Topic: First Drive: 2016 Honda Civic Sedan

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The 1.4T might be awesome, but I'll take the 1.8L Toyota engine that I know will go 400K without an issue.  If you're a leasing customer of like to change cars, go for the VW if you like, but for long term owners, it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Outta curiosity, what turbocharged engine has been unreliable?

the older 1.8T that was used in many VAG vehicles did have the coil pack and oil sludge issue, but that was over a decade ago now...i think all newer engines from all makes are pretty much a safe bet.

To be fair, neither of those issues were due to the engine being turbocharged.

[mixmanmash]

The 1.4T might be awesome, but I'll take the 1.8L Toyota engine that I know will go 400K without an issue.  If you're a leasing customer of like to change cars, go for the VW if you like, but for long term owners, it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Outta curiosity, what turbocharged engine has been unreliable?

the older 1.8T that was used in many VAG vehicles did have the coil pack and oil sludge issue, but that was over a decade ago now...i think all newer engines from all makes are pretty much a safe bet.

To be fair, neither of those issues were due to the engine being turbocharged.

Exactly.

[dirtyjeffer]

The 1.4T might be awesome, but I'll take the 1.8L Toyota engine that I know will go 400K without an issue.  If you're a leasing customer of like to change cars, go for the VW if you like, but for long term owners, it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Outta curiosity, what turbocharged engine has been unreliable?

the older 1.8T that was used in many VAG vehicles did have the coil pack and oil sludge issue, but that was over a decade ago now...i think all newer engines from all makes are pretty much a safe bet.

To be fair, neither of those issues were due to the engine being turbocharged.

i know, but that is about the only turbocharged engine i can recall in somewhat relative recent terms that was problematic...but yes, like you said, the issues had nothing to do with the fact the engine was turbocharged, the issues just happen to be on that engine...i didn't mean that those issues were because of it being turbocharged.

[ChaosphereIX]

I with you here. I prefer a little more displacement over a gasoline turbo engine for a variety of reasons.

I haven't driven either of Honda's new motors, but can tell you that small turbos aren't bad at all...in fact, they're kinda great.

Go give VW's 1.4T a try.

agreed, some small turbos are great - if they are tuned for performance and not mileage [compare the GM 1.4T to the FCA 1.4T for example].

drove an Abarth Essesse in Italy a week ago. That 1.4T in that car is a monster for a tiny engine. Very, very quick on the Italian back roads. Probably the best sounding 4cyl/4cyl turbo I have ever heard too. And from what I have been reading, it is a reliable engine too and can make big power easy. I may have been converted to replace the Saab with one when the time comes. WAF on it was high too.

but really other than that, and perhaps the dependable GM 2.0T, I kinda am not a fan of boosted small displacement engines. Uninspiring and dont sound good.

[Solstice2006]

I prefer a small displacement turbo engine.....I had the large 2,5 litre Skyactiv with the Mazda3 and that was quite disappointing. Practically worse than turbo lag, basically nothing happened below 2750rpm so if you were caught in the wrong gear at the wrong time, you were kind of stuck waiting for the engine to get into the powerband. The tall final drive didn't help. It felt a bit coarse at high revs too, not something I wanted to keep at the redline all day. Not that I would, because not much happened above 5500rpm either, mostly noise. Plus, fuel consumption was disappointing on the autoroutes.

Plus, in a lot of countries, the vehicle tax is partly based on displacement.

Engines are all pretty reliable thesedays.

I haven't read any review or anyone criticize the 2.5L as much as you.  The 2.5L that I have in my Mazda6 (manual).  My biggest grip is the short gearing, that has been documented by others as well.  And it gets great fuel economy.  The top 3 are the Accord, Mazda6, and Camry for fuel efficiency (not including the diesels). 

[Solstice2006]

i will... but i'm stubborn as i said... i may even love the engine, but i wouldn't buy one.

Neither would I.  Just like I would rather have a V6 than a turbo 4.  They behave differently, and I like how the V6 performs. 

A modern turbo that I can think of that isn't very reliable, is the turbo in the Cruze.  Yes, I know your love of GM.... But I don't judge.  I like many of their products and engines.  Their 4 cylinders, not so much.  The 3.6L V6 is great (as one example).

[Noto]

What's unreliable about GM's 1.4T?

Or forester turbo has been incredible.

[mlin32]

I haven't read any review or anyone criticize the 2.5L as much as you.  The 2.5L that I have in my Mazda6 (manual).  My biggest grip is the short gearing, that has been documented by others as well.  And it gets great fuel economy.  The top 3 are the Accord, Mazda6, and Camry for fuel efficiency (not including the diesels).

I deleted already the consumption profile for the Mazda3 on the fuel consumption website I use (Spritmonitor.de) but the lifetime ø = 7,2 l/100km based on the fuelings over 10 months and 35k km.

