[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
2015 Accord goes on sale today, "Gets Multiple Feature Upgrades"
More.......................
NSX prototype smolders at the 'Ring
More.......................
2016 NSX Spied at the 'Ring, Part II
More.......................
Production 2016 Acura NSX caught testing at the 'Ring!
More.......................
2015 CR-V MMC info, with color list. CVT confirmed
More.......................
2015 TLX Pricing info released over the holiday weekend
More.......................
American Honda Reports June 2014 Sales
More.......................
This is probably the very first look at the 2016 Pilot. Spied by a TOV member in So Cal.
More.......................
Pilot --> Re: Pilot Spy Shots
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Valid reason for an ILX Type-S 2.0t/SH-AWD
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Wife and I test drove a TLX 4cyl with Tech pkg.
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: Driven 6cylinder Advanced.
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: TLX production
Join Discussion......
Photoshops --> Re: Hell Wombat
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: My test-drive in 2.4 TLX Base
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Dodge unveils 204 mph Charger Hellcat
Join Discussion......
Strictly Technical --> Re: N22B
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: Beware
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Weight distribution
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: I drove the TLX V6 Tech
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Wife and I test drove a TLX 4cyl with Tech pkg.
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Wife and I test drove a TLX 4cyl with Tech pkg.
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: Competition heating up
Join Discussion......
TOV First Drive: 2015 Acura TLX
Read Article....................
Photo Gallery: 2015 Acura TLX 2.4 P-AWS
Read Article....................
Photo Gallery: 2015 Acura TLX 3.5L SH-AWD
Read Article....................
TOV Photo Gallery: 2015 Honda Fit
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery: 2015 Honda Fit
Read Article....................
TOV Dyno Test: 2014 Accord Hybrid
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
  TOV News > 2013 Honda Civic to Debut at Los Angeles Auto Show With More Youthful and Premium Styling > > Re: Engines?

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
    
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-12-2012 14:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Any chances of the 2.0L from the ILX? To keep the Civic best-in-class, considering the Focus comes with 160hp, and other cars like the Dart come also come with something like 160hp, I have to wonder if Honda is going to step it up on the powerplants.

BTW, I'd wait for the 2013 based just on exterior looks over the 2012s.
DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-12-2012 14:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Everything indicated so far, including some PR speak in the release point to no engine changes yet. That might come around the "normal" MMC, but who knows.
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 05:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
DCR wrote:
Everything indicated so far, including some PR speak in the release point to no engine changes yet. That might come around the "normal" MMC, but who knows.


Not even a retune, say, of the Si to rid itself of the rumored DBW trottle lag -- I haven't driven one, but the compaints of hanging RPMS in all honesty prevent me from considering one as a new DD to replace my 05 Accord.
A77
Profile for A77
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 09:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 12:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.
Hondarulez
Profile for Hondarulez
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 13:22
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



Here's a comparison test between the Dart Rallye and the Focus Se. Both with manual transmission.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se.pdf

Dart - 0-60mph: 7.9s; 1/4 mile: 16s@87mph
Focus - 0-60mph: 7.4s; 1/4 mile: 15.8s@90mph

The Focus manual is faster than a CVT Accord, but slower than a manual Accord.

The Focus has 146lbft of torque, but it's quite a bit faster than the Dart with 184lbft of torque. Weight is clearly a big factor here.

I haven't seen any test being done on a 9th gen Civic manual in Car and Driver. The closest one is the 8th gen Civic manual: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2009-less-than-20000

0-60mph: 7.7s; 1/4 mile: 16.1@87mph

These numbers are as fast as the Dart, if not faster. The new Civic model has a better torque curve so I'd imagine the performance should at least stays the same.

Here's MotorTrend's comparison test of several compact sedans. 5 out of 6 cars tested have DSG or AT and 0-60mph are all in the 8's range, including the Civic.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

The Civic is not the fastest in its segment, but is it really underpowered? IMO, not quite yet. Should Honda make it more competitive in terms of performance? I sure hope so!!
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 18:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Hondarulez wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



Here's a comparison test between the Dart Rallye and the Focus Se. Both with manual transmission.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se.pdf

Dart - 0-60mph: 7.9s; 1/4 mile: 16s@87mph
Focus - 0-60mph: 7.4s; 1/4 mile: 15.8s@90mph

The Focus manual is faster than a CVT Accord, but slower than a manual Accord.

