Posted 2009-06-16 10:08:28
 Plus, on 2009-06-15 11:28:24, said:
Nothing so far.
There was a short intro in BP Motoring section a few weeks ago, they stressed that the engine was only 138 hp, less than any competitors.
Somehow I doubt Toyota would bother with building a new engine unless it performs better than Honda's.
My guess is that it is extremely quick in the city and lack of power manifests only over 180km/h, and it handles better, too, though probably not as well as Mazda or Ford.
I thought that they would just steal the 2.0L engine from the camry and glue that on to it????
Should fit?
I think I will pop out to Toyota today to have a look!..
Posted 2009-06-17 06:21:13
If 1.6 and 1.8 are the same price. which one would you chose? 99 percent of the people would buy 1.8 right. Buy a car that you can afford.
Posted 2009-06-17 08:11:19
Quote I thought that they would just steal the 2.0L engine from the camry and glue that on to it????
Yes, just like Honda does.
Somehow they have decided to build a new engine instead. I hope it's worth the effort and the price.
That old 2l is also used in a Wish, btw.
Posted 2009-06-17 10:00:45
Plus, on 2009-06-17 08:11:19, said: Quote I thought that they would just steal the 2.0L engine from the camry and glue that on to it????
Yes, just like Honda does.
Somehow they have decided to build a new engine instead. I hope it's worth the effort and the price.
That old 2l is also used in a Wish, btw.
If it is the same as the wish engine they must have detuned it. I recall the wish had about 150 HP. I'm unsure who is going to pay over 1.1M for a 138 HP, 4speed auto altis when the civic 2.0 155HP and 5 speed can be had for about the same price.
It seems Toyota, as the brand leader get a little blase about development, and just assume people will buy for the brand name alone. To compete this car would need at least 150 HP (it's surely possible), 5 speed auto / cvt or semi-auto, like the diesel focus. I guess Toyota's attitude is that they are still selling lots of cars, so why the need to improve on a winning product.
Posted 2009-06-17 13:39:00
culicine, on 2009-06-17 11:00:45, said: Plus, on 2009-06-17 08:11:19, said: Quote I thought that they would just steal the 2.0L engine from the camry and glue that on to it????
Yes, just like Honda does.
Somehow they have decided to build a new engine instead. I hope it's worth the effort and the price.
That old 2l is also used in a Wish, btw.
If it is the same as the wish engine they must have detuned it. I recall the wish had about 150 HP. I'm unsure who is going to pay over 1.1M for a 138 HP, 4speed auto altis when the civic 2.0 155HP and 5 speed can be had for about the same price.
It seems Toyota, as the brand leader get a little blase about development, and just assume people will buy for the brand name alone. To compete this car would need at least 150 HP (it's surely possible), 5 speed auto / cvt or semi-auto, like the diesel focus. I guess Toyota's attitude is that they are still selling lots of cars, so why the need to improve on a winning product.
Honda does not use the same 2000cc engine in Accord, CRV and Civic. Accord has the newer SOHC engine, while Civic and CRV have the older (about 10 years) DOHC. Same power, less fuel for SOHC.
The LOS Corolla 1800cc is an old engine, replaced in Europe. So are the 4 speed autos. The buyers in LOS so far have only been looking at cc, not the spec.
Toyota is still the brand leader, but Honda is climbing quickly, and while Toyota is down 19% last 12 months, Honda is up 1%. The buyers in LOS are waking up  I think this makes Toyota wake up too.
If Honda would dare to install the 2,2/150hp/350Nm diesel here with 5 speed auto, I bet they would win the race. 
Posted 2009-06-17 14:01:30
I've been reading up on this engine on this board, but it's a long, six-page topic from couple of years ago, when the engine wasn't out yet
http://www.toyotanat...ad.php?t=180424
Afaik, the engine is not detuned but uses better technology for low-mid range performance, as I expected, I might add.
Honda's top end horse power doesn't perform well in real world - their 1.8l Civic gains absolutely nothing over 1.6l Corollas, for example, despite having extra 20+ hps.
