2016 Honda 1.5 Turbo's...

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: stephen9666
I have experimented with higher octane in my Cruze. In my driving, paying for anything over 87 has not netted enough increase in mileage in my Cruze to overcome the cost increase.

91 costs me right around 20% more than 87 but doesn't net nearly a 20% increase in mpg, so the cost-per-mile is higher.

The difference between 87 and 91 is 20 cents in So Cal. Currently top tier gas is $2.90-$3.10 for 87 and 20 cents extra for 91, a little less than 10%. When we had $4.xx-$5.xx for 87, 20 cents extra for 91 was less than 5%, I pumped 91 for all my cars regardless is it needs it or not.

 

[Xeno]

They are faster than previous Gen Si's. lol

That's pretty impressive.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: stephen9666
I have experimented with higher octane in my Cruze. In my driving, paying for anything over 87 has not netted enough increase in mileage in my Cruze to overcome the cost increase.

91 costs me right around 20% more than 87 but doesn't net nearly a 20% increase in mpg, so the cost-per-mile is higher.


Premium around me is about 20 cents more a gallon than regular at the warehouse clubs on my way home. A typical 10 gallon fillup costs an extra $2. I end up going an extra 40 or so miles per tank on premium, or about a gallon's worth of gas. It's a wash or slightly cheaper in my particular case to run premium.

Sounds like you're in California or some other place that doesn't have 93 octane premium. I've run non-ethanol 91 octane in mine, and didn't get the same fuel economy or performance as on E10 93 octane. Whaddayaknow?

 

[SeaJay]

What is the advantage to purchase a car with a smaller turbo vs. a car with a larger naturally aspirated motor?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay
What is the advantage to purchase a car with a smaller turbo vs. a car with a larger naturally aspirated motor?


The smaller turbo motor, when not being flogged, can get higher mpg. Power when you want it (in excess of the larger NA motor), mpg when you don't need use it.

It seems today they have taken out the issues that turbo motors used to have: lag, reliability, cost.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Premium around me is about 20 cents more a gallon than regular at the warehouse clubs on my way home. A typical 10 gallon fillup costs an extra $2. I end up going an extra 40 or so miles per tank on premium, or about a gallon's worth of gas. It's a wash or slightly cheaper in my particular case to run premium.

Sounds like you're in California or some other place that doesn't have 93 octane premium. I've run non-ethanol 91 octane in mine, and didn't get the same fuel economy or performance as on E10 93 octane. Whaddayaknow?

We used to have 93 in the 70's and 80's when we had leaded gas. Around late 80's early 90's we dropped leaded gas and had 3 grades: 87, 89 and 91.

 

[dblshock]

I'm waiting to see the 1.5 '17 hatchback coupe 6-speed.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I think the SI with 2.0L turbo with 6-manual is pretty good.

 

[dblshock]

Yep, going to be juicy.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
my '91 VR4 Galant turbo was liquid cooled. IIRR.


So was my 88 Dodge Shadow Turbo and that turbo still failed around 100k.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: dblshock
my '91 VR4 Galant turbo was liquid cooled. IIRR.


So was my 88 Dodge Shadow Turbo and that turbo still failed around 100k.


So does that imply 30 years forward anything?

 

[dblshock]

If they are only able to go limited mileage it becomes a maintanence expense to be factored into the TCO like a timming belt.

 

[dlayman]

A lot of drivers of the 10th gen civic are already reporting the VTC actuator problem that has afflicted the Accord and CRV, so I'd have some concerns about the durability of either the turbo or the NA motor.

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
What is the advantage to purchase a car with a smaller turbo vs. a car with a larger naturally aspirated motor?


The smaller turbo motor, when not being flogged, can get higher mpg. Power when you want it (in excess of the larger NA motor), mpg when you don't need use it.

It seems today they have taken out the issues that turbo motors used to have: lag, reliability, cost.


Got it now, thanks for the info!

 

[dblshock]

I'm considering the iM and Corolla but Honda has moved the chains in mpg, over on fuelly you'll see lot of these '16 Civic's north of 45mpg.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Honda has plenty of predecessors in this game to have it figured out at least as well as the rest of them. Also, we must remember that there were cars in the mid 80s with water-cooled turbos.

Originally Posted By: supton

It seems today they have taken out the issues that turbo motors used to have: lag, reliability, cost.


Yep Tiny turbochargers are the key and better oils leave problems of the past where they belong, in history.