The Focus has 146lbft of torque, but it's quite a bit faster than the Dart with 184lbft of torque. Weight is clearly a big factor here.

I haven't seen any test being done on a 9th gen Civic manual in Car and Driver. The closest one is the 8th gen Civic manual: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2009-less-than-20000

0-60mph: 7.7s; 1/4 mile: 16.1@87mph

These numbers are as fast as the Dart, if not faster. The new Civic model has a better torque curve so I'd imagine the performance should at least stays the same.

Here's MotorTrend's comparison test of several compact sedans. 5 out of 6 cars tested have DSG or AT and 0-60mph are all in the 8's range, including the Civic.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

The Civic is not the fastest in its segment, but is it really underpowered? IMO, not quite yet. Should Honda make it more competitive in terms of performance? I sure hope so!!



Well, as any true car enthusiast knows, 0-60mph is only one PART of the equation. There's also 45-65mph passing times.

More inportantly, and I owned a Civic (and a CRX, and own an Accord along with a WRX), there's how easy is it to drive in traffic. With my Civic, I had to treat every stoplight like I was in a 1/4 mile race just to keep up with traffic. There's the "ease" of power and there's a really really big advantage to comfortable driving with you have 184lb-ft of twist compared to 128lb-ft.

Being that the Dart has the Abarth's powerplant, its very easily modifiable. Its a performance chip away from those paltry stock 0-60mph times. Yeah, yeah, I'm off on a tagent now!

But there's no replacement for torque in daily stop and go driving as any TDI Jetta/Golf owner will tell you despite something like 140hp.

IMHO, the Civic is sitting on the fence with regards to powerplant output. There's too many other econoboxes on the market today with more power/twist, and they don't approach the price of an Si.

They've got the Accord right! They've steadily increased power/twist with each generation. Why can't Honda offer something more than late 90s numbers with the Civic? That 150hp K20 from the ILX would really set the Civic ahead of the rest!



Hondatalover
Profile for Hondatalover
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 20:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



Here's a comparison test between the Dart Rallye and the Focus Se. Both with manual transmission.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se.pdf

Dart - 0-60mph: 7.9s; 1/4 mile: 16s@87mph
Focus - 0-60mph: 7.4s; 1/4 mile: 15.8s@90mph

The Focus manual is faster than a CVT Accord, but slower than a manual Accord.

The Focus has 146lbft of torque, but it's quite a bit faster than the Dart with 184lbft of torque. Weight is clearly a big factor here.

I haven't seen any test being done on a 9th gen Civic manual in Car and Driver. The closest one is the 8th gen Civic manual: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2009-less-than-20000

0-60mph: 7.7s; 1/4 mile: 16.1@87mph

These numbers are as fast as the Dart, if not faster. The new Civic model has a better torque curve so I'd imagine the performance should at least stays the same.

Here's MotorTrend's comparison test of several compact sedans. 5 out of 6 cars tested have DSG or AT and 0-60mph are all in the 8's range, including the Civic.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

The Civic is not the fastest in its segment, but is it really underpowered? IMO, not quite yet. Should Honda make it more competitive in terms of performance? I sure hope so!!



Well, as any true car enthusiast knows, 0-60mph is only one PART of the equation. There's also 45-65mph passing times.

More inportantly, and I owned a Civic (and a CRX, and own an Accord along with a WRX), there's how easy is it to drive in traffic. With my Civic, I had to treat every stoplight like I was in a 1/4 mile race just to keep up with traffic. There's the "ease" of power and there's a really really big advantage to comfortable driving with you have 184lb-ft of twist compared to 128lb-ft.

Being that the Dart has the Abarth's powerplant, its very easily modifiable. Its a performance chip away from those paltry stock 0-60mph times. Yeah, yeah, I'm off on a tagent now!

But there's no replacement for torque in daily stop and go driving as any TDI Jetta/Golf owner will tell you despite something like 140hp.

IMHO, the Civic is sitting on the fence with regards to powerplant output. There's too many other econoboxes on the market today with more power/twist, and they don't approach the price of an Si.

