Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Pardon me for asking e few questionds:

Why would I pay more for EX/EX-L/Touring for almost half the engine (1.5L) compared to LX (2.4L)?
I know it's turbo... is it a big deal on what's basically a DD vehicle?

These are the bottom line numbers:
* Horse power:
LX: 184HP @ 6,00 RPM
EX/EX-L/TOUR: 190 HP @ 5,600 RPM (Big deal!)

* Torque:
LX: 180 @ 3,900 RPM
EX/EX-L/Touring: 179 @ 2,000 - 5,000 RPM (this is only a range??? No guarantee or lower RPM???)

It looks to me that poor little engine on E/EX-L/Tour is going to work itself to death quicklly!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
That's the reason I bought the 2016 Touring. Rumors of a 1.5 turbo scared me off. The CR-V is a lot of car to be pushed by a 1.5L turbo engine and I can only imagine that the boost is always on. I'll take the tried and true 2.4L that's been used in CR-V's, Accords and Acura's for many years. It'll be interesting to see what happens with those 1.5L's after 50k. But to be honest I trust Honda's turbo tech before any German turbo any day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,592 Posts
The 2017 engine of 190 HP is operating at less rpm. Wouldn't that result in less wear on the engine? And, if driven moderately it should result in more mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
You want torque available lower in the torque range; it means the engine doesn't have to be spinning like crazy to get decent acceleration out of it. And the range doesn't mean there's "no guarantee"; it means it can achieve that torque when the tach hits 2k, and continue delivering it all the way to 5k. That's a good thing. (As opposed to having to spin high to achieve it, and then "lose steam" just past the narrow peak.)

So, yeah, you pretty much got it exactly backwards.

Turbochargers have been used on "daily drivers" for decades; they've been standard equipment in diesels for a really long time. (And aren't exactly brand-new in plain gasoline cars either.) And the turbocharger used on our engines, the Mitsubishi TD03, ain't exactly fresh off the drawing boards; it's been around for quite some time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Test drive both, buy the one you like. The turbo has more overall power since it is making more torque at a lower RPM. The turbo makes a 1.5L engine perform like a larger engine when you want the power, when you don't, the 1.5L has higher efficiency.

BTW, you are not only paying for a better engine, the 2017 is a new model with about 100 other new and better features. However, if you want to save a few thousand dollars, and are happy with a 2016 vehicle, go ahead and get a left over 2016 Touring model. Also remember though, the 2016 has already depreciated by the amount the dealer is discounting the vehicle, so are really saving much?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
As others just mentioned, much better torque range on the 1.5L Turbo starting at 2k RPM plus better mileage..

We leased a 2011 & 14 CRV EX-L and my only 2 complaints is lack of bottom end power (especially with loaded vehicle) and the Honda Navi is dreadful. Not getting one in our 2017 and hopefully happier with this engine, time will tell. Plus all the other new safety & technology features are great and the new model to me looks at lot more muscular and solid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
I have but one comment about this "power" and engine size discussion and it is: "mean effective pressure".
Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure

In simple terms you can put more pressure in a small cylinder and get more power. That is the job of the turbo charger. You have the advantages of a smaller engine (less friction, higher efficiency) but then can have more power when you need it. If you are driving down the street at a steady 35 or 45 MPH you only need about 10 or 15 HP to keep you moving. As you speed up you will need more of course. Where you really need HP is under acceleration. So we put larger engines in cars to make they take off faster but then waste all that extra engine while we loaf along at cruising speeds. So, if a designer is looking for better fuel economy there is a simple, but not cheap, solution. Use a smaller engine but then add a turbocharger on it. The small engine is all you need most of the time. Low drag and internal friction saves fuel. The turbo will provide the boost you need for extra power by packing more air into the cylinders under hard acceleration when you need more power. It costs more to build a turbo engine but in return you get better efficiency and if you profile that turbo properly you get a major boost in torque. Honda has a video on this engine with some charts and it shows something like a 60% boost in torque at lower engine speeds. I am not speaking of the peak torque speed for the 2.4 but rather over a wider RPM range, with the turbo. There is one simple test; Bring your 2016 CR-V over and we will drag race with my 2017 with the "little" 1.5. It will smoke that 2.4 of yours. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Temple of VTEC did another dyne run of the Civic Turbo 1.5L engine, they again got more power than advertised. The reason I post this is the Civic and CR-V engines are very similar.

"In the case of this Civic, the "at the wheels" numbers actually exceeded the specified power and torque figures quoted by Honda. According to Honda's official specifications, the Civic Sport's L15BA with 6-speed MT develops 180hp @ 5500 rpm and 177lb-ft @ 1900-5000 rpm. We recorded 190hp @ 5500 rpm and a peak of 193lb-ft @ 3500 rpm. "

Given Honda rates the CR-V at 190hp/179 lb-ft, maybe the engine is putting out closer to 200 hp. The acceleration numbers seem to support the engine output is very strong. We won't know for sure until someone puts the CR-V on a AWD dyno and reports the numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,178 Posts
I remember similar concerns when Ford did the unthinkable and replaced the V8 with the 3.5 Ecoboost V6 in their F-150. There were predictions of the poor little V6 not being up to powering a truck and concerns of the turbo and the engine not lasting. The results have been very different than the predictions. The engine outperforms the V8 and it has proven to be very durable. Size matters in some things but not in others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I have 300 miles on my 2017 CRV Touring and I LOVE the 1.5L turbo engine. My mpg average for the 300 is 36.9 mpg. I am totally amazed. Yes, I run it in ECO mode and yes it is slow to accelerate in ECO. For merging on the interstate, I just press a button to shut off ECO and here comes the 190 hp and full torque with the turbo. Then at interstate speed, I just flip back to ECO. The short blast hasn't made a dent in the fuel economy. Honda scored an ace on this engine, especially good with the smooth CVT. I drove other makes with 6 and 7 speed trannies and they sounded like a school bus and jerked horribly on shifts. CVT is the way to go, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Back in 2015 I test drove the 15 CRV and decided against it because it had no acceleration compared to my 2013 Traverse. This year, test drove the 2017 CRV EX-L and bought one. The 1.5L is comparable in acceleration to my, now traded in, 2013 Traverse v6. I'm very happy with the CRV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Please don't get me wrong. I like efficiency, doing more with less. I like the feel of turbo kicking in and that zoom when you are merging, passing, drag racing, and saying "bye bye" to cars behind you etc. My other car is a 1.6L Turbo AWD CVT. That car weighs just under 3,000 lb. The CRV weighs more, about 3,500 lbs, and has a 1.5L turbo engine.

IMHO, it seems like a choice (2.4L vs. 1.5LT) between a kid pumped with performance enhancers and an Oxygen tank strapped on the back vs. a seasoned athlete to run your daily marathons with the whole family riding on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
If the engine's built to withstand the added burn, I don't see an issue. When this engine debuted in the Civic, Honda made a point of emphasizing that there is virtually zero parts sharing between the Turbocharged L15B7 and the L15 that it's loosely "based" on. (They share pretty much nothing but the cyl. spacing.) Turbochargers themselves are pretty well-proven technology at this point, so other than the fact it's another piece of equipment, it shouldn't be a major factor in durability. (Remember that turbos have been standard equipment in diesels so long that I don't think there's even any such thing as a naturally-aspirated one at this point.)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top