Honda Civic RS Modulo vs. Mazda 3 Speed vs. Everest Trend

[Janemar]

Baka naman sa Dyanmometer yan?

2.0 Civic 5A/T Paddle Shift (NOT CVT) is around 11secs. Honda keeps making false claim on their CVT transmission. They said the Clutch type CVT on Jazz is faster than manual because there is no Torque Converter that slips. Then the put a Torque Converter on the Earth Dreams Technology CVT and still claims the same thing.

We went to the dealership and do an actual test. Sinamahan ko lang cousin ko. Siya kasi yung bibili. Sinabi ko na wag muna niya close deal hanggat di nasuusubukan na kaya talaga ng 7secs. Mathematically Impossible dahil napakainit ng ambient temp tapos CVT pa. NAPAKABAGAL ng CVT.. Halos mag overheat na Tranny naka CVTF heater kasi instead of cooler. Saka palagi naman over exaggerated avertised 0-100kph lalo na yung fuel efficiency. Kung 15km/l yung average fuel consumption di dapat lampas pa sa 800km dapat range.

DOE ECO RUN 27.56km/l daw
Honda Cars Philippines' Official Website

Honda City 30km/l on NSLEX???
Honda Cars Philippines' Official Website

Honda Civic 2016 1.5 Turbo 0 to 100 * 31 degrees ambient temp - YouTube

Sir, ung sa video link nag start mag accel si civic around 3ish second mark sakto at 11sec. Sa video na reach na nya 100kph so nasa 7ish sec nga po 0-100kph nya. Hehe..

Obd2 torque app super inaccurate as you would suggest.

For your info, bone stock b16b and b18c type r engines na dyno namin at 160whp using dynapack. Gt86/brz, 160whp rin. Miata nasa 120whp. New civic 1.5T nasa 170whp..

Give or take 3 - 5whp na lang...

[niky]

Niky could you share the vbox 0-100 figures for the Civic 1.8E and the current crop of PPVs?

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

Haven't done the 1.8. The FD 1.8 was in the 10 second range. The ES was much slower. Around 11. The new one isn't much lighter than the ES, so I expect it to do mid-10s to 11.

Current crop of PPVs, TBZ is still in the 9-second range (from COTY), Fort 2.8 is in the 11-second range, Eve is slow, about 12+ even with the 3.2, Isuzu in the 11s, Monty, I don't recall... but maybe high 10s.

The EK SiR did the 0-100 in around 7 seconds too, AFAIR. So realistically, maybe around 8-9 in real world conditions.

Niky + Wigo = Fastest

Hahahahaha!

The only time I ever VBoxed an EK SiR it was around 7.6 in real world conditions. Full IHE, but, realistically, that wouldn't have made more than a 0.2 second difference.

But that's with sticky tires and a good drag launch. In real world non-clutch shredding use, a Focus TDCi can match an SiR, and that's a mid-8 second car.

Baka naman sa Dyanmometer yan?

2.0 Civic 5A/T Paddle Shift (NOT CVT) is around 11secs. Honda keeps making false claim on their CVT transmission. They said the Clutch type CVT on Jazz is faster than manual because there is no Torque Converter that slips. Then the put a Torque Converter on the Earth Dreams Technology CVT and still claims the same thing.

We went to the dealership and do an actual test. Sinamahan ko lang cousin ko. Siya kasi yung bibili. Sinabi ko na wag muna niya close deal hanggat di nasuusubukan na kaya talaga ng 7secs. Mathematically Impossible dahil napakainit ng ambient temp tapos CVT pa. NAPAKABAGAL ng CVT.. Halos mag overheat na Tranny naka CVTF heater kasi instead of cooler. Saka palagi naman over exaggerated avertised 0-100kph lalo na yung fuel efficiency. Kung 15km/l yung average fuel consumption di dapat lampas pa sa 800km dapat range.