They've got the Accord right! They've steadily increased power/twist with each generation. Why can't Honda offer something more than late 90s numbers with the Civic? That 150hp K20 from the ILX would really set the Civic ahead of the rest!







Agreed, but even the ILX doesn't have a K20, just a R20, L15, and K24. I think the base civic needs 150HP and 140lb-ft, as for the Si pumping (N/A and 2.0L's) 220HP and 170lb-ft. (170lb-ft isnt much, but its alot for a N/A 2.0L) of course will have to revv high. (7,800rpms is ok with me. As long as 8K is on the tech im good)

Also, with the current Si, 201hp/ 170lb-ft is a nice base, but something went wrong. It feels like Honda lengthened the 1-3rd gears. I just feel like 201hp/ 170ln-ft in a 2,899lb(roughly) car should hit 60 faster than 6.8 seconds. The heavier, 5AT TSX done it in 7.6 seconds... then again, the TSX wasn't THAT heavy.

the ILX, being luxury, entry or not, should hit 60 in 6.5 seconds, regardless of its trim. Meaning that R20, needs ED, and ED fast! 170hp/ 160lb-ft sounds more appealing.
CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 22:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.
CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-13-2012 22:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:

Being that the Dart has the Abarth's powerplant, its very easily modifiable. Its a performance chip away from those paltry stock 0-60mph times. Yeah, yeah, I'm off on a tagent now!

But there's no replacement for torque in daily stop and go driving as any TDI Jetta/Golf owner will tell you despite something like 140hp.





I can confirm that this statement is full of shit too. The turbocharger is sized right for 160hp, there's no "chipping" it because the turbo is already pretty close to maxed out. If you want 200hp out of the engine, you need a turbo with a different compressor map.
JP
Profile for JP
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 00:37
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 05:26
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)

z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 05:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
p.s. I think the Si is just fine with power/torque levels.... don't know how you guys extrapolated that I was saying the Si is "weak".
Inebriated Snake
Profile for Inebriated Snake
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 10:46
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
In the past I've always felt my 8th gen(R18) had a bit of dead spot unless I was on it. It came off the line nicely and then kind of stumbled a bit. Probably gearing.
Hondarulez
Profile for Hondarulez
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 14:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



Here's a comparison test between the Dart Rallye and the Focus Se. Both with manual transmission.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se.pdf

Dart - 0-60mph: 7.9s; 1/4 mile: 16s@87mph
Focus - 0-60mph: 7.4s; 1/4 mile: 15.8s@90mph

The Focus manual is faster than a CVT Accord, but slower than a manual Accord.

The Focus has 146lbft of torque, but it's quite a bit faster than the Dart with 184lbft of torque. Weight is clearly a big factor here.

I haven't seen any test being done on a 9th gen Civic manual in Car and Driver. The closest one is the 8th gen Civic manual: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2009-less-than-20000

0-60mph: 7.7s; 1/4 mile: 16.1@87mph

These numbers are as fast as the Dart, if not faster. The new Civic model has a better torque curve so I'd imagine the performance should at least stays the same.

Here's MotorTrend's comparison test of several compact sedans. 5 out of 6 cars tested have DSG or AT and 0-60mph are all in the 8's range, including the Civic.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

The Civic is not the fastest in its segment, but is it really underpowered? IMO, not quite yet. Should Honda make it more competitive in terms of performance? I sure hope so!!



Well, as any true car enthusiast knows, 0-60mph is only one PART of the equation. There's also 45-65mph passing times.

More inportantly, and I owned a Civic (and a CRX, and own an Accord along with a WRX), there's how easy is it to drive in traffic. With my Civic, I had to treat every stoplight like I was in a 1/4 mile race just to keep up with traffic. There's the "ease" of power and there's a really really big advantage to comfortable driving with you have 184lb-ft of twist compared to 128lb-ft.

Being that the Dart has the Abarth's powerplant, its very easily modifiable. Its a performance chip away from those paltry stock 0-60mph times. Yeah, yeah, I'm off on a tagent now!

But there's no replacement for torque in daily stop and go driving as any TDI Jetta/Golf owner will tell you despite something like 140hp.

IMHO, the Civic is sitting on the fence with regards to powerplant output. There's too many other econoboxes on the market today with more power/twist, and they don't approach the price of an Si.

