2016 Civic EX-T faster than 2015 Civic Si

[996GT2]

http://artofgears.com/2015/11/26/un...ivic-1-5l-turbo-faster-than-9th-gen-civic-si/

A bone stock 2016 Civic EX-T with the 1.5l turbo motor pulled off 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in 14.9 @ 97 mph.

From a pull, the new Civic 1.5 turbo with CVT seems to be faster than the last-gen Civic Si 6-speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aeuPAR7Pog&feature=youtu.be&t=1m32s

For a non-performance oriented car that has a CVT, low rolling resistance all-season tires, and a highway rating of 42 mpg, that's actually very, very impressive.

A BR-Z 6-speed does the 1/4 mile in 15.0 seconds, so it's very likely that this new Civic would easily beat that from a pull.

 

[Harrod]

That car doesn't look bad either. I wonder how much it will cost? Hopefully it's not in WRX territory.

 

[996GT2]

That car doesn't look bad either. I wonder how much it will cost? Hopefully it's not in WRX territory.

The cheapest model with the 1.5 turbo motor is the EX-T, at $22,200. Seems pretty well equipped. Heated seats, dual zone climate, moonroof, remote start, rearview camera, Bluetooth, 8 speakers, projector headlights, etc.

Looks like it has the electronic parking brake with automatic brake hold feature that debuted on recent Acuras too.

 

[Demo24]

Not super surprising really. It weighs a bit less and most definitely has a more usable powerband. The si has never really been all that fast in a straight line.

 

[slugg]

Still no details on the Type-R in the USA?

 

[SearchMaster]

Not super surprising really. It weighs a bit less and most definitely has a more usable powerband. The si has never really been all that fast in a straight line.

NEVER, EVER say this to an SI owner. EVER.

I'm glad Honda is finally waking (back) up to turbos. Efficient under normal circumstances, power when you need it. This version of the Civic looks like a winner.

 

[NutBucket]

It's just different.

Honda was sticking to what it knows. Their NA 4bangers are probably the best ones that are widely available. Power is one thing but a high-revving NA engine is just sweeeet!

If I was younger and dumber without adult responsibilities I'd probably be looking to buy a new GT350 mainly because of the engine.

I miss revving past 7k in my Honda...

 

[XavierMace]

NEVER, EVER say this to an SI owner. EVER

Why not? It's so much fun.

 

[yh125d]

NEVER, EVER say this to an SI owner. EVER.

I'm glad Honda is finally waking (back) up to turbos. Efficient under normal circumstances, power when you need it. This version of the Civic looks like a winner.

Yeah, but he's right though. SI's have always been sporty cars, but not really a performance car. To be fair, the same could be said of the BRZ, GTI, and my Focus ST.

If you can't reliably beat all the V6 midsize family sedans to 60, you're not driving a performance car. You're driving a sporty car.

 

[Midwayman]

If you can't reliably beat all the V6 midsize family sedans to 60, you're not driving a performance car. You're driving a sporty car.

When you're a full second slower in the quarter than the v6 family sedans I'd say 'sporty' is even pushing it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

When you're a full second slower in the quarter than the v6 family sedans I'd say 'sporty' is even pushing it.

:thumbsup:

 

[yh125d]

When you're a full second slower in the quarter than the v6 family sedans I'd say 'sporty' is even pushing it.

I would argue that sporty is more about feel really than numbers, as well as handling which would have no effect on straight line speed. An Altima or Accord V6 would keep up or beat all those I mentioned in a straight line, but everyone here would take one of those to the track ahead of the family cars.

Hell, an F150 2.7l 4x4 gets to 60 in 5.7

 

[996GT2]

Apparently the 14.9 second 1/4 mile time was done with a 2.5 second 60 ft time. The CVT and mpg-optimized tires are probably the reason for the slow launch.

