When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
But Canada you can have a 4cyl Aspec TLX, plus you can even have both 4cyl and V6 Aspec Elite trims, which is basically advance + aspec
Good point! I neglected that point of view. Yes loving that we can have the A-spec WITH the Elite package thus missing nothing by going A-spec. I wonder why Acura/Honda favours the Canadian market.
Dynos show new CIVIC R is underrated 295 & 302 on two cars tested back to back. Best torque 295ftlbs. Might be good news for a turbo 2 liter TLX. Works out to about 333/341 at the crank.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-19-2017 at 08:22 PM.
While I don't doubt it puts that kind of power down, Im sceptical of that dyno. I saw it on jalopnik and was wondering why the hell they didn't include a torque curve, and why they use speed instead rpm on the x-axis. I haven't seen any other dynos besides the one you posted.
also, if Honda advertises this engine as putting out 306hp, and Acura takes the very same engine and claims 333hp out of it, I'd slap the shit out of them. Talk about misleading customers.
While I don't doubt it puts that kind of power down, Im sceptical of that dyno. I saw it on jalopnik and was wondering why the hell they didn't include a torque curve, and why they use speed instead rpm on the x-axis. I haven't seen any other dynos besides the one you posted.
also, if Honda advertises this engine as putting out 306hp, and Acura takes the very same engine and claims 333hp out of it, I'd slap the shit out of them. Talk about misleading customers.
I have some similar ones. If there is an issue with the ignition pickup you lose the torque data on a DynoJet. Also what is displayed is just one of the choices in the display software.
Wheel Horsepower dyno run of my old 335is pure stock baseline without the ignition pickup functioning. By checking or uncheking boxes the DynoJet PC software you can change the X/Y axis on the graph. You can also select STD (a bit more power) or SAE (a bit less power) for the displays. The Smoothing Factor 5 gives the least choppy graph line so its typically used. Except for Dinan most vendors use STD & 5 in their adds.
Agree the ones I usually post are more useful. They listed the torque on the CIVIC R so they must have the data but did not choose for whatever reason to display it...bad choice IMHO.
WHP BHP & Advertising HP are all different things. Gives manufacturers a lot of wiggle room on what number to choose. BMW went through at least 5 iterations of its 300HP N54 engine. All 5 in real non advertising world dynos had different power outputs. The most understated was the original 2007 N54 which out produced all the 300HP engines that followed it.
Take the same engine in a cheep model post the BHP @ 5500rpm. Same engine in the top of the line expensive model & post the BHP @ 6500rpm. Same engine two totally different power numbers advertised.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-20-2017 at 10:40 AM.
And even $120K is too high based on the fact the GTR out performs it. I waited and waited for the NSX to finally come out, but finally gave up and bought 911 Turbo S Cab. Couldn't be happier, car is worth every penny.
The GTR is no doubt a history changing car. Without it, the 911 that you now have probably wouldn't have been as good. With that said, the current regular GTR doesn't really outperform the NSX. You need the Nismo GTR to do that. The difference is that the NSX is way more comfortable while still offering excellent performance. I think for cars like the NSX, you either get it, and appreciate for what it is, or you don't get it, and feel that it's overpriced. It was like that for NSX gen 1 too.
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
Dynos show new CIVIC R is underrated 295 & 302 on two cars tested back to back. Best torque 295ftlbs. Might be good news for a turbo 2 liter TLX. Works out to about 333/341 at the crank.
Originally Posted by TacoBello
While I don't doubt it puts that kind of power down, Im sceptical of that dyno. I saw it on jalopnik and was wondering why the hell they didn't include a torque curve, and why they use speed instead rpm on the x-axis. I haven't seen any other dynos besides the one you posted.
also, if Honda advertises this engine as putting out 306hp, and Acura takes the very same engine and claims 333hp out of it, I'd slap the shit out of them. Talk about misleading customers.