They've got the Accord right! They've steadily increased power/twist with each generation. Why can't Honda offer something more than late 90s numbers with the Civic? That 150hp K20 from the ILX would really set the Civic ahead of the rest!






Well, I mentioned 0-60mph AS WELL AS 1/4 mile ET and trap speed.

I mentioned 0-60mph because that's what you said before.

1/4 mile trap speed gives you a good indication of how much power the engine is making relative to weight.

Now that you want to talk about 45-65mph, here are some numbers from one of my links:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

Cruze Eco 6MT:4.5s
Focus SFE 6spd DCT: 4.0s
Civic HF 5AT: 4.2s
Elantra GLS 6AT: 4.8s
Mazda 3 2.0 6AT: 4.4s
Jetta TDI 6spd DSG: 4.4s

As you can see clearly, the Civic is the 2nd fastest. It's even faster than the DIESEL powered Jetta with 236lbft of torque at 1750rpm.

Please also note that is the AUTOMATIC equipped Civic, which is quite a bit slower than a manual equipped Civic. There's no dual clutches like the Focus or Jetta TDI, and it only has 5 gears (versus 6).

I think what you are trying to say is that, if there's more twist at the low end, then the driver doesn't have to shift down as much to get going.
rocky
Profile for rocky
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 15:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....
CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 17:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)




Yeah, 20 hp in return for melted banjo fittings, cracked exhaust manifolds, destroyed turbos and a void warranty. I'm telling you as someone with EXTREMELY CLOSE CONNECTIONS that you're not getting anything more out of these components. The EGTs are already possibly one of the highest in the industry (nearing 1000 deg F), what makes you think that the setup (with the turbo mounted upwards) will survive with an additional 20hp?

rocky wrote:
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....


At this rate, it won't matter because the Europeans are spending more time at soup kitchens and throwing bricks at government buildings.
z-zero
Profile for z-zero
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 18:46
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)




Yeah, 20 hp in return for melted banjo fittings, cracked exhaust manifolds, destroyed turbos and a void warranty. I'm telling you as someone with EXTREMELY CLOSE CONNECTIONS that you're not getting anything more out of these components. The EGTs are already possibly one of the highest in the industry (nearing 1000 deg F), what makes you think that the setup (with the turbo mounted upwards) will survive with an additional 20hp?

rocky wrote:
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....


At this rate, it won't matter because the Europeans are spending more time at soup kitchens and throwing bricks at government buildings.



I can only tell you from experience in building and tuning my WRX that you are VASTLY, VASTLY overexaggerating the modifications of turbocharged engines.

Melted banjo fittings? Really? Why, does Fiat/Chrysler use plastic banjo bolts and fittings? I bet they're aluminum banjo fittings with copper crush washers.

EGTs? 1000F? Oh my goodness! Oh no! The exhaust will housing (cast iron) on the turbo will melt? Oh me! Oh my! I had no idea the EGTs could get that high on a turbo car.

Wow! It's a wonder that all my silicone tubing under my hood hasn't melted in the last 5 years! I better count my lucky beans!

Mind you that the 1.4L also has oil squirters to cool the pistons (something WRXs lack) to help prevent detonation, and it could be a fairly stout powerplant. Keep in mind that 2L turbos are safely running in excess of 300hp.... that extra 20hp, for a total of 180hp, will just destroy a motor.

The turbo is upside down? Oh no! The lubricating oil for the turbocharger isn't going to lubricate the bearings! Shit, someone better tell Fiat/Chrysler this right away!

Listen kiddies, I've been in the automotive engineering field for 14 years in Michigan, so stop trying to sell me crazy. I'm all stocked up, thank you very much.

And all this dim witted banter by no-nothing "people" because I am making the observation that the Civic is becoming out-horsepowered by other econoboxes on the market. Sheesh.... I better go drink your make-me-a-dumbass-kool-aid to better communicate with you dipshits.
CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 21:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)




Yeah, 20 hp in return for melted banjo fittings, cracked exhaust manifolds, destroyed turbos and a void warranty. I'm telling you as someone with EXTREMELY CLOSE CONNECTIONS that you're not getting anything more out of these components. The EGTs are already possibly one of the highest in the industry (nearing 1000 deg F), what makes you think that the setup (with the turbo mounted upwards) will survive with an additional 20hp?

rocky wrote:
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....


