Honda Civic Engine Choices

[lykaon78]

Current models have either a 2.0-liter four-cylinder rated at 158 hp or the 1.5-liter or 174-hp turbocharged four-cylinder.

I've found a great deal on the turbo version but my basic knowledge is that the turbo is likely to have more problems at higher miles because turbo means more heat and more pressure which translates to long term maintenance issues.

I kept my last car for 250k miles so reliability is important. Online sources are mixed about reliability long term and there is nothing official because the motors are new.

Should I avoid the turbo engine?

 

[zerocool84]

Me personally I'd go turbo just because it'd be more fun to drive. Obviously no one could know the long term longevity of a brand new engine but everyone raves about the turbo engine.

 

[XavierMace]

Modern turbos are generally quite reliable as long as you don't mess with them. IE: Don't up the boost.

 

[Yuriman]

The turbo gets better gas mileage, and has more power on tap. I've never known any Honda engine to be unreliable, just a handful of their transmissions.

 

[jana519]

Turbos are actually slightly less efficient, like 5% highway/10% city. It's a popular misconception.

 

[HitAnyKey]

Pretty sure any Honda engine, turbo included will last a long time. It might require more maintenance for a turbo so there is that to consider. Make sure you test drive it thoroughly and see if its worth the extra money. Been seeing more Turbo Civics around my parts lately.

Buy the one you enjoy driving and don't worry about it too much. Honda usually makes a very reliable engine.

 

[Yuriman]

Turbos are actually slightly less efficient, like 5% highway/10% city. It's a popular misconception.

There's nothing inherent about a turbo that makes it less efficient. Higher cylinder pressure is usually more efficient, not less. It's true that many turbo motors have lower compression rates and often run rich to keep cylinder temperatures down, bu this doesn't have to be the case.

I suggest reading this for OP: http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy/

On a 300-mile loop of mixed highway, rural, and urban driving, the cars proved equally frugal by averaging 40 mpg. Digging deeper, we measured the steady-speed fuel consumption of the two Civics. Some of our results are astounding, such as the 50-plus-mpg both Civics achieve at 55 mph. The turbo wins across speeds ranging from 30 to 90 mph, with a 6-mpg advantage between 40 and 55 mph.

To generate the power required to maintain a particular cruising speed, any engine—small or large—must pump a corresponding amount of air. With equivalent gearing, the smaller engine requires a wider throttle opening to pump the same amount of air as a larger engine. Because pumping losses are lower with wider throttle openings, a smaller engine is more efficient.

Even at 90 mph, with the tach reading 2800 rpm, the turbo plays a minor role in cruise mode. This is precisely why nearly every carmaker will rely heavily on smaller-displacement, boosted engines to satisfy the fuel-economy mandate that requires a fleet-wide average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.

 

[ChronoReverse]

In the case of the Civic turbo though, the reason it gets better mileage is because it's a smaller engine and it's tuned so that you can run the highway without actually boosting.

Dip into the power and the fuel economy disappears.

 

[tweakmonkey]

I think if you really plan to keep the car for 250,000 miles, then the Turbo might be slightly less reliable. It does have more oil fittings, coolant lines and hoses, (assuming) piping for the intercooler, plus the turbo itself. That said it will probably go 200k before it has issues but it's more likely to have problems over that extreme lifetime than the non Turbo model. But over the first 100-150k miles I doubt either will have any issues and the money it sounds like you'd save on the purchase price would offset the maintenance a bit anyway...

 

[Dr. Detroit]

The tried and true 2.0L has proven to be bulletproof and will most likely be more reliable. Also, if your heavy on the boost the Turbo engine will return worse mpg.

The real choice comes down to option packages as you can not get the higher end features without going Turbo. The hatchback is Turbo only.

 

[HarryLui]

I had a 333,000 miles on the last 2.3L turbo engine on my 94 Volvo . Compression numbers started to go down, so I took it out and put in an used engine with 160k in it. I now have 200k on it, still working great.

Turbo engine will more likely to die from lack of regular oil changes/coolant changes/overheating due to faulty cooling components before it wears out.

 

[shabby]

Of course go turbo.

 

[qr25nismo]

There's nothing inherent about a turbo that makes it less efficient. Higher cylinder pressure is usually more efficient, not less. It's true that many turbo motors have lower compression rates and often run rich to keep cylinder temperatures down, bu this doesn't have to be the case.

I suggest reading this for OP: http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy/

Guy, Turbo's force more air into the engine, that combined with bigger fuel injectors create more power, using more gasoline. Turbo engines don't get better gas mileage, in fact they get worse mileage. You can't just hook up a turbo into a big v8 motor and expect better gas mileage.
The only reason you would think turbo vehicles get better gas mileage is because these small 4 cylinders are getting good gas mileage with turbo's. Its false.
4 cylinders are good on gas but the turbo gets the power back up into good range.
I know from experience, my co-worker just installed a turbo and downpipe on his new Ford Fiesta, the power difference was crazy but his gas mileage went down 10 mpg because the power and increased flow.

 

[NutBucket]

WTF kind of comparison is that? Adding a turbo to a car that wasn't designed for it is ONLY to increase power, period. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

A properly designed setup has the turbo to give you power when you need it but save fuel when you don't.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

The 2.0 is a proven high mileage engine. The 1.5t is not.

The only turbo honda I can think of for comparison sake is the RDX. They only built the turbo for a few years before going back to NA. The RDX turbos seem to be reliable but super high mileage examples are scarce.

If reliability is the #1 concern the 2.0 is the superior choice.

 

[hotlavaaaa]

The 2.0 is a proven high mileage engine. The 1.5t is not.

The 2.0 is also a new engine.

 

[NutBucket]

Based on the previous 1.8 most likely. Honda doesn't fuck up engine design. Transmissions are another topic

 

[postmortemIA]

I would not go for the turbo. Yes it is fun to drive, but in the long run you'll be still going from A to B for the same time.

And for these that think that all Honda engines are great, just search for "Honda engine misfire class action". The new engine tech is hard to get right with first try, long term.

That's what happened with Honda's V6 with VCM (cylinders shutting off during lower load) - class action suit because so many people ended with broken engines long before they hit 100k miles.

 

[HitAnyKey]

I would not go for the turbo. Yes it is fun to drive, but in the long run you'll be still going from A to B for the same time.

And for these that think that all Honda engines are great, just search for "Honda engine misfire class action". The new engine tech is hard to get right with first try, long term.

That's what happened with Honda's V6 with VCM (cylinders shutting off during lower load) - class action suit because so many people ended with broken engines long before they hit 100k miles.

Actually you do bring up decent points. I do think the Turbo tech on the market is probably very reliable now but it is another potential headache. And in this category you don't want any headaches at all. Almost makes me wonder if its even worth the risk in this category. That makes a very strong case for the 2.0 engine.

You look at the Mazda3, and Elantra series cars and they have avoided CVTs and turbos (non Mazdaspeed) just fine.

 

[NutBucket]

And if you're that concerned with longevity buy an MT. Driven properly the clutch will easily last 200k.

 

[Sean Kyle]

I would suggest a Honda engine with Turbo if you really wanna feel better!