper trims. LX is slightly different due to different size wheels & tires.

drove the 2.0 today because my local dealer didnt have any 1.5T in stock yet...but did enjoy the ride ...very quiet and more peppy tighter turning than my 08 civic

however it felt lacking to the accord sport i also drove also...i think the 1.5T will have the lower mid range pick up speed im looking for

waiting on the rallye red touring model to show up in ohio...i cant seem to find one

2.0 is old school honda. proper. 1.5 is quiet. nice, no lag. quiet. half the fun is the fury

I know this is unrelated to the original forum question but I am surprised Honda did not equip the 2.0L engine with direct injection. The 1.5L does not come with VTEC. I am still considering either engine.

No need to do DI when multi-port gets them the efficiency and emissions they want. DI can suffer from carbon buildup and is generally more expensive to manage.

So is the 1.5 a DI with the carbon buildup issue??

I have driven both. Just drove the touring today. It seems a great little car. Plenty of power. Obviously not race power, but plenty of pull out into fast traffic in Atlanta and not get run over power. Having said that it's going to be hard to wait a year or so for new SI, and type R.

I'm not sure about 1.5 being more efficient than the 2.0. I believe both engines have same epa rating. On a 10 mile round trip ride to and from the gas station I got almost 45 mpg (as per the trip computer) in the 2.0. The only one I remember better was the accord hybrid at 53 mpg.

To people who have driven both, what were observable differences noticed when test driving the 1.5 vs 2.0?

Radrog said:

I'm not sure about 1.5 being more efficient than the 2.0. I believe both engines have same epa rating. On a 10 mile round trip ride to and from the gas station I got almost 45 mpg (as per the trip computer) in the 2.0. The only one I remember better was the accord hybrid at 53 mpg.

Click to expand...

I think this is especially true if you drive with a heavy foot.

I have now driven both. The 2.0 is perfectly acceptable, but I have noticed a bit more pick-up with the turbo. The turbo+CVT is WAY better than the CVT I test drove in the new Honda HRV crossover, which reminded me of a wind-up toy in terms of acceleration.

Reliability and long term costs?

I have no doubt I'd be satisfied with the performance and fuel economy of either engine.

A friend of mine who knows more about engines than I do advised against turbos because there are more things that can go wrong and if you keep your car a long time (10 years for me, usually) normally aspirated is better.

Difference is more remarkable under "sport" mode. Otherwise while in "D" smashing the pedal is about the same.
As mentioned 1.5T is quieter, noticeable quieter under acceleration and cruising. 2.0 has that classic honda engine sound, which could be tune to be a more enjoyable intake noise.

I have been doubting the 1.5T, but test drive, it feel very nice. Since it's honda's first turbo civic, I tend to think they did a lot of homework to make sure this one is a safe shot. 10th gen is their game changer, they shouldn't play lightly on their engine choice.

If u'r going for EX-T, just jump to Touring, (here in Canada, the price difference is 2k... and u get better sound, leather, more gadget and those LED head XD )

Donald Trump on the new Civic...


"...it's going to be great. It'll be wonderful. You're gonna love it!!!"

Hurrah for "The Donald"!!!!

Design said:

The 2.0... ...The appeal of this motor is slightly lower cost of ownership due to less moving parts. If that appeals to you, do the 2.0. ...

Click to expand...

I keep my cars for 10 years at a time. I also am a bit wary of DI engines, and the 2.0 normally aspirated engine with Honda's excellent manual transmission pushes all the right buttons for me. Well, I need a hatch, so... ...still waiting!

High Mileage said:

I have now driven both. The 2.0 is perfectly acceptable, but I have noticed a bit more pick-up with the turbo. The turbo+CVT is WAY better than the CVT I test drove in the new Honda HRV crossover, which reminded me of a wind-up toy in terms of acceleration.

Click to expand...

is there noticeable lag on the turbo?? I thought not one of the saleman at my local store is pushing that story on me and im not sure why...