Yea it looks to be quite powerful. There are a few dynos actually out there. I have seen 288whp all the way to 301whp.
Interesting. I wonder if they may also be waiting to see if the CAFE standards are changed in the near future????
Personally I think they're going forward with the turbo 4 and Acura may keep the V6 as the step up - which makes perfect sense from a product line perspective.
I would seriously consider a next generation TLX or ILX with 2.0T, SH-AWD, and 6MT if it was priced competitively.... That is my highest hope, as I give the 6MT coming back to Acura the best chance if it can share engineering costs with Honda. The take rate will be too low to spend engineering effort to integrate a MT with V6, turbo or otherwise. Low MT take rate plus low volume performance variant = no business case. Even the talking heads at BMW are hinting at the demise of the MT...
If Ikeda really wants to bring back the heyday of Acura, it would be VERY ballsy to head in the direction to carve Acura a niche as the ONLY performance car maker left in the world to offer MTs (slogan: "It's not just about the numbers, it's about the drive."...that shouldn't just be a product advertising slogan, but Acura's business vision too). Honda/Acura is touted as one of the best (if not the best) maker of MTs in the world by all the car mags...so attempting to capitalize on that as other companies abandon MTs *might* make sense to the financial bean counters...that, and I've run into an increasing number of millenials who *like* MTs, which is amazing to me given they also like the devices that require their shifting hand to be occupied. Done right, Acura could make itself the hip brand among future affluent young professionals. As there's a sizeable group in that segment that still goes for Tesla type product, a product extension into sport hybrid with 6MT could be a nice capture of the hipster segment who both like MTs and electrification of their transportation.
Ive looked through Car and Driver's entire site and nowhere can I see any tests for the 2017 Civic Si.
at best, you might've been looking at the regular Civic with the 1.5T, which has LESS FUCKING POWER than the Civic Si. Of course it's fucking slower. And funny thing is, that little 1.5T is keeping up with the "sport" 2.4 of yesteryear.
I'm sorry, but if the 2.4 was that good, why the fuck would Honda get rid of it, and switch to a worse platform, going forward? Your logic makes little sense.
Quit it being a troll and quit misrepresenting information to suit your bullshit.
Ive looked through Car and Driver's entire site and nowhere can I see any tests for the 2017 Civic Si.
at best, you might've been looking at the regular Civic with the 1.5T, which has LESS FUCKING POWER than the Civic Si. Of course it's fucking slower. And funny thing is, that little 1.5T is keeping up with the "sport" 2.4 of yesteryear.
I'm sorry, but if the 2.4 was that good, why the fuck would Honda get rid of it, and switch to a worse platform, going forward? Your logic makes little sense.
Quit it being a troll and quit misrepresenting information to suit your bullshit.
What a complete fool.
For the rest, please refer to the August 2017 edition of Car&Driver (I am suscribed) that has a complete review of the Si Coupe. My data is correct, except that the Si 2.4 recommended fuel was also premium as I found on another site.
One thing to consider is the elevation they test these cars at. Naturally aspirated cars are much more susceptible to elevation changes. The higher you go, the slower the car is, due to declining air density. Cars with forced induction don't suffer the same fate.
So a car that not only weighs less than its predecessor, but also has more all around power, is slower?
I need to go retake my physics courses again.
A few things 5-60 was designed to remove the better traction that some cars had from the 60 run. As a practical matter its an "interesting" number that does not apply to the real world. Nobody trying for max performance from a stop in a grocery getter is going to roll out to 5MPH before getting on the gas. Straight up head to head run 0-60 wins the stop light grand prix
.
Maybe if the car had 400HP & could easily over power the tires you might go out a bit carefully but that's not an unmodified Civic.
Also only in bench spec racing does a run not done side by side have meaning. The magazines never publish raw data only "factored" numbers which try to equalize runs. Anyone who has raced knows the same car in the cooler morning time trials will not run the same numbers & will be slower in the afternoon heat during eliminations.
