New Honda civic not getting the 1.5 Turbo engine in Thailand.. Surely not?

[IMHO]

It is doing it in less than 7 seconds.. This is a fact it's not a made up number.. Go read at what that Turbo is pushing out in power.. It's an unreal engine..

The Honda L15B7 engine in the 2015 Civic makes 176HP (metric) and 220Nm, which needs to push 1330KG of car. Using basic math that assumes minimal losses, 0-100km/hr in less than 7s is simply impossible - it defies basic physics

As a comparison, the Focus Ecoboost 1.5L turbo makes 4 more horses and 20 more Newton-Meters (180HP and 240Nm), moving 1360KG of car. And it does a real mid-8 seconds. The math on that works

Edited January 7, 2016 by IMHO

[Huayrat]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

[Huayrat]

Why do you think I want one.. If that engine is not in it in Thailand then I'll buy a Bike :-)

[IMHO]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

Based on actual specs, the Ford Ecoboost is even more amazing. Go figure

[Don Mega]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

You keep saying this.

Where is the proof ?

[SoiBiker]

People focus too much on 0-60, anyway. How often do you actually do that? I'm more interested in how a car goes from 30-50, or 50-70.

[Ace of Pop]

Most of us have no idea.

[Don Mega]

People focus too much on 0-60, anyway. How often do you actually do that?

About 30 times this afternoon on the drive home.

[DavisH]

People focus too much on 0-60, anyway. How often do you actually do that? I'm more interested in how a car goes from 30-50, or 50-70.

So far, the sylphy/pulsar turbo do 80-120 km/h in 5+ seconds; quite a bit faster then their competition.

http://www.headlightmag.com/hlmwp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sylphy_turbo_03.jpg

[Huayrat]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

You keep saying this.

Where is the proof ?

Ok Just wait and see..

[nfoboy]

Honda TH have gone on record with their plans for turbo engines, across the range over the coming years.

As for other options, as noted the Focus 1.5L ecoboost launches in March.

From an interview published Jan 5th.

"But while the Chinese market is set to gain Honda’s turbocharged power, it looks like the rest of South East Asia (SEA) may not be so lucky. “Depending on the market and region, but particularly in Asia and other emerging markets, we will continue offering our naturally-aspirated lineup, which tends to be less costly. In South East Asia, we will supply our current lineup of naturally-aspirated engines,” Ohtsu stated."

So, what Honda TH has in mind, and what Honda headquarters has in mind, might not be the same... or at least a little bit delayed.

(I hope this meets moderation requirements... only 3 sentences...)

[IMHO]

Honda TH have gone on record with their plans for turbo engines, across the range over the coming years.

As for other options, as noted the Focus 1.5L ecoboost launches in March.

From an interview published Jan 5th.

"But while the Chinese market is set to gain Honda’s turbocharged power, it looks like the rest of South East Asia (SEA) may not be so lucky. “Depending on the market and region, but particularly in Asia and other emerging markets, we will continue offering our naturally-aspirated lineup, which tends to be less costly. In South East Asia, we will supply our current lineup of naturally-aspirated engines,” Ohtsu stated."

So, what Honda TH has in mind, and what Honda headquarters has in mind, might not be the same... or at least a little bit delayed.

(I hope this meets moderation requirements... only 3 sentences...)

The fact that they will retain naturally aspirated engines is a gimme. The question on the turbo is when, not if though, according to sources.

Honda TH aren't usually trailblazers when it comes to re-educating buyers - and given Ford and Nissan's failure to do so, will probably sit back and wait for the market to mature, at someone else's cost, first. I'm sure the success of the Mazda2/CX-3 diesel turbos is making them warm up a little though..

Edited January 7, 2016 by IMHO

[Don Mega]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

You keep saying this.

Where is the proof ?

Ok Just wait and see..

Wait and see what exactly ?

You have said many times now it does 0 to 100 in under 7 seconds and yet you have no proof ?

[Ace of Pop]

Thais buy Honda cause it dont do Clonkers here. Hiwaymaster truck shut that door, and put Thais of Honda oilers way back.

[WarpSpeed]

Get the 1.8 and install a turbo, problem solved and more power, but that may be too much logic applied?

So you are suggesting to aftermarket a new car and void the warranty?

Oh! Heaven forbid!!

[WarpSpeed]

You clearly don't have much idea of what's involved in converting an engine to turbo charging. It's a lot more complicated than just bolting on a turbo, and not exactly a sensible suggestion.

Lower the compression, upgrade the injectors/fuel pump to get more fuel flow, add a turbo, hope that the stock ECU can still maintain stoich and go. Not that hard

All true but you don't necessarily need to lower the compression, just compensate on boost instead.

Some cars (modern) most definitely need compression lowered.

Why? When the purpose of adding a turbo is to increase compression and is directly related to boost pressure?

[Don Mega]

Lower the compression, upgrade the injectors/fuel pump to get more fuel flow, add a turbo, hope that the stock ECU can still maintain stoich and go. Not that hard

All true but you don't necessarily need to lower the compression, just compensate on boost instead.