DOE ECO RUN 27.56km/l daw
Honda Cars Philippines' Official Website

Honda City 30km/l on NSLEX???
Honda Cars Philippines' Official Website

Honda Civic 2016 1.5 Turbo 0 to 100 * 31 degrees ambient temp - YouTube

I did my 7.6 on a hot runway with the car heat-soaked. Yes, ambient heat will affect it, as the second run was around 7.7 to 7.8 seconds, and the 400 meter time dropped by 0.3 - 0.4 seconds (so I didn't do a third pass).

Also, the economy is legit. The CVT DOES have a torque converter, but Honda's clutch packs lock up very early, so you're not wasting energy accelerating the car. I've seen low 20s from the Civic in short cruises.

Pupusta ako kahit magkano hindi kaya 7 secs.

Ano GPS na sinasabi mo scantool lang yon?

Magkano ba affilite commission na binabayad ng Honda?

You're on. Magkano pusta? As long as the car squeaks under 8 seconds, I'd consider that a win for me.

Racelogic V-Box Sport. 20 Hertz accuracy (accurate to 1/20th of a second). Coupled to RaceChrono, gives accurate acceleration and deceleration curves, as well as lateral and longitudinal g-force readouts. Granted, it's not as impressive as the $10k V-Boxes Car and Driver uses, but it's twenty times more accurate than a cellphone or a "scan tool"... ...which is why we use it. OBD scanners run off the car's own internal speed sensors, which are usually 5-10% off. No self-respecting tester would rely on those for speed tests.

If you want instant, unfiltered readouts, I've also got a regular Racelogic V-Box. Just 10 Hertz resolution (1/10th second accurate), but doing multiple trials should sort that out.

I've got a nice patch of private road to do this on. It's only 200 meters, but that's more than enough for a car this fast.

-

Alas, carry on trolling like you're doing now, and you'll be banned before we get to do that test.

[jut703]

Haven't done the 1.8. The FD 1.8 was in the 10 second range. The ES was much slower. Around 11. The new one isn't much lighter than the ES, so I expect it to do mid-10s to 11.

Current crop of PPVs, TBZ is still in the 9-second range (from COTY), Fort 2.8 is in the 11-second range, Eve is slow, about 12+ even with the 3.2, Isuzu in the 11s, Monty, I don't recall... but maybe high 10s.

You mean the FB? Have one now, the 1.8 EXi. It's still faster than any 1.6 AT compact says my butt dyno. Almost as fast as my old Altis 1.6 MT, just that the MT had better ratios.

Feels like a 10-point-something 0-100 car. The FC looks more promising because the CVT seems better when it comes to acceleration because of the infinite gearing and perpetual powerband when floored.

Weight seems about equal for all 3 generations:

FD - 1235 kg
FB - 1255 kg
FC - 1239 kg

Alas, carry on trolling like you're doing now, and you'll be banned before we get to do that test.

.

I wish he were trolling but I think he honestly believes all the crap he's effusing.


Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

[Egan101]

I've got a nice patch of private road to do this on. It's only 200 meters, but that's more than enough for a car this fast.

Where is this private road? Is it a public road or a subdivision street?

In the Southland road in Las Pinas, the road is long and straight enough for a spirited sprint as long as it is free of motorists, motorcycles, and tricycles. You can hit triple digits when traffic conditions are light.

[Sleepcare]

Haven't done the 1.8. The FD 1.8 was in the 10 second range. The ES was much slower. Around 11. The new one isn't much lighter than the ES, so I expect it to do mid-10s to 11.

Current crop of PPVs, TBZ is still in the 9-second range (from COTY), Fort 2.8 is in the 11-second range, Eve is slow, about 12+ even with the 3.2, Isuzu in the 11s, Monty, I don't recall... but maybe high 10s.

OT: I can't believe the Isuzu is doing 11s.

To be honest, I felt that the Fort 2.8 was faster than the Isuzu. And the gearing of 1st and 2nd of the Isuzu is "bitin" for me compared to the Fort's as i need to rev the Isuzu at higher rpm to match the acceleration even sa Fort 2.4 (according to my butt-dyno).

[ninjababez]

Where is this private road? Is it a public road or a subdivision street?