At this rate, it won't matter because the Europeans are spending more time at soup kitchens and throwing bricks at government buildings.



I can only tell you from experience in building and tuning my WRX that you are VASTLY, VASTLY overexaggerating the modifications of turbocharged engines.

Melted banjo fittings? Really? Why, does Fiat/Chrysler use plastic banjo bolts and fittings? I bet they're aluminum banjo fittings with copper crush washers.

EGTs? 1000F? Oh my goodness! Oh no! The exhaust will housing (cast iron) on the turbo will melt? Oh me! Oh my! I had no idea the EGTs could get that high on a turbo car.

Wow! It's a wonder that all my silicone tubing under my hood hasn't melted in the last 5 years! I better count my lucky beans!

Mind you that the 1.4L also has oil squirters to cool the pistons (something WRXs lack) to help prevent detonation, and it could be a fairly stout powerplant. Keep in mind that 2L turbos are safely running in excess of 300hp.... that extra 20hp, for a total of 180hp, will just destroy a motor.

The turbo is upside down? Oh no! The lubricating oil for the turbocharger isn't going to lubricate the bearings! Shit, someone better tell Fiat/Chrysler this right away!

Listen kiddies, I've been in the automotive engineering field for 14 years in Michigan, so stop trying to sell me crazy. I'm all stocked up, thank you very much.

And all this dim witted banter by no-nothing "people" because I am making the observation that the Civic is becoming out-horsepowered by other econoboxes on the market. Sheesh.... I better go drink your make-me-a-dumbass-kool-aid to better communicate with you dipshits.



You're an idiot. You think that just because you built and modified a WRX that you're the be all end all of turbocharger knowledge? It's obvious that you know fuck all, considering you don't even know what those washers are coated by, considering you don't even know why having the turbo mounted so high in the engine bay is a bad idea, and you don't even understand the implications on manifold durability or even the potential failure modes. Do you even know how turbos are sized and why compressor maps are important?

How about you actually work in base engine design with honeywell and borg warner as potential suppliers, and learn something before thinking of yourself as an expert? You think you're the only automotive engineer in Michigan on these forums? I can't believe you have 14 years of experience and you don't even get the most basic of principles right.
DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 22:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Where in Michigan?
Farage1
Profile for Farage1
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-14-2012 23:04
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Hondatalover wrote:
z-zero wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



Here's a comparison test between the Dart Rallye and the Focus Se. Both with manual transmission.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se-comparison-test-car-and-driver2013-dodge-dart-rallye-vs-2012-ford-focus-se.pdf

Dart - 0-60mph: 7.9s; 1/4 mile: 16s@87mph
Focus - 0-60mph: 7.4s; 1/4 mile: 15.8s@90mph

The Focus manual is faster than a CVT Accord, but slower than a manual Accord.

The Focus has 146lbft of torque, but it's quite a bit faster than the Dart with 184lbft of torque. Weight is clearly a big factor here.

I haven't seen any test being done on a 9th gen Civic manual in Car and Driver. The closest one is the 8th gen Civic manual: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2009-less-than-20000

0-60mph: 7.7s; 1/4 mile: 16.1@87mph

These numbers are as fast as the Dart, if not faster. The new Civic model has a better torque curve so I'd imagine the performance should at least stays the same.

Here's MotorTrend's comparison test of several compact sedans. 5 out of 6 cars tested have DSG or AT and 0-60mph are all in the 8's range, including the Civic.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

The Civic is not the fastest in its segment, but is it really underpowered? IMO, not quite yet. Should Honda make it more competitive in terms of performance? I sure hope so!!



Well, as any true car enthusiast knows, 0-60mph is only one PART of the equation. There's also 45-65mph passing times.

More inportantly, and I owned a Civic (and a CRX, and own an Accord along with a WRX), there's how easy is it to drive in traffic. With my Civic, I had to treat every stoplight like I was in a 1/4 mile race just to keep up with traffic. There's the "ease" of power and there's a really really big advantage to comfortable driving with you have 184lb-ft of twist compared to 128lb-ft.

Being that the Dart has the Abarth's powerplant, its very easily modifiable. Its a performance chip away from those paltry stock 0-60mph times. Yeah, yeah, I'm off on a tagent now!