Some cars (modern) most definitely need compression lowered.

Why? When the purpose of adding a turbo is to increase compression and is directly related to boost pressure?

Skyactiv mazda's come to mind. 14 to 1 compression ratio is not at all boost friendly.

[DavisH]

This from a website...this is with 12:1 CR. This motor would do well with a turbo but only on low boost.

2.0L Skyactiv - G 12:1 CR

This 2.0L can put up a fight! With 12:1 Compression it doesn't need much boost to make the wheels spin. The engines connecting rods and Crankshaft are extremely stout. With no breaking point yet found. However, to ensure 100% safe reliability, we limit our kits to putting out 4.5psi of boost. Doesn't sound like much.. because you don't need much. 4.5psi + 12:1 compression = big power and quick spooling. With only 4.5psi you're already approaching 230+HP to the wheels, and a few more psi would put it in the 300+ Range.

Edited January 8, 2016 by seedy
font

[SoiBiker]

You clearly don't have much idea of what's involved in converting an engine to turbo charging. It's a lot more complicated than just bolting on a turbo, and not exactly a sensible suggestion.

Lower the compression, upgrade the injectors/fuel pump to get more fuel flow, add a turbo, hope that the stock ECU can still maintain stoich and go. Not that hard

All true but you don't necessarily need to lower the compression, just compensate on boost instead.

Some cars (modern) most definitely need compression lowered.

Why? When the purpose of adding a turbo is to increase compression and is directly related to boost pressure?

Because an engine's compression ratio is generally designed to be the maximum it can be without causing knock. If you then added a turbo without lowering the ratio, the extra pressure would likely cause knock and end up destroying the engine.

Again, you don't seem to understand the issues involved here.

[Ace of Pop]

When you get into 250 BHP range you need to Tink 4x4. I'm sure we have all piled from side roads in the wet and just sat there wheels spining like egg whisks with only 150 on tap

[Huayrat]

It's doing it under 7 seconds.. That is a fact not a made up figure.. Go look at what that Turbo gives out in power.. It's Amazing

You keep saying this.

Where is the proof ?

Plenty of proof just can't be arsed to go copy and paste it on here for ppl to still not believe it..

Google is your friend

Off ya pop

Ok Just wait and see..

Wait and see what exactly ?

You have said many times now it does 0 to 100 in under 7 seconds and yet you have no proof ?

[Don Mega]

This from a website...this is with 12:1 CR. This motor would do well with a turbo but only on low boost.

2.0L Skyactiv - G 12:1 CR

This 2.0L can put up a fight! With 12:1 Compression it doesn't need much boost to make the wheels spin. The engines connecting rods and Crankshaft are extremely stout. With no breaking point yet found. However, to ensure 100% safe reliability, we limit our kits to putting out 4.5psi of boost. Doesn't sound like much.. because you don't need much. 4.5psi + 12:1 compression = big power and quick spooling. With only 4.5psi you're already approaching 230+HP to the wheels, and a few more psi would put it in the 300+ Range.

So they lowered the CR..... surprise surpise.

Warpy said no cars need compression to be lowered to add a turbo.

Iam saying the 2.0 Skyactiv G with 14:1 CR does (Thai maz 3 is 14:1, USA maz 3 is 13:1).

and lol at 4.5psi of boost... that certainly tells you the limits of the engine block with 12:1 CR and boost.

And ahhh the Turbo 2.5 Skyactiv engine in the CX-9..... it has a CR of 10.5:1 and makes 227hp at the engine.

Have a read up of it you like (link below) and get back to me if you really think one can simply just slap a turbo onto these high compression motors easily whilst still maintaining some semblance of reliability.

http://www2.mazda.com/en/publicity/release/2015/201511/151119b.html

[WarpSpeed]

Some cars (modern) most definitely need compression lowered.

Why? When the purpose of adding a turbo is to increase compression and is directly related to boost pressure?

Because an engine's compression ratio is generally designed to be the maximum it can be without causing knock. If you then added a turbo without lowering the ratio, the extra pressure would likely cause knock and end up destroying the engine.

Again, you don't seem to understand the issues involved here.

DELETED

A turbo is intended to create more compression and there are plenty of ways to control knock without having to lower compression which is why I asked the question to see how many people here REALLY understood that DELETED.

Both boost pressure and octane can be adjusted one lowered and the other lifted to prevent knock along with timing and various other adjustments to the ECU, if need be a piggy back ECU. It is done on stock rotary engines all the time which have no real internal after market parts to speak of nor do they require them but instead the adjustments are made externally. The point being that ALL modern high performance turbo engines begin with high compression in the first place (which is relative) and then the turbo increases it even more not the other way around, by forcing air into the same small area.

The adjustments are made according to boost control and octane but if you already have a high compression engine then a higher boost is not required to create more power so you turn the boost down, adjust timing and increase octane, job done without taking 2 steps backward to go one forward.. The problem these days is that too many young "tuners" can't apply past principles that were successful BEFORE all of the high performance parts and ECU programming tech of today was handled so you have no real experience to fall back on except the limited knowledge of the perfect scenario you have today but the reality is turbos have been around and been successfully operating even prior to ECU or OBDII for decades without needing to lower engine compression. The fact is the biggest problem for them in the past was more about heat absorption and bearing failures due to that, but the turbos and the high compression stock engines worked just fine other wise.

[WarpSpeed]

This from a website...this is with 12:1 CR. This motor would do well with a turbo but only on low boost.

2.0L Skyactiv - G 12:1 CR

This 2.0L can put up a fight! With 12:1 Compression it doesn't need much boost to make the wheels spin. The engines connecting rods and Crankshaft are extremely stout. With no breaking point yet found. However, to ensure 100% safe reliability, we limit our kits to putting out 4.5psi of boost. Doesn't sound like much.. because you don't need much. 4.5psi + 12:1 compression = big power and quick spooling. With only 4.5psi you're already approaching 230+HP to the wheels, and a few more psi would put it in the 300+ Range.

So they lowered the CR..... surprise surpise.

Warpy said no cars need compression to be lowered to add a turbo.

Iam saying the 2.0 Skyactiv G with 14:1 CR does (Thai maz 3 is 14:1, USA maz 3 is 13:1).

and lol at 4.5psi of boost... that certainly tells you the limits of the engine block with 12:1 CR and boost.

And ahhh the Turbo 2.5 Skyactiv engine in the CX-9..... it has a CR of 10.5:1 and makes 227hp at the engine.

Have a read up of it you like (link below) and get back to me if you really think one can simply just slap a turbo onto these high compression motors easily whilst still maintaining some semblance of reliability.

http://www2.mazda.com/en/publicity/release/2015/201511/151119b.html

Ermm I did not say that "NO CARS or ENGINES" need to lower compression to apply a turbo. The OP was about the Honda 1.8l not just any engine so get your info correct it makes you and others look really ignorant and pokes all sorts of holes in your understanding and any rebuttal you have. It is NOT a SKY ACTIVE Mazda engine and furthermore just because they DO lower it for all sorts of reasons (not the least of which is longevity) does not mean it NEEDS to be lowered in order to properly operate. DELETED

Edited January 8, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

[WarpSpeed]

BTW the above formula for adjusting for turbo on a high compression engine is not all that dissimilar from an LP application without a turbo, the same problems exist in trying to find the right compromise between power and engine wear with dual fuel systems.

Edited January 8, 2016 by WarpSpeed

[seedy]

Posts Edited / Posts Hidden - Troll Flaming

Please keep the discussion civil

[Don Mega]

This from a website...this is with 12:1 CR. This motor would do well with a turbo but only on low boost.

2.0L Skyactiv - G 12:1 CR

This 2.0L can put up a fight! With 12:1 Compression it doesn't need much boost to make the wheels spin. The engines connecting rods and Crankshaft are extremely stout. With no breaking point yet found. However, to ensure 100% safe reliability, we limit our kits to putting out 4.5psi of boost. Doesn't sound like much.. because you don't need much. 4.5psi + 12:1 compression = big power and quick spooling. With only 4.5psi you're already approaching 230+HP to the wheels, and a few more psi would put it in the 300+ Range.

So they lowered the CR..... surprise surpise.

Warpy said no cars need compression to be lowered to add a turbo.

Iam saying the 2.0 Skyactiv G with 14:1 CR does (Thai maz 3 is 14:1, USA maz 3 is 13:1).

and lol at 4.5psi of boost... that certainly tells you the limits of the engine block with 12:1 CR and boost.

And ahhh the Turbo 2.5 Skyactiv engine in the CX-9..... it has a CR of 10.5:1 and makes 227hp at the engine.

Have a read up of it you like (link below) and get back to me if you really think one can simply just slap a turbo onto these high compression motors easily whilst still maintaining some semblance of reliability.

http://www2.mazda.com/en/publicity/release/2015/201511/151119b.html

Ermm I did not say that "NO CARS or ENGINES" need to lower compression to apply a turbo. The OP was about the Honda 1.8l not just any engine so get your info correct it makes you and others look really ignorant and pokes all sorts of holes in your understanding and any rebuttal you have. It is NOT a SKY ACTIVE Mazda engine and furthermore just because they DO lower it for all sorts of reasons (not the least of which is longevity) does not mean it NEEDS to be lowered in order to properly operate. DELETED

You clearly stated lowering compression was unnecessary and your post were you said that was not specifically about the honda 1.8 engine.

DELETED

Edited January 8, 2016 by seedy
troll / flaming

[Ace of Pop]

If your going down that road of debate,let's start with an over square block and design your own.OS motors are more turbo n supercharge friendly.Back to basics.

[seedy]

one post Discussing Moderation removed

[IMHO]

The Ford Focus Ecoboost officially launches next month at the motor show.

It is confirmed we'll get the 1.5L turbo with 180HP/240Nm, and that it will also be E85 compatible. It is also anticipated to fall under the 150g/KM CO2 threshold, which means 25% excise tax - i.e. 10% less tax than the outgoing 2.0L