I remember lots of stunned TL drivers out there that could not make anything close to the magazine numbers pure stock.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-25-2017 at 02:12 PM.
One thing to consider is the elevation they test these cars at. Naturally aspirated cars are much more susceptible to elevation changes. The higher you go, the slower the car is, due to declining air density. Cars with forced induction don't suffer the same fate.
Magazines factor their published numbers so its not a real high altitude sea level match. So an equally factored Turbp vs NA in Denver reality will not see the magazine numbers. The turbo will pound the N/A in the tarmac.
First, final drive was 4.76 vs 4.11 for the new one. With final gear factored in, all first 3 gears are 'shorter' on the old one, especially the 2nd gear by near 15% overall.
Second, all those small turbo engines need to spool up after the RPM allowed it. 192lbs-ft @ 2100rpm is obtained by slow variations. They are all like this, nothing new under the sun. 5-60 in 7.4s is borderline - they even complained in their minus, also saying that the engine no longer feels special, whatever that means for them.
First, final drive was 4.76 vs 4.11 for the new one. With final gear factored in, all first 3 gears are 'shorter' on the old one, especially the 2nd gear by near 15% overall.
Second, all those small turbo engines need to spool up after the RPM allowed it. 192lbs-ft @ 2100rpm is obtained by slow variations. They are all like this, nothing new under the sun. 5-60 in 7.4s is borderline - they even complained in their minus, also saying that the engine no longer feels special, whatever that means for them.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, but suffice to say you still don't understand turbos.
Just some thoughts on turbos spooling up. Its the size of the turbo to the size of the engine that is one factor. A small turbo for a specific engine size will spool up faster than a big turbo on the same engine. All things being equal a small turbo will always have less lag than a bigger one due to the reduced inertia of the rotating parts. The main reason for twin turbos is to have two smaller faster spooling units rather then one larger slower spooling unit.
Current electronic ECU controlled waste gates are enabling all turbos to spool quicker buy holding the gates closed until the last possible minute untill the target boost is reached then snapping open. The older waste gate designs started to open earlier taking longer to reach the boost target.
turbos are also becoming more efficient and quicker spooling. "low inertia" turbos are here and Honda is using them. Then there's stuff like twin scroll, etc.
Back in the day, turbos were considered to be very risky. I wouldn't buy any 80s or early 90s car with a turbo.. but over the years, manufacturers have learned a lot. You generally hear horror stories coming from the aftermarket area... that can and likely always will be sketchy. You get what you pay for and if you aren't willing to pony up the cash to do a build right.. well..
These days, it seems like manufacturers are still improving on turbo technology. They've already learned a lot, in terms of tuning, etc., but they do keep finding improvements and efficiencies. With how many manufacturers and cars utilize turbos these days, it'll be interesting to see what the next decade will hold.
Back in the day, turbos were considered to be very risky. I wouldn't buy any 80s or early 90s car with a turbo..
I bought a turbo car in 1985 and another in 1989; I drove both well over 150,000 miles with no issues. Funny thing though, I had a number of friends with cars with the same or similar engine as in my cars and they were replacing the turbos every fifty to seventy thousand miles. The difference? I ran a full Group-IV synthetic oil in both cars.
I haven't seen the Civic Si test in C/D test yet as it's not on their website yet. But I can see how it may take longer to do 5-60mph because of turbo lag. And this is why 5-60mph is not exactly an useless metric.
With 0-60mph, car testers can try multiple times to get the best launch and they eliminate turbo lag. lack of low end torque, etc. They achieve that by revving the engine to like 5000rpm before dumping the clutch, using launch control, or good old brake torquing.
Unless you setup launch control, don't care about overheating your torque converter, frying your clutch at the stop light, don't care about looking like a fool at the stop light, then by all means, use the 0-60mph metric. However, I think most poeple just punch it and go at the stop light, and in that sense, you will never get the published 0-60mph times that these magazines are able to extract. You will be much closer to the 5-60mph time. When the 0-60mph and 5-60mph figures don't differ by much, that means it it doesn't matter if you use those launching techniques or not, your car's acceleration wouldn't change much.