It's lovely for urban or suburban driving, consuming in the mid 7s to around 8 l/100km tops. But it also consumed mid 7s on autoroutes (120-140 km/h), which is not acceptable for me. The "combined" EC-cycle rating is 6,1 l/100km which is my benchmark for autoroute averages- of course I expect it to be about +10% higher but in the real-world it was more like 20% higher which for me is not disappointing, especially considering I have a good right foot and usually hit publicised consumption figures. At least the gearbox is crisp and responsive.

Plus, for me I can't really accept vibrations thru the pedals at high revs if it's a petrol engine (I'm more accepting of this for diesels). An engine should be smooth even when pushed hard; the 2,0 litre TSI engine in the Tiguan was smoother and sweeter-sounding all around. I regularly got 8,5 to 8,9 l/100km under similar driving conditions (autoroute) which is nearly bang-on the official ECE combined figures. Excellent motor there.

I think the Mazda3 BM is really better suited for the 2,0 litre petrol. Plus, I subscribe to the notion that ideally, each zylinder should optimally be 500cc. 2,5 litres seems like an awful lot of space for just 4 cylinders.....my prior X3 had 6 cylinders in that space

[GTABeancounter]

I think the Mazda3 BM is really better suited for the 2,0 litre petrol. Plus, I subscribe to the notion that ideally, each zylinder should optimally be 500cc. 2,5 litres seems like an awful lot of space for just 4 cylinders.....my prior X3 had 6 cylinders in that space
[/quote]

Your statement above reminded me of this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-3

1.8L V6 

[GTABeancounter]

I with you here. I prefer a little more displacement over a gasoline turbo engine for a variety of reasons.

I haven't driven either of Honda's new motors, but can tell you that small turbos aren't bad at all...in fact, they're kinda great.

Go give VW's 1.4T a try.

agreed, some small turbos are great - if they are tuned for performance and not mileage [compare the GM 1.4T to the FCA 1.4T for example].

drove an Abarth Essesse in Italy a week ago. That 1.4T in that car is a monster for a tiny engine. Very, very quick on the Italian back roads. Probably the best sounding 4cyl/4cyl turbo I have ever heard too. And from what I have been reading, it is a reliable engine too and can make big power easy. I may have been converted to replace the Saab with one when the time comes. WAF on it was high too.

but really other than that, and perhaps the dependable GM 2.0T, I kinda am not a fan of boosted small displacement engines. Uninspiring and dont sound good.

That Abarth is a great car but it must be way lighter than this new Civic? Its interesting that most of the favorable comments regarding low displacement turbos tend to relate to compact & light cars.

It really is all about having the right engine for the type of vehicle.

[mlin32]

Last year I had the X1 xDrive18d which was a 2 litre diesel making just 143PS and 320 Nm of torque. Never felt like the engine was strained and real-world fuel consumption wasn't too far off from it's combined rating. I achieved about 6,2 l/100km against its claimed 5,5 l/100km rating.

Now that I think of it, my Escape/Kuga has a similar top speed of 200km/h as the above-mentioned X1, but has almost 40 more PS and 80 Nm more torque from the same 2 litres. Wonder where all that extra power is going. 

[whaddaiknow]

The 1.4T might be awesome, but I'll take the 1.8L Toyota engine that I know will go 400K without an issue.  If you're a leasing customer of like to change cars, go for the VW if you like, but for long term owners, it's a bit of a crap shoot.

Outta curiosity, what turbocharged engine has been unreliable?

Ask Hammy 

[Seafoam]

I haven't read any review or anyone criticize the 2.5L as much as you.  The 2.5L that I have in my Mazda6 (manual).  My biggest grip is the short gearing, that has been documented by others as well.  And it gets great fuel economy.  The top 3 are the Accord, Mazda6, and Camry for fuel efficiency (not including the diesels).

I deleted already the consumption profile for the Mazda3 on the fuel consumption website I use (Spritmonitor.de) but the lifetime ø = 7,2 l/100km based on the fuelings over 10 months and 35k km.

It's lovely for urban or suburban driving, consuming in the mid 7s to around 8 l/100km tops. But it also consumed mid 7s on autoroutes (120-140 km/h), which is not acceptable for me. The "combined" EC-cycle rating is 6,1 l/100km which is my benchmark for autoroute averages- of course I expect it to be about +10% higher but in the real-world it was more like 20% higher which for me is not disappointing, especially considering I have a good right foot and usually hit publicised consumption figures. At least the gearbox is crisp and responsive.

Plus, for me I can't really accept vibrations thru the pedals at high revs if it's a petrol engine (I'm more accepting of this for diesels). An engine should be smooth even when pushed hard; the 2,0 litre TSI engine in the Tiguan was smoother and sweeter-sounding all around. I regularly got 8,5 to 8,9 l/100km under similar driving conditions (autoroute) which is nearly bang-on the official ECE combined figures. Excellent motor there.

I think the Mazda3 BM is really better suited for the 2,0 litre petrol. Plus, I subscribe to the notion that ideally, each zylinder should optimally be 500cc. 2,5 litres seems like an awful lot of space for just 4 cylinders.....my prior X3 had 6 cylinders in that space

You say you are disappointed in the mazda's fuel consumption at 120 -140 km an hour. It being 7.5. I'd say you are lucky to get that. Slow down and you could be in the 6 's easily.

