2006+ Honda Civic Forum banner

101 - 120 of 215 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I would not comment on any car until I've drove them. I've test drove the 1.8 last week and gonna test drive the 2.2 this Saturday. Will let you know what my views are too. But, I.m gonna get the Diesel anyways :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
My Thoughts

Just my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong....

Sure the diesal has more torque so it can pull harder in each gear but as the power is available in a shorter band it has to change gear alot sooner than the petrol therefore the petrol can stay in lower gears for longer.
Think the 1.8 can do 60-65 in 2nd. This means that although the petrol has alot less torque it can apply it for longer in each gear almost evening up the performance figures.

I havnt even googled it but i thought torque*revs=power or something to that effect.

To sum up, the 2 cars have very similar performance with the diesal edging it. What do you want though, a car that you have to work to get the performance out off and with less MPG but not pay the premium for it or go for an easier lazy car to drive where you always have the power.

I enjoy both, depends on the mood though. I like the fact that the diesal accelerate very rapidly without all the revs meaning the passengers dont get upset!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
365 Posts
Back to back to back to black!

Drove the 1.8 which was very nice, but nothing special.
Followed that up with a 2.2 S. Felt much quicker, actually wasn't, but when pushed really hard, handled like a pig.
Everytime on the car I drove, when asked to slow down under extremely heavy braking, it would not follow a straight line and filled me with apprehension. Also seemed unwilling to change direction quickly without complaint. Is it because it is much heavier up front?
I appreciate there could have been other factors, but not tyre pressures.
Then I drove the car I purchased.
I do not have to worry about mpg as I only do about 6K a year.
Wanted something that not only felt like it was fast [2.2], but was fast. Handles superb. Will not be found wanting under most circumstances and gives me the biggest feel good factor I have ever had driving on the road>
And it doesn't stink when I fill it up, [more often per miles, than both the others].
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,496 Posts
I have driven a loan 1.8 vtec and didn't feel it really gave as good as I was expecting, even on the vtec it just made more noise and didn't seem to go anywhere faster.No matter how hard you rev'd it, the vtec kick just isn't there like I'd expect it to be in a TypeR.
Ian - there is no VTEC kick in the 1.8. The VTEC is in normal mode all the time, except when at mid revs and light throttle when it VTECs into economy cruise mode. Total opposite to the R! VTEC - Civinfo Wiki

Sure the diesal has more torque so it can pull harder in each gear but as the power is available in a shorter band it has to change gear alot sooner than the petrol therefore the petrol can stay in lower gears for longer.
Think the 1.8 can do 60-65 in 2nd. This means that although the petrol has alot less torque it can apply it for longer in each gear almost evening up the performance figures.

I havnt even googled it but i thought torque*revs=power or something to that effect.
The 2.2 revs less, but has more torque, but the torque is multiplied less by different gearing, which is geared for changes at different speeds. ;) Much easier to analyse power (which has revs dialled out). At high revs the 1.8 has a bit less power, but at mid revs the 2.2 has more power.

Power / torque article here: Civinfo - Honda Civic Forum - BHP and Torque

...but when pushed really hard, handled like a pig.
Everytime on the car I drove, when asked to slow down under extremely heavy braking, it would not follow a straight line and filled me with apprehension. Also seemed unwilling to change direction quickly without complaint. Is it because it is much heavier up front?
Both the 1.8 and 2.2 on 17s are not as stable as they should be - I suspect that most of this is down to the slightly basic McPherson strut coupled with the very basic rear suspension. I have found both to be very road surface susceptible, with just small ridges causing "exciting" handling.

Both cars are pretty poor when driven very hard. I don't know what the wd is, but it has to be pretty terrible when you consider that even the fuel tank is up front. The diesel is 120 kg heavier, but both feel like you're driving a hammer, with the front ploughing in and the rear getting very jittery. Not suprising though, given that there is nothing in the back, no complex suspension and not even a spare tyre to even up the weight.