Back to the Si, I don't remember if this applies to the 9G Si, but the new Si require 3rd gear to reach 60mph. That alone will add like half a second to the 60mph time.
so, what you're saying is...Saintor doesnt understand turbos
100% the opposite, my friend; you don't understand
My claim since the 1997 VW/Audi 1.8T is that these small displacement turbo engines low-end is NOT represented by the published maximum torque, typically 100% at 2000rpm or so. BS for gadget lovers. We saw improvement in a few cases though, but none of the immediacy of larger displacement engines.
Twenty years later, this Civic 1.5T with a questionable 5-60 in 7.4s is another evidence of that.
But I can see how it may take longer to do 5-60mph because of turbo lag. And this is why 5-60mph is not exactly an useless metric.
Yeap. 5-60 definitely represents real-life better than the 0-60, which is achieved by insane abuses that you don't do on a daily basis.
Back to the Si, I don't remember if this applies to the 9G Si, but the new Si require 3rd gear to reach 60mph
Possibly, as I explained, the first three gears combined with final drive were shorter than the new one. An higher redline of the old one may change that though.
Yea, the 2nd gear of the new si goes to 54 -56mph only. That extra shift gonna costs you 0.5s or so, assuming you shift very quickly.
Also, the new Si has this throttle lag when you shift gear. It's possibly there for fuel economy purpose and/or to protect the drivetrain. So every time you shift, and press on the gas again, there's some kind of delay. Hondata has a fix for it though.
That seems normal. My '03 Accord 6MT was the same. 2nd gear topped out at ~90km/h. Pretty sure my 6MT TL is the same also. Though admittedly, both cars have a V6 and subsequently a lower RPM redline. Maybe pushing the engine to 7500+rpm would alleviate that.
That seems normal. My '03 Accord 6MT was the same. 2nd gear topped out at ~90km/h. Pretty sure my 6MT TL is the same also. Though admittedly, both cars have a V6 and subsequently a lower RPM redline. Maybe pushing the engine to 7500+rpm would alleviate that.
Not if imitates a hand grenade for exceeding the red line. A red line is a do not exceed point not a max horsepower point.
Modern engines will not grenade because the computer being smarter than the driver will pull the power & not let you go there unless you force it mechanically with a dumb downshift. Before ECU damaged & blown engines from over rev were quite common especially in racing.
Who would use 5 mph rolling rpm to start a car moving from rest, lugging/bog? I expect most people are putting a 1000 or so RPM to launch a stick from a dead start. Are torque converter even lockups raising the rpm above a 5mph rolls rpm?
So regardless of traction a standing start car is generating more power than a 5mph roller when it starts to move if the rpm is higher than 5 mph revs so it will be quicker to 60..
The difference in 0-60 5-60 is not limited to turbo cars (turbo lag) it effects all cars the same way.
If I get a chance tomorrow till try & see what the rpm is at 5 mph vs launch rpm, first movement, on some of my cars.
Not if imitates a hand grenade for exceeding the red line. A red line is a do not exceed point not a max horsepower point.
Modern engines will not grenade because the computer being smarter than the driver will pull the power & not let you go there unless you force it mechanically with a dumb downshift. Before ECU damaged & blown engines from over rev were quite common especially in racing.
I didn't mean that I'd take a stock J series V6 and rev the piss out of it Fuel cut off is well before that anyway.
I meant "hey, IF the V6 COULD rev to 7500+, then yeah, I could see it"... the K24 and K20 have a red line in and around there, depending on the vehicle they're in. Some higher, some a bit lower. If gearing was the same, the higher rpm could theoretically get you there.
06-19-2017, 08:15 PM
Fuel cut off is well before that anyway.