Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
2017 models, which is faster? I have the 2.4 ivtec found in the Accord and last gen CR-V. I find the acceleration pretty quick for an SUV.
I can't help but wonder how much faster if any difference is the 1.5 turbo model?

Also, why did honda rate the 17 crv 2.4 at 184hp 180 lbs of tq when the last gen model was rated 185-181???? I've read all over the net that Honda under rates their engines and generally produce more power than stated.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised the 2.4 is pushing around 200 hp.
 

·
Everything in Moderation
Joined
·
7,630 Posts
I could speculate...:p


I think you will find that the torque curve for the Turbo motor provides more 'grunt' at low RPMs than the normally aspirated 2.4L. So, it will 'feel' faster on the ol' Butt Dyno.

Not sure about the year-over-year spec difference you mention on the base engine. Could have something to do with packaging of the drivetrain (different intake or exhaust on the same motor).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
The base K24W motor is found in the 2013+ accord. And last gen crv. Tuning varies. But also why I don't get why honda negated a 1 hp and 1 lb of tq from the 17 base model engine... Doesn't make sense.

(scroll down and you will see K24W specs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine#K24

And I'd still like to see a drag race between a touring and an lx 17 crv. Really curious to see the outcome between the 1.5 Turbo and 2.4 N/A.
Or at least solid 0-60 times. I know the CRV isn't a sports car. But damn it does have a decent get up and go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
With both engines being connected to the same CVT I doubt there is a noticeable difference without a stopwatch. But the metered tests show a slight edge to the 1.5. The gas mileage is where the 1.5 has a greater advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
With both engines being connected to the same CVT I doubt there is a noticeable difference without a stopwatch. But the metered tests show a slight edge to the 1.5. The gas mileage is where the 1.5 has a greater advantage.
Interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I found a comparison between a 2016 Touring with a 2.4 vs a 2017 Touring with the Turbo and was surprised that the difference between those is bigger than I would have guessed:

"The 2017 model’s 0-30 mph acceleration time of 2.8 seconds is noticeably improved over a 2016 CR-V Touring’s 3.3-second time. To 60 the 2016 CR-V comes in at 8.3 seconds, and the turbocharged 2017 CR-V at 7.5 seconds."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I found a comparison between a 2016 Touring with a 2.4 vs a 2017 Touring with the Turbo and was surprised that the difference between those is bigger than I would have guessed:

"The 2017 model’s 0-30 mph acceleration time of 2.8 seconds is noticeably improved over a 2016 CR-V Touring’s 3.3-second time. To 60 the 2016 CR-V comes in at 8.3 seconds, and the turbocharged 2017 CR-V at 7.5 seconds."
Right. But the 17 model now has an improved CVT transmission that wasn't on the previous model. As you mentioned previously I wouldn't be surprised if theres a noticeable difference.

I guess the only way we'd ever find out is putting both 2.4 and 1.5 models side by side and racing them. Now I just need to find someone with a 17 1.5 model haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
The CVT is going to be able to keep the engine it's hooked to at the best rpm vs need for speed possible, so the 2.4L will be at a disadvantage once the turbo spools up.
What I'd like to see is a comparison of the 5-spd auto from the '13 MY vs the new 1.5T.

Personally speaking, I'll take a naturally aspirated engine over a smaller turbo any day of the week. There's a lot less thermal stress on the old style motor, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hoping not to step on too many toes in my first of hopefully many posts here...

The 1.5T accelerates to 60 in about 7.3-7.6 seconds. The 2.4l is somewhere around 8.

The main reason is the long torque curve. The 1.5T doesn't have much less torque at 2500 RPM than it does at 5800 RPM. Meanwhile, the 2.4 has to get closer to 5K to get to its full grunt potential. Now, if you were to do a rolling start with the 2.4 revved up, it would even things out considerably...

Turbo lag: I know what that's about(owned a Daytona Turbo when I was a kid, and yeah, 1st gear was tedious), but it's not a factor, here. The turbos they put in these little suv's are small and spin up fast; lag is a "milliseconds" factor, now. These little turbos assist in almost all acceleration, as opposed to the old days, where they spun maybe 5% of the time.

As far as additional stress goes, this is Honda we're talking about, here. They engineered and blueprinted the engine with the same longevity ideals as all the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,544 Posts
2017 models, which is faster? I have the 2.4 ivtec found in the Accord and last gen CR-V. I find the acceleration pretty quick for an SUV.
I can't help but wonder how much faster if any difference is the 1.5 turbo model?

Also, why did honda rate the 17 crv 2.4 at 184hp 180 lbs of tq when the last gen model was rated 185-181???? I've read all over the net that Honda under rates their engines and generally produce more power than stated.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised the 2.4 is pushing around 200 hp.
FWIW, the annual 4/16 auto testing issue of ConsumerReports shows the 2.4L 0-60 time at 9.0 sec while the 8/17 issue shows the 1.5L 0-60 time at 8.2 sec.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
2017 models, which is faster? I have the 2.4 ivtec found in the Accord and last gen CR-V. I find the acceleration pretty quick for an SUV.
I can't help but wonder how much faster if any difference is the 1.5 turbo model?

Also, why did honda rate the 17 crv 2.4 at 184hp 180 lbs of tq when the last gen model was rated 185-181???? I've read all over the net that Honda under rates their engines and generally produce more power than stated.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised the 2.4 is pushing around 200 hp.
IF you have the 2.4 (like I do) than your are LUCKY because it's a Much better engine than the 1.5! It will last longer, run smoother, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
There have also been some reports of oil in the gas with the current 2.4L engines.
Gas in the oil is caused by the direct injection design of the heads, but apparently the turbo makes it worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Funny how this old thread resurrected. The 1.5T is obviously faster (just drive both) but they are still both dog slow. The 1.5T is tolerable. If you want speed get a Passport. Seriously, I am not sure what the discussion is about since even an Odyssey is more than a full second faster to 60 than a CR-V. It's slow. It's a nice car don't get me wrong, but speed isn't a strength.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
I don't know about a '17 or later CR-V, but I rented a '17 Civic EX-T for a day, and I noticed the turbo lag right away. I owned a turbo from 1985-1992 so I know what it feels like. The Civic does not move immediately when you stomp on the throttle....but once that little turbo spools up, it's quite a kick! But that lag still bothered me--the delay wasn't as bad as my '85, but it's still a delay.

And yeah, if I want something with more power, I'll be in a V6 Honda, which is what I am shopping for right now. I just fear their great 3.5L V6 won't be around much longer. They've already stuck a 2.0L turbo in the third-gen RDX. I can see them putting this engine (or a similar 4-cylinder turbo) in the next Pilot/Passport/Odyssey/MDX. NO thank you!
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top