The Si has a 6-speed manual and summer tires, and yet is still slower than the normal, non-sporty model of the 2016 Civic. Si owners must be pretty annoyed

With some better tires, a stock 2016 Civic could probably do 0-60 in the low 6-second range and the quarter mile in the mid 14's.

Pretty amazing when you consider that its direct competitor, the Corolla, does 0-60 in 10.5 seconds.

 

[NutBucket]

I think the real issue is the cvt, not the tires.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Honda should drop this motor in the CRZ, drop the IMA, and call it the SI edition -

 

[996GT2]

Honda should drop this motor in the CRZ, drop the IMA, and call it the SI edition -

The highway mpg would improve also.

2016 Civic rated at 31/42
CR-Z 36/39

 

[NutBucket]

Damn. Then I'd have to buy another CR-Z LOL

 

[996GT2]

Imagine a Fit with this engine. It would be a blast to drive.

 

[tphss]

That is really impressive. I'm interested to drive it.
I do hate CVT transmissions. Auto, dual clutch or manual are enough good choices for me.

 

[Yuriman]

I suppose Miata and S2000 are not sporty cars anymore.

 

[Harrod]

Imagine a Fit with this engine. It would be a blast to drive.

I bet this thing becomes the new GSR/Type-R of car thefts.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's impressive but not too surprising. If anything I'd say its a testament to how lackluster the last (what couple actually) Civics have been?

I'm outright baffled by all the love for the looks about the new Civic while people complain incessantly about similarly styled cars. This looks very much like a typical modern car in a lot of respects (ok is mostly but the front and rear fascias look like they just left placeholders and never bothered to finish designing them).

 

[Yuriman]

After sleeping on it, I'm considering the idea of dropping one of these motors into my Insight when the battery or motor finally give out. Should be pretty zippy in a car that weighs almost 40% less (1800lbs with the hybrid systems in place) and has (I'd estimate) about 20% less aerodynamic drag. I bet 50-60mpg on the highway wouldn't be unreasonable to expect, which is a lot less than it currently gets, but it seems a reasonable tradeoff to get a sub-13 second car.

 

[ipown1337]

NEVER, EVER say this to an SI owner. EVER.

I'm glad Honda is finally waking (back) up to turbos. Efficient under normal circumstances, power when you need it. This version of the Civic looks like a winner.

Si Owner here, yes i am offended and blah blah (not really).

I drive an 08 2 door Si, basically stock, mainly I just like to drive and like the feel of a manual. I am glad to see Honda making some wise decisions it feels like it has been forever since they have been competitive.

 

[yh125d]

I think now that the industry has embraced turbos, not just on performance cars but normal cars, and on all sorts of displacements/cylinder configurations, combined with the fact that they've figured out how to make big power turbo motors with small displacement that actually can build boost quick and have plenty of torque down low, make an argument to not put a turbo on a performance engine, particularly a small displacement one, very hard to justify.

These days, its cars like the NA Civic SI, the 370z, and the laggy relatively outdated STI motor that are the oddballs.

I too am very glad to hear that the next SI will probably be turbo, and I am excited at the possibility of a turbo 370z, or BRZ-STI. When I was shopping around before I bought my ST, I honestly never considered either the SI or BRZ. Partly because I feel strongly that a manual performance car is almost always going to be the most fun to drive option there is, moreso that having torque down low is like turning the fun way up while staying reasonable (under 4k), while making it way easier to drive when you're just putting around. Maybe that's just because I started driving with a 7.3l diesel with an aftermarket turbo pushing 11psi, but either way I think I'm right.

Hell, I'd say a manual Golf TDI is a viable option for a car that is fun to drive. 236 ft lbs and a six speed in a 3200lb car may not be that fast, but it will feel good getting there.

In comparison, I did drive a Genesis Coupe 3.8. While technically it has about 100hp and 1 fewer second to 60 than my ST, and 140hp on the GTI I drove, it didn't really feel faster than either until about 5000rpm, which you shouldn't hit on public roads except in first or second, even when you're goofing around, and wasn't as fun to drive.