I still might be totally wrong. Let's wait for proper driving tests. 4speed auto sounds cheap, but then again, on Thai roads it might perform just as well, especially if torque is evenly distributed, and there are paddles on the steering wheel to shift gears manually.
Posted 2009-06-17 14:17:06
Plus, on 2009-06-17 15:01:30, said: I've been reading up on this engine on this board, but it's a long, six-page topic from couple of years ago, when the engine wasn't out yet
http://www.toyotanat...ad.php?t=180424
Afaik, the engine is not detuned but uses better technology for low-mid range performance, as I expected, I might add.
Honda's top end horse power doesn't perform well in real world - their 1.8l Civic gains absolutely nothing over 1.6l Corollas, for example, despite having extra 20+ hps.
I still might be totally wrong. Let's wait for proper driving tests. 4speed auto sounds cheap, but then again, on Thai roads it might perform just as well, especially if torque is evenly distributed, and there are paddles on the steering wheel to shift gears manually.
In real world driving 2009 Civic 140hp/5 speed auto performs much better than any 2009 Corolla Altis.
And the Accord 2,4/180 hp performs much better than Camry 2,4.
Tourque is more evenly distributed in the mentioned Toyota engines, and the Honda engines can feel a bit jumpy/jerky below 4.500 rpm. Then they kick off and park Toyota.
I am not a fan of LOS/japanese cars, but when I choose/purchase performance is important to me.
So I compare. 0-100 and 50-150 kmh.
For everyday average driving Toyotas engine performance and sluggish 4 speed autos (Camry sluggish 5) can feel more comfy, but the Hondas perform better at full throttle.
BTW, I have both Toyotas and Hondas in my garage.
Posted 2009-06-17 14:30:12
Quote In real world driving 2009 Civic 140hp/5 speed auto performs much better than any 2009 Corolla Altis.
And the Accord 2,4/180 hp performs much better than Camry 2,4.
Tourque is more evenly distributed in the mentioned Toyota engines, and the Honda engines can feel a bit jumpy/jerky below 4.500 rpm. Then they kick off and park Toyota.
In real world people hardly ever rev up over 4,500 rpm for any extended periods - there's just not enough space on Thai roads for long acceleration and very few highways are suitable for going flat out at max speed, too.
At everyday rpm range, which is below 4,000 rpm, 1.8l Civics have nothing to be proud of. They've been out for years and still haven't gained any reputation for speed.
As for Accord - I haven't noticed any superiority when driving at 180km/h.
What I noticed is that Honda tries to gain numbers on paper by squeezing a few extra hp close to red line while Toyota concentrates on low-mid range performance.
From the thead I linked earlier it appears that Toyota was going to electronically limit red line (and so top end power).
Posted 2009-06-17 14:59:31
Plus, on 2009-06-17 15:30:12, said: Quote In real world driving 2009 Civic 140hp/5 speed auto performs much better than any 2009 Corolla Altis.
And the Accord 2,4/180 hp performs much better than Camry 2,4.
Tourque is more evenly distributed in the mentioned Toyota engines, and the Honda engines can feel a bit jumpy/jerky below 4.500 rpm. Then they kick off and park Toyota.
In real world people hardly ever rev up over 4,500 rpm for any extended periods - there's just not enough space on Thai roads for long acceleration and very few highways are suitable for going flat out at max speed, too.
At everyday rpm range, which is below 4,000 rpm, 1.8l Civics have nothing to be proud of. They've been out for years and still haven't gained any reputation for speed.
As for Accord - I haven't noticed any superiority when driving at 180km/h.
What I noticed is that Honda tries to gain numbers on paper by squeezing a few extra hp close to red line while Toyota concentrates on low-mid range performance.
From the thead I linked earlier it appears that Toyota was going to electronically limit red line (and so top end power).
All 2009 Honda engines in LOS are electonically redlined, You just said you had been driving an Accord and since I was talking about the 2,4/180 hp (thats 2008 and 2009 only) I assume we are discussing the same car/engine. Ignition cuts when pass redline. So did my 1978 BMW 320.