In the Southland road in Las Pinas, the road is long and straight enough for a spirited sprint as long as it is free of motorists, motorcycles, and tricycles. You can hit triple digits when traffic conditions are light.

maluwag parin ba dyan bro? last 2x i passed there (9pm) dami parin traffic

[niky]

OT: I can't believe the Isuzu is doing 11s.

To be honest, I felt that the Fort 2.8 was faster than the Isuzu. And the gearing of 1st and 2nd of the Isuzu is "bitin" for me compared to the Fort's as i need to rev the Isuzu at higher rpm to match the acceleration even sa Fort 2.4 (according to my butt-dyno).

High 11s. Possibly 12. I'd have to check my notes.

-

Yes, the Fort 2.8 is still faster/more powerful.

You mean the FB? Have one now, the 1.8 EXi. It's still faster than any 1.6 AT compact says my butt dyno. Almost as fast as my old Altis 1.6 MT, just that the MT had better ratios.

Feels like a 10-point-something 0-100 car. The FC looks more promising because the CVT seems better when it comes to acceleration because of the infinite gearing and perpetual powerband when floored.

Weight seems about equal for all 3 generations:

FD - 1235 kg
FB - 1255 kg
FC - 1239 kg

.

I wish he were trolling but I think he honestly believes all the crap he's effusing.


Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

Yeah... FB nga.

The problem with the FB generation is transmission tuning. Weird off-idle delay in throttle and transmission response. The FD felt much much sprightlier despite the minimal weight difference.

Many Honda products of the past few years are slower in the 0-100 than the roll-on performance would suggest, thanks to this delay. Disappointing, especially with the V6 Accord, which has a fantastic motor-tranny combo otherwise.

The CVT should indeed make the FC 1.8 much quicker. Still soft off the line, but the infinite ratios make up for it. Can't wait to test one.

[Jun aka Pekto]

Many Honda products of the past few years are slower in the 0-100 than the roll-on performance would suggest, thanks to this delay. Disappointing, especially with the V6 Accord, which has a fantastic motor-tranny combo otherwise.

C'mon. You should be able to get easy sub-6 seconds 0-60 mph with the V6 Accord AT, especially at sea level with the denser air. ;)

[jut703]

High 11s. Possibly 12. I'd have to check my notes.

-

Yes, the Fort 2.8 is still faster/more powerful.



Yeah... FB nga.

The problem with the FB generation is transmission tuning. Weird off-idle delay in throttle and transmission response. The FD felt much much sprightlier despite the minimal weight difference.

Many Honda products of the past few years are slower in the 0-100 than the roll-on performance would suggest, thanks to this delay. Disappointing, especially with the V6 Accord, which has a fantastic motor-tranny combo otherwise.

The CVT should indeed make the FC 1.8 much quicker. Still soft off the line, but the infinite ratios make up for it. Can't wait to test one.

Big difference in the FB with Econ On and Off. Econ On shifts very early, and needs to be floored before downshifting. DBW delay is also longer. With Econ Off, downshifts come with just a prod.

But even with Econ Off, the FD was still more rev-happy. That said, the FB has very good in-gear performance and definitely felt torquier in low revs compared to the FD, possibly in exchange for top-end push.

You never got to time my old MT Altis, maybe we can give my Civic 1.8 CVT a shot. 😉

Sent from my SM-N9208 using Tapatalk

[niky]

Did turn ECON off. It's really the rev-happiness that suffered. Most likely the 1.8 is starting to suffer from stricter emissions guidelines. Probably time for it to be supplanted by a newer motor based on the new L-series in the Turbo.

C'mon. You should be able to get easy sub-6 seconds 0-60 mph with the V6 Accord AT, especially at sea level with the denser air. ;)

0-100 km/h, or 0-62 mph, takes about half a second longer than a 0-60 mph run, depending on the vehicle.

There's also the question of 10 foot rollout SAE corrections (which I don't do, because they're ridiculous) and weather. Our hot weather saps power from engines, typically.

-

I don't know, really, what it was with Hondas of the past few years, but that delay is something I could never dial out, even by deactivating traction control.