But there's no replacement for torque in daily stop and go driving as any TDI Jetta/Golf owner will tell you despite something like 140hp.

IMHO, the Civic is sitting on the fence with regards to powerplant output. There's too many other econoboxes on the market today with more power/twist, and they don't approach the price of an Si.

They've got the Accord right! They've steadily increased power/twist with each generation. Why can't Honda offer something more than late 90s numbers with the Civic? That 150hp K20 from the ILX would really set the Civic ahead of the rest!







Agreed, but even the ILX doesn't have a K20, just a R20, L15, and K24. I think the base civic needs 150HP and 140lb-ft, as for the Si pumping (N/A and 2.0L's) 220HP and 170lb-ft. (170lb-ft isnt much, but its alot for a N/A 2.0L) of course will have to revv high. (7,800rpms is ok with me. As long as 8K is on the tech im good)

Also, with the current Si, 201hp/ 170lb-ft is a nice base, but something went wrong. It feels like Honda lengthened the 1-3rd gears. I just feel like 201hp/ 170ln-ft in a 2,899lb(roughly) car should hit 60 faster than 6.8 seconds. The heavier, 5AT TSX done it in 7.6 seconds... then again, the TSX wasn't THAT heavy.

the ILX, being luxury, entry or not, should hit 60 in 6.5 seconds, regardless of its trim. Meaning that R20, needs ED, and ED fast! 170hp/ 160lb-ft sounds more appealing.



You're underestimating the Si, it is pretty quick. 6.8 is one of the slower 0-60's tested, some clocked it at 6.1-6.3 but 0-60 doesn't paint the whole picture. It hits 100 in 4th gear like a breeze. Obviously its no turbo but the overall package is really great. The engine and chassis match just right. Pulls good in any gear, passing effort is minimal in 6th gear. People forget that its no type-r, its much more civilized and made to be more of a daily driver with an edge when you want it. The 2013 will make it even more appealing.
Hondarulez
Profile for Hondarulez
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-15-2012 12:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)




Yeah, 20 hp in return for melted banjo fittings, cracked exhaust manifolds, destroyed turbos and a void warranty. I'm telling you as someone with EXTREMELY CLOSE CONNECTIONS that you're not getting anything more out of these components. The EGTs are already possibly one of the highest in the industry (nearing 1000 deg F), what makes you think that the setup (with the turbo mounted upwards) will survive with an additional 20hp?

rocky wrote:
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....


At this rate, it won't matter because the Europeans are spending more time at soup kitchens and throwing bricks at government buildings.





And all this dim witted banter by no-nothing "people" because I am making the observation that the Civic is becoming out-horsepowered by other econoboxes on the market. Sheesh.... I better go drink your make-me-a-dumbass-kool-aid to better communicate with you dipshits.



You probably missed by other post, but here it is again:


Well, I mentioned 0-60mph AS WELL AS 1/4 mile ET and trap speed.

I mentioned 0-60mph because that's what you said before.

1/4 mile trap speed gives you a good indication of how much power the engine is making relative to weight.

Now that you want to talk about 45-65mph, here are some numbers from one of my links:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_40_mpg_compact_sedan_comparison/viewall.html?ti=v2

Cruze Eco 6MT:4.5s
Focus SFE 6spd DCT: 4.0s
Civic HF 5AT: 4.2s
Elantra GLS 6AT: 4.8s
Mazda 3 2.0 6AT: 4.4s
Jetta TDI 6spd DSG: 4.4s

As you can see clearly, the Civic is the 2nd fastest. It's even faster than the DIESEL powered Jetta with 236lbft of torque at 1750rpm.

Please also note that is the AUTOMATIC equipped Civic, which is quite a bit slower than a manual equipped Civic. There's no dual clutches like the Focus or Jetta TDI, and it only has 5 gears (versus 6).

I think what you are trying to say is that, if there's more twist at the low end, then the driver doesn't have to shift down as much to get going.


Honda-D
Profile for Honda-D
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-15-2012 18:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Not sure why everyone is comparing engine performance on a lowly Civic.

If you don't like it, buy Si. And if you don't like that, buy something else. Civic is meant to be for people who want cheap transportation. Who cares how fast it goes. As long as the tech stays low, old, easy to maintain and fix, that's all it matters.