My Camry 2007 2,4 I drove 40k km in one year, mostly highway. Sold it, got a 2008 Accord 2,4/180hp. Accord performs much better, and the auto is absolutely superior, 40 k km by now. While the Camrys auto is sluggish and overheats after a few hours in 160kmh, the Accord works fine. camry in pearl white is IMHO still better looking though
As I said, Toyotas sluggish performance is fine for most drivers in LOS, and if never rev over 4500 rpm, nothing to gain with a Honda.
Hondas numbers are not only on paper, they are available for those who want to explore them.
For drivers who dont explore over 4500 rpm, a diesel would suit better with max torque at 1400-3200 rpm and max hp at 3500-4000 rpm.
Especially Thai roads are made for full throttle accelleration. Plenty of emergency braking on the highway, and then pick up cruising speed again. Thats 4800-6800 rpm
In the real world some people rev their engine and if done in a Honda there is a power reward.
Edited by katabeachbum, 2009-06-17 15:02:07.
Posted 2009-06-17 15:23:26
I didn't drive Accord, I drove gf's Camry side by side with it.
Have no idea about transmission overheating, it doesn't belong to this thread anyway.
Diesels indeed would suit the best for Thai roads, actually they sell better on European roads, too - excellent low-mid range performance, just what Toyota seems trying to achieve.
Quote Hondas numbers are not only on paper, they are available for those who want to explore them.
Yes, and Toyota sells cars to those who just want to drive faster than regular traffic, not explore red-line possibilities - they are not selling racing engines, they sell practicality, engines that give advantage 99% of the time on the road.
>>>
What I'm saying is that 0-100 is not a real life speed. Pickup trucks, for example, are very slow in those tests, but in real life, on the go, they are very very quick and would outrun 1.8l Civics easily - massive torque from 2,000 rpm is unbeatable if you only have something like 10 seconds to accelerate in city traffic.
Personally, I'm on the receiving end of this phenomenon as I have 2jz engine in my Sportrider - not enough torque at low rpms, shitty acceleration in lower gears, and the power shines through only over legal speeds.
Posted 2009-06-17 18:13:20
Plus, on 2009-06-17 15:23:26, said: I didn't drive Accord, I drove gf's Camry side by side with it.
Have no idea about transmission overheating, it doesn't belong to this thread anyway.
Diesels indeed would suit the best for Thai roads, actually they sell better on European roads, too - excellent low-mid range performance, just what Toyota seems trying to achieve.
Quote Hondas numbers are not only on paper, they are available for those who want to explore them.
Yes, and Toyota sells cars to those who just want to drive faster than regular traffic, not explore red-line possibilities - they are not selling racing engines, they sell practicality, engines that give advantage 99% of the time on the road.
>>>
What I'm saying is that 0-100 is not a real life speed. Pickup trucks, for example, are very slow in those tests, but in real life, on the go, they are very very quick and would outrun 1.8l Civics easily - massive torque from 2,000 rpm is unbeatable if you only have something like 10 seconds to accelerate in city traffic.
Personally, I'm on the receiving end of this phenomenon as I have 2jz engine in my Sportrider - not enough torque at low rpms, shitty acceleration in lower gears, and the power shines through only over legal speeds.
Iv never talked about 0-100kmh. I look at 50-150 kmh.
I guess you are a very loyal Toyota fan, cause that Accord would have parked your gf Camry from 180 and up.
No chance my Vigo 3,0 D4d chips-tuned to 204hp/420 Nm can hang on a Civic if full throttle on both from any speed up to any speed. My friends Civic is just much faster. If we load them both with 500 kg Vigos double torque plays in, perhaps equal, but pickup never faster. If they where to pull a 1500kg trailer each, Vigo would win.
When it comes to power, both Accord and Camry has 220Nm, but Accord has 180hp compared to Camrys 168 hp.
I like torque, choosing a BMW I would go for the 520D/177 hp over the 525i/219 hp.
It doesnt mean Toyota makes torquy petrol engines. They are on par with other 4 valves, just missing the hp some others offer. I dont see any advantage in Toyotas engines compared to competition when it comes to torque.
Posted 2009-06-17 19:13:38
I know Accord didn't park the Camry at 180, and I will stress again - top end power at silly speeds like that is irrelvant to consumer drivers. They are passenger cars, not drag racers.
How the car