10th Honda Civic Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Great move.
It's what they need to meet fuel economy requirements and still maintain power levels required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
well see what happens, more torque forsure. But DI turbos will alwaysd be trouble, honda or not...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
I have a feeling we'll see more of them show up on pre-owned lots out of the fear of what it'll be like on your wallet past the original warranty term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
a bit of insight on the turbo power plant:

The 1.5-liter turbo engine can deliver the power of a traditional 2.0- to 2.4-liter engine with excellent torque and better fuel efficiency, Yamamoto said. The current Civic has a naturally aspirated 1.8-liter engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Looking into this engine more, i'm a bit excited to try it out or at the very least see a dyno chart of it in comparison to the 1.8 currently offered.

through my experience, the 1.8 lacked life, but that's not to say I expected it to be some power house, just could use more of a kick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
So it's now official -- a turbo engine for the base 10th gen Civic.

Article from Automotive News:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150302/OEM06/303029983/honda-relies-on-turbo-civic-to-lift-fuel-economy


Given the up to 200k production statement for the turbo, this doesn't make sense for a base engine, unless it is for base coupe.


Would it make sense the base would be a 1.5L turbo and the EX be let's say a larger displacement? Turbo also?
Possibly shared with the common platform base Accord. Of course Honda may want the segment only base turbo to boost Civic back to US compact leader.


Can a Honda turbo be both cost effective and reliable (200k + life)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Given the up to 200k production statement for the turbo, this doesn't make sense for a base engine, unless it is for base coupe.


Would it make sense the base would be a 1.5L turbo and the EX be let's say a larger displacement? Turbo also?
Possibly shared with the common platform base Accord. Of course Honda may want the segment only base turbo to boost Civic back to US compact leader.


Can a Honda turbo be both cost effective and reliable (200k + life)?
i could see that (refinement) as their excuse for staying away this long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I will follow this engine (and the 2.0L NA) with great interest. When I was in the market for a new car in 2013, I had the Cruze and Civic on my short list (bought the EX-L). After four years of watching the 1.4L turbo motor in the Cruze, I'm waiting to see if Honda did a better job of engineering a small turbo engine. The Cruze engine overheats if you run the AC above 90 F and shuts the AC off. It is supposed to run on 87 E10, but has to retard timing so much in the heat that it will stumble and lose power. In really cold weather, the engine produces so little heat that you can't run the heater full bore or it will suck all of the heat out of the cooling system. The engine has water pump problems (on the 3rd design), PCV failures (2nd design), primary wiring issues (Chinese wiring), and coolant leaks. The engine will run properly on 91 & 93 octane gas, or you can spend hundreds of $$$$ on a tune. There have also been quite a few turbo failures due to coking of the oil lines to the turbo. The turbo is built into the exhaust manifold, so replacement is expensive out of warranty. The PCV is built into cam cover, so you have to replace the entire cover if the valve disk ruptures. The Cruze motor has lower EPA mileage and higher EPA emissions than the current r18a Civic engine. Right now, I'm in favor of the 2.0L DOHC N/A DI ED engine. I'll wait a couple of years to see how the 1.5L turbo motor does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
i think they can even tune the engine to take regular gasoline.
it would be in their best interest to do that, to someone buying a honda, the added costs over time of buying premium fuel can amount to a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
i think they can even tune the engine to take regular gasoline.
it would be in their best interest to do that, to someone buying a honda, the added costs over time of buying premium fuel can amount to a lot.
I find it interesting that both the Honda r18a and the Chevy 1.4L turbo engines were designed to run on 91 octane. The difference is that the r18a runs equally well on 87,91, and 93 in any temperature (I know, I tested each for 2,000 miles), while the 1.4L engine in the Cruze does not. I don't know if that's problematic of a small displacement turbo motor, or just poor engineering. That's why I'm waiting to see how the 1.5L turbos in both the '16 Civic and Cruze work. I'm not looking to replace my '03 Mazda P5 until 2018, so I've got time to watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
I think it's a good move
but I hope it won't damage there rep as being (one of ) the most reliable carmaker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
I find it interesting that both the Honda r18a and the Chevy 1.4L turbo engines were designed to run on 91 octane. The difference is that the r18a runs equally well on 87,91, and 93 in any temperature (I know, I tested each for 2,000 miles), while the 1.4L engine in the Cruze does not. I don't know if that's problematic of a small displacement turbo motor, or just poor engineering. That's why I'm waiting to see how the 1.5L turbos in both the '16 Civic and Cruze work. I'm not looking to replace my '03 Mazda P5 until 2018, so I've got time to watch.
Interesting result.
I wonder what a Honda tech or someone knowledgeable in that R Series engine has to say about using lower octane fuel and what effects it can have in the short to long term. Have you found any of that out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Interesting result.
I wonder what a Honda tech or someone knowledgeable in that R Series engine has to say about using lower octane fuel and what effects it can have in the short to long term. Have you found any of that out?
The OMs for both the 2013 Civic and the 2013 Cruze state that 87 octane gas is recommended for the cars. The r18a motor should be less affected when pulling timing than the turbo engine to eliminate spark knock. In fact, I'd bet the ECU has to do it far less in the Civic Motor than in the small turbo engine. I have yet to see any reported problems with 9th gen. 1.8L engines related to this subject. There has to be well over 600K of these 9th gen. engines on the road in the US and I bet they all run on 87 octane. My take is the NA motor is far more flexible and forgiving than the small displacement turbo engine. Time will tell, but someone other than me will be the tester.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
i rather take that chance going off of recommended fuel with a vehicle I lease than one i'm paying outright for
but with 600k on some 9th gen's already... seems to be worth trying.

I do remembering reading that some turbocharged engines got better MPG with recommended octane than lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
^ I stated there were over 600K 9th gen. 1.8L Civics on the US roads, not there were 9th gen. Civics with over 600K miles on them.

Yes, the Cruze 1.4L turbo gets better mileage with premium fuel, but it's a toss up if there is any cost savings using it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
the 2.3T in the RDX was a MEGA motor (too bad they killed it), so I'm not particularly fussed that Honda might pull a GM....
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top