Just look at the now 10+ years old Corolla. People in this segment doesn't care. People who do, don't buy Civic.
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-15-2012 22:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
z-zero wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
JP wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
z-zero wrote:
A77 wrote:
focus and dart have more HP but aren't they a good deal heavier too?


Yeah, but the Dart has 184lb-ft of torque... Compared to 128 for the Civic. Extra weight included, the 1.4l turbo Dart is all around quicker. The Focus' 0-60 times are on par with the bigger, heavier, more powerful Accord.

I feel that the Civic is quickly becoming an underpowered car in today's world. Even the $30k ILX (Civic based) is underpowered compared to what else is on the market for $30k.



I can confirm that this statement is full of shit.



If am not wrong, the base trim Manual Tranny of the Dart weights about the same as the '13 Accord sport 6MT...

'13 accord 6MT sport did 6.6s in C/D test 0-60, where does the Focus matches 6.6s? has to be the ST...



Yeah, what have you guys been doing? Talking to my wife? I know I'm full of sh*t! :)

But what isn't full of sh*t is my observation that the Accord has been steadily increasing in power/twist while the Civic has been "stuck" with late 90s early 2000s power/twist levels.

The Focus (non-ST) has been reviewed so many times, and its 60mph dash speeds are about 7.2s. Right on par with the new Accord.

And again, please lay off the 0-60mph times! There's more to having a livable car than running to 60mph at every stoplight - there's the ease of power/twist generation. 0-60 is like 1/5th of that equation... there's passing times, merging onto freeway "ease"... the need or no-need to dump the clutch at 3500rpms to kee up with traffic, and others.

Yes yes, I'm full of shit. So what!? Like everyone else here I have my opinions and observations....

(With regards to the turbo 1.4L Dart, did you know there are already piggy back ECUs for $700 offering about 20hp over base?)




Yeah, 20 hp in return for melted banjo fittings, cracked exhaust manifolds, destroyed turbos and a void warranty. I'm telling you as someone with EXTREMELY CLOSE CONNECTIONS that you're not getting anything more out of these components. The EGTs are already possibly one of the highest in the industry (nearing 1000 deg F), what makes you think that the setup (with the turbo mounted upwards) will survive with an additional 20hp?

rocky wrote:
Betcha Europeans are going to get the best engines.....


At this rate, it won't matter because the Europeans are spending more time at soup kitchens and throwing bricks at government buildings.



I can only tell you from experience in building and tuning my WRX that you are VASTLY, VASTLY overexaggerating the modifications of turbocharged engines.

Melted banjo fittings? Really? Why, does Fiat/Chrysler use plastic banjo bolts and fittings? I bet they're aluminum banjo fittings with copper crush washers.

EGTs? 1000F? Oh my goodness! Oh no! The exhaust will housing (cast iron) on the turbo will melt? Oh me! Oh my! I had no idea the EGTs could get that high on a turbo car.

Wow! It's a wonder that all my silicone tubing under my hood hasn't melted in the last 5 years! I better count my lucky beans!

Mind you that the 1.4L also has oil squirters to cool the pistons (something WRXs lack) to help prevent detonation, and it could be a fairly stout powerplant. Keep in mind that 2L turbos are safely running in excess of 300hp.... that extra 20hp, for a total of 180hp, will just destroy a motor.

The turbo is upside down? Oh no! The lubricating oil for the turbocharger isn't going to lubricate the bearings! Shit, someone better tell Fiat/Chrysler this right away!

Listen kiddies, I've been in the automotive engineering field for 14 years in Michigan, so stop trying to sell me crazy. I'm all stocked up, thank you very much.

And all this dim witted banter by no-nothing "people" because I am making the observation that the Civic is becoming out-horsepowered by other econoboxes on the market. Sheesh.... I better go drink your make-me-a-dumbass-kool-aid to better communicate with you dipshits.




If you intend to highlight how stupid people are around you are, it would behoove you to spell correctly.
Kyofu
Profile for Kyofu
Re: Engines? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 11-17-2012 21:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I think everyone would be much happier if they just brought the Type-R to North America :)
Then again, I probably wouldn't ever bother with a Type-R. I'd be perfectly content with an Si which blends comfortable daily driving with performance instead of sacrificing one or the other.
 
Thread Page - [1]
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2014 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy