Honda Introduces New Family of Turbocharged, Direct-Injected Engines

[12,000 RPM]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/

Honda is finally getting on the turbocharged, direct-injection bandwagon with three new engines: a 1.5-liter turbo four, a three-cylinder 1.0-liter turbo, and a 2.0-liter turbo four. The most interesting one, at least to enthusiasts, will be the 2.0-liter unit. Honda was coy about horsepower figures, but did go so far as to say that the engine will be, "10-percent more fun than the current 3.5-liter V-6." If we take that to mean 10-percent more power, then the new 2.0-liter turbo four will have about 300 horses.

On the design front, the engine gets the aforementioned direct injection, it will also get sodium-cooled exhaust valves, an electrically controlled wastegate for the turbocharger, and high-tumble intake ports. The redline in the cars we drove was marked at 7000 rpm.

Honda Civic Type R

We sampled the new 2.0-liter in a European-market Civic Type R with a six-speed manual. Acceleration is seriously quick through first gear; engine noise is loud, but Honda may have played up the exhaust and intake noise to suit the character of the Type R. In addition to the six-speed manual, Honda is preparing an eight-speed dual-clutch automatic with a torque converter that would work with the four-cylinder members of this new engine family.

Our drive was limited to the oval at Honda's Tochigi proving ground, so it was difficult to sniff out turbo lag, but in the Euro Civic, the engine feels mighty strong.

Before you get too excited, this engine is still a few years off in the U.S. At the earliest, we may see this engine in three years. What Honda, or Acura, will put it in is yet to be determined, but it would make sense in the TL replacement, the upcoming TLX, right on down to the Accord or a hot Civic.

[SVT32V]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/

So it is pretty much unanimous, DI Turbo engines are the future.

[12,000 RPM]

No way, all these companies will upend billions of dollars invested once the EPA gets wise to turbo tricks

Just kidding, yea, DI-T is the future for better or worse.

[Speed_Racer]

Has the DI carbon buildup problem been solved by anybody yet?

[hotrodalex]

I think the Italians solved it with their special tune up.

[12,000 RPM]

Has the DI carbon buildup problem been solved by anybody yet?

Yea, they put on secondary regular injectors. Cheaper than recalls/warranty claims I guess. First car I heard that does this is the Toyobaru Freeze Breeze

[GoCougs]

Sad. Very sad. Though if someone is gonna make turbo engines a wee bit less awful it's definitely gonna be Honda.

[Soup DeVille]

Underneath all the bluster you're just a fanboy at heart, my friend.

[GoCougs]

Underneath all the bluster you're just a fanboy at heart, my friend.

Turbos? How can I be? The data just ain't there.

Honda? Meh, so-so. Acura is a borderline embarrassment and Honda is just okay.

[FoMoJo]

Copycats.

[12,000 RPM]

Turbos? How can I be? The data just ain't there.

Sure it is, you just ignore it and cherry pick spuriously to arrive at the conclusion you prefer. There are countless examples of cars of similar weight and performance that gained 5-10 MPG switching to turbocharging.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Honda desperately needs new hardware, and cars, but lets start with the hardware.

[12,000 RPM]

Their hardware is OK. It's the application, and the cars. They keep waffling back and forth from good to bad. Acura had the Integra/Legend, then fell off when they went to the 1g TL/RL, then came back with the 1G TSX/3G TL, then fell off again with the next iterations and the killing of the RSX. Whoever is handling their product planning needs to be put on trial.

[MexicoCityM3]

In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.

The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.

[12,000 RPM]

IDK man. 328i gained like 10 MPG going turbo. Hi po turbo motors are different. Plus the 1 is a brick. It gets like 2-3 MPG worse than the 3 on the highway.

[Raza]

In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.

The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.

My Jetta Wolfsburg got much better gas mileage than my E320, which was not as quick as my Jetta. 21 fewer horsepower, but quicker and had much better fuel mileage.

[MexicoCityM3]

My Jetta Wolfsburg got much better gas mileage than my E320, which was not as quick as my Jetta. 21 fewer horsepower, but quicker and had much better fuel mileage.

E320 weighs about a ton more than the Jetta though, so not necessarily turbo magic in action.

[MexicoCityM3]

IDK man. 328i gained like 10 MPG going turbo. Hi po turbo motors are different. Plus the 1 is a brick. It gets like 2-3 MPG worse than the 3 on the highway.

Yes the 1 is a brick and that doesn't help it.

[2o6]

I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it

[MexicoCityM3]

I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it

What is this out of boost thing you're talking about? Never heard about such a thing!

[hotrodalex]

I think that's what happens when you turn the car off.

[SVT666]

I think that's what happens when you turn the car off.

Precisely.  I would live in boost.

[GoCougs]

I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it

Well, better for the turbo engine but better not relative to an equivalent N/A engine. When not on boost you're driving the engine at lower compression ratio = by definition lower efficiency.

[GoCougs]

In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.

The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.

Well, pretty much you and every other person who owns a turbo sees the same thing IRL .

[GoCougs]

E320 weighs about a ton more than the Jetta though, so not necessarily turbo magic in action.

And older tech, with slushie AT, and more power...

[CJ]

Well, pretty much you and every other person who owns a turbo sees the same thing IRL .

You keep saying this and I'm not so sure you know what it means. 


My dad's Sonata does quite well WRT fuel economy, and my mom's Jetta does insanely well.  She's up to an average of 39 MPG for her commute.  The trip computer registers around 38.2-38.4 MPG, but it tends to read a little low.  I filled it up on Saturday and it did 39.3 MPG.  A little under 500 miles on that tank and two weeks of Dallas driving. 

[MX793]

Well, better for the turbo engine but better not relative to an equivalent N/A engine. When not on boost you're driving the engine at lower compression ratio = by definition lower efficiency.

Lower thermal efficiency != lower fuel efficiency in many cases.  The two cannot be directly correlated.  Too many other factors.

[12,000 RPM]

You keep saying this and I'm not so sure you know what it means. 


My dad's Sonata does quite well WRT fuel economy, and my mom's Jetta does insanely well.  She's up to an average of 39 MPG for her commute.  The trip computer registers around 38.2-38.4 MPG, but it tends to read a little low.  I filled it up on Saturday and it did 39.3 MPG.  A little under 500 miles on that tank and two weeks of Dallas driving.

Yep. GTI VR6 to GTI 1.8T... E90 328i to F30 328i... Sonata 3.3L V6 to 2.0T... etc... Cougs is purposely making the wrong comparisons to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, contrary to mountains of real world evidence.

I am still an NA guy. NA is best. NA is ideal. But with $4 gas and limited funds.... I put it like this, boost is like a buffet to NA's fine cuisine. I would love every meal to be fine French food but at the end of the day I have $x and daddy gotta eat

[12,000 RPM]

Well, better for the turbo engine but better not relative to an equivalent N/A engine. When not on boost you're driving the engine at lower compression ratio = by definition lower efficiency.

Mainstream NA and turbo engines are all about the same CR. Toyota/Honda/Nissan mainstream V6s are all in the mid 10s, Fusion/Sonata 2.0T are 10.0:1.  Half a pt of compression is not a huge difference. It's not the 70s where turbo engines had like a 3 pt difference in compression.

[FoMoJo]

Well, better for the turbo engine but better not relative to an equivalent N/A engine. When not on boost you're driving the engine at lower compression ratio = by definition lower efficiency.

EcoBoost engines are 10.0:1 compression.