2016 Civic - Now with turbo?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by darcane

Not really.

It's more of an exponential growth curve.

Typically for a small FWD car (CRX, older Civic hatch, etc), gutted out and built for drag racing, you need somewhere around 500hp to break into the 9's in the quarter.

That engine in an otherwise stock 1st gen Insight is probably good for low 14's in the quarter mile.

For reference, my parents own/operate a drag strip...

Thing is, the Civic is already in the 14's with that engine. Surely shaving a third of the mass (over 1000lbs) would give more than 5% more acceleration? I'm assuming that this is with the stock LRR tires, too.

The 2016 Honda Civic EX Coupe with the 1.5 Turbo is rated at 174 HP at 6000 RPM with 16.5 psi of boost helping push torque numbers to 162 lb-ft. According to JeffX’s VBOX, the 1.5 turbo put down between 164-166 HP to the ground with no mention of torque figures ( if we estimate around a six percent drivetrain loss, we’re looking at 152 lb-ft.) According to JeffX, curb weight for the coupe plus the driver and 1/2 a tank of fuel came out around 2,900 pounds. After a couple of power runs and standing starts, according to VBOX, JeffX was able to pull off a 0-60 MPH time of 6.5 seconds and a quarter mile run of 14.9 seconds @ 97 MPH.

Source

Wonder how much the CVT helps with that?

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Thing is, the Civic is already in the 14's with that engine. Surely shaving a third of the mass (over 1000lbs) would give more than 5% more acceleration? I'm assuming that this is with the stock LRR tires, too.



Source

Wonder how much the CVT helps with that?

Well, if the CVT keeps the engine at the RPM that makes peak power, then, yes, it will be quicker due to that. The author's claim is that the 174hp 2016 Civic (about 2900lbs w/ driver & fuel) is faster than the 205hp 2015 Civic Si (about 3200lbs w/ driver & fuel). If true, it's likely attributable to the CVT.

A few other points to keep in mind:

• I'm not familiar with the VBOX, but that type of device always seem to be off for measuring acceleration. Speed is usually fairly accurate, but time to accelerate will be off. Take it to an actual drag strip before making any claims.
• Compare apples to apples. Claimed weight of the 2016 was 2900lbs with driver and fuel. Insight is about 1900lbs dry. You still need driver and fuel... Unsure what Insight with the engine swap would weigh.

[Ecky]

I have no drag strip experience, and though the physics of it aren't immediately obvious, even a quick glance at the numbers various other cars put out suggests you're right about power requirments going exponential when approaching that 10 second mark. I'm actually slightly embarrassed about even having thrown out such an absurd number.

Anyway, 1847lbs for the 5MT, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Civic's engine/transmission came out at around the same as the Insight's engine + transmission + HV battery and electronics, if not less. Motor Trend and Car & Driver both have slightly slower times (a hair above 15) using the slightly heavier Touring model, giving some credibility to sub-15 for the EX-T, but I'm really splitting hairs at this point. It looks like it would be pleasantly fast, and still put out some pretty impressive economy numbers. Anyone else care to make a guess as to what the acceleration and economy figures might be?

My reading on CVTs has been that they're generally less durable than conventional autos, and certainly less so than manuals. This is one of the things I've been most critical about of Honda's more recent lineup - it seems that 150-200k is not atypical for CVT failure - but I imagine one would last significantly longer in a car that's significantly lighter, which would make me feel better about owning one.

[gone-ot]

FWIW, the basic (first-order) ET & MPH vs. WT & HP equations are:

MPH ≈ 232*(HP/WT)^(1/3)
.ET ≈ 5.82*(WT/HP)^(1/3)

MPH ≈ 1350/ET