Jump to content
Forums Gone... but not forgotten!
Pontiac of the Month

Debbie Harris's 1969 Grand Prix

2021 October
of the Month

  • Welcome!

    Welcome to Forever Pontiac, where we keep the memory of Pontiac alive with great discussion, maintenance tips, restoration/modification progression "blogs" and help from professional & DIY mechanics. Also, wonderful competitions that occur regularly. Please register for an absolutely free account to join in!

Car and Driver: A Tale of Two Honda Civics: Turbo vs. Non-Turbo Fuel Economy


Recommended Posts

2016 Honda Civic Touring and Civic EX sedans

From the June 2016 issue

Turbochargers may be synonymous with big power and torque, but automakers have a very different motive for embracing forced induction. Smaller turbo engines fare better than naturally aspirated ones with similar performance on the EPA’s granny-like driving schedule. However, it’s not always clear if the fuel-economy advantage holds up on public roads with quicker acceleration and higher speeds.


To sniff out the real-world differences, we tested two Honda Civic sedans, each with the CVT, but one with the 174-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder and one with the 158-hp naturally aspirated 2.0-liter. By the EPA’s measure, the turbo Civic holds a 1-mpg edge on the highway with its 31/42-mpg ratings.


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.


A  Tale of Two Honda Civics: Turbo vs. Non-Turbo Fuel Economy


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.


Spending the extra $1160 for the Honda’s turbo engine does have one clear advantage beyond efficiency: The additional power and torque clip 1.4 seconds from the zero-to-60-mph run and a full second off the quarter-mile time compared with the naturally aspirated alternative. But exceed the gentle, twinkle-toe throttle pressure we applied in our steady-speed tests and all efficiency bets are off. As boost rises, more fuel is injected and mileage drops. Precipitously.


A Tale of Two Honda Civics: Turbo vs. Non-Turbo Fuel Economy


Read Full Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tired of these Ads? Register Today!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Tired of these Ads? Purchase Enhanced Membership today to remove them!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.