I imagine though that this is not important to most people. The solution is to make the suspension firm, so it doesn't move much in the wrong direction. And then you have... the CTR!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Maybe I don't drive my car hard enough, but I dont find mine suffers from these problems - never had any problems under breaking and I've found turn in to be very good in the diesel. The 1.8 is noticably more nimble though.
In my opinion though, if you drive cars really hard to notice this you've gone for the wrong car in the 1.8 or 2.2. Should've gotten the CTR, or a Lotus! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I agree that we can't compare a diesel 2.2 with turbo, with a petrol 1.8. Even so, the petrol is faster getting from 0 to 60 miles. The diesel is smoother getting up ...
And with 140 HP, the 140 kilos difference are important ...
I don't think the defference betweenn them is so big ... I've a diesel ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
435 Posts
I agree that we can't compare a diesel 2.2 with turbo, with a petrol 1.8. Even so, the petrol is faster getting from 0 to 60 miles. The diesel is smoother getting up ...
And with 140 HP, the 140 kilos difference are important ...
I don't think the defference betweenn them is so big ... I've a diesel ...
But the 1.8 isn't quicker to 60. 8.9 secs to 62mph as compared to the diesel's 8.6 secs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,494 Posts
Fuel of Satan :D
Ah ha, thanks matey. Now I got it.
I've heard that before.

Ian - there is no VTEC kick in the 1.8. The VTEC is in normal mode all the time, except when at mid revs and light throttle when it VTECs into economy cruise mode. Total opposite to the R! VTEC - Civinfo Wiki
Hey Pottsy,

Ah, I see now but the change in cams is supposed to increase power essentially but as the 1.8 is ultimatly not as powerful as the TypeR you just dont feel it as much.

In any case it just felt a little flat compared to my Diesel when I was expecting a slightly more noticable change as it switched cams.

Ian
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,106 Posts
Ah ha, thanks matey. Now I got it.
I've heard that before.



Hey Pottsy,

Ah, I see now but the change in cams is supposed to increase power essentially but as the 1.8 is ultimatly not as powerful as the TypeR you just dont feel it as much.

In any case it just felt a little flat compared to my Diesel when I was expecting a slightly more noticable change as it switched cams.

Ian
The 1.8 only has a single CAM so no kick :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
OK, here we go again! ;)
No use in what if....
We can choose between one turbo charged diesel and two non-turbo petrol engines, and that is that.
I probably would go for the diesel had it not been for "local problems" as an extra price tag of £4500....
 

·
Civic gone, not forgotten
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Anyway if they put a turbo in the 1.8, the diesel wouldn't see it for dust. Its not a fair comparison in my view. Both engines should be either normally aspirated or turbocharged.
You are missing the point, Honda sell both a 1.8 petrol and a 2.2 diesel with a turbo (and intercooler) with the same trim levels (so leaving the type R out of the equation), comparisons are going to be drawn. They both have circa 140 hp, making the comparisons even more likely.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,106 Posts
But the diesel is oh so more economical even with the turbo

Just thought I would spark off at a tangent :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,983 Posts
Anyway if they put a turbo in the 1.8, the diesel wouldn't see it for dust. Its not a fair comparison in my view. Both engines should be either normally aspirated or turbocharged.
completely agree with that!!!
I drove my dads A4 2.0 TDI a couple of times recently. The car has about 136 bhp (downtuned because of belgian emision regulations). That car is offcourse a bit heavier then the civic but its still fast. I enjoy to drive both petrol and diesel cars, a petrol is rewarding because the relentless revving, a diesel just goes like nuts in every gear. You just need to shift more often in a diesel when accelerating.

I have read in this thread that diesel civics (i believe i was just one dyno that showed this) got 155 bhp but thats such a small percentage of all the diesel cars out there so not really representative.

a drag race is the only way to settle tis!!! so whose calling clarckson [smilie=tongue.gif] or tiff [smilie=cheeky-grin:
 
101 - 120 of 215 Posts
Top