[dkaz]

This is like that lady south of Calgary that complained she was getting 8+ L/100km in her 1.4L turbo Chevy Cruze. She goes about 140.

The rated fuel consumption highway numbers of 6.4 L/100km can be met at 110km/h with A/C on. For every 10km/h faster you go, you can expect to use an additional 10% due to increase in wind drag. So 7.0 L/100km at 120, 7.7 at 130, 8.5 at 140, etc.

[mlin32]

Do you guys really drive only 120 on rural autoroutes?  My driving experiences in Canada....okay mostly Québec only, are that everyone's happy floating around 130 or a hair above outside urban areas. I mean, that's what I do too on the autoroute outside developed areas.

Perhaps it is because I've pretty much driven mostly German cars in my driving career, but I've always expected reasonable consumption numbers under "normal autoroute speeds", by definition, 130-140km/h which is pretty standard worldwide. With the old X3, it had its "sweet spot" drinking around 8,5 to 9 l/100km at 120-130km/h. Only above 150 did the consumption curve ramp up very quickly. Even now when I drive mother's 325i, it's actually not all that thirsty doing 130-150km/h; if I hold 130-140 then consumption runs around 8,2 l/100km which is fine (variance of 12% from ECE stated figure). So the expectation is that there will be not a big tradeoff when I drive at a normal speed for long distances. Air Con is not so much an issue; I don't really use it much.

Yes, I was able to attain the official 6,1 l/100km stated combined figure for the Mazda3, if I drove at 100km/h on a totally level surface. But two problems: 1) I don't live in a flat area at all and 2) 100km/h is for rural roads, not autoroutes. And weirdly, the active grille shutters open above 140km/h- yes I read the service manual-, kind of defeating the purpose. So yes, if my long-distance driving was solely rural roads, then consumption would be in the mid 6s, which is acceptable.

And perhaps if your driving is all suburban, then the Skyactiv engine is less disappointing. It is thrifty in suburban driving (the 50-90 km/h range) but my driving profile is 80% autoroute and the remaining urban (as in, city centre, parallel parking, 50km/h). And rural autoroutes for me mean a set limit of 130 km/h or sometimes none at all in certain secteurs. And the turbocharged motor in the Tiguan isn't that thirsty at speed, the averages were pretty good- too bad the gearbox is rubbish for North America.

[dkaz]

Me, yes. On the Coquihalla Highway (Hwy 5) in BC, with a current speed limit of 120km/h, 85% of the vehicles recorded drove 127km/h or less. This is actually down from 128km/h when the speed limit was 110.

I was able to drive my Skyactiv 3 from Calgary to Vancouver on a single tank of gas, the gas light finally came on at 921km and I ended up putting in 49.1 litres of gas at the 1004km mark. 4.9 L/100km.

[sacrat]

This is like that lady south of Calgary that complained she was getting 8+ L/100km in her 1.4L turbo Chevy Cruze. She goes about 140.

The rated fuel consumption highway numbers of 6.4 L/100km can be met at 110km/h with A/C on. For every 10km/h faster you go, you can expect to use an additional 10% due to increase in wind drag. So 7.0 L/100km at 120, 7.7 at 130, 8.5 at 140, etc.

The higher mileage can be partly attributed to the additional wasted idling by the side of the road while the RCMP officer yells at her...

[Solstice2006]

With the recent review of VW Jetta with the 1.4T & the Corolla, and now this Civic.  The Mazda 3 has come up as well.  Had me looking at a comparison between the Jetta 1.8T and the Mazda3 GT, not sure if this has been talked about a lot. 

Most people don't buy these cars for 0-60 times.  But they are very close.  Mazda 3gt, 7.4 secs. VW Jetta 1.8t 7.6 secs.  Fuel consumption is more closely watched in this category.  And from Fuelly 2015 Mazda 3 GT avg: 8.0L/100 km based on 50 cars.  With the Jetta 1.8T avg: 8.2L/100km based on 31 cars.  So pretty close. 

From this data, I don't see much advantage of the turbo. 

[dirtyjeffer]

From this data, I don't see much advantage of the turbo.

i haven't driven either, but my guess is the Jetta may "feel" more powerful, due to its plethora of torque down low in the RPM range...meaning, you can drive it "normally" and still get some pretty sporty acceleration without having to rev the out of it to do so...it might be a more engaging vehicle to drive daily, vs take to track for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

[EV-Light]

From this data, I don't see much advantage of the turbo.

i haven't driven either, but my guess is the Jetta may "feel" more powerful, due to its plethora of torque down low in the RPM range...meaning, you can drive it "normally" and still get some pretty sporty acceleration without having to rev the out of it to do so...it might be a more engaging vehicle to drive daily, vs take to track for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

the engine might be more powerful, but it doesn't matter. The transmission can't keep up - it almost feels like you are driving a dual clutch, sometimes you floor it and it takes 3-4s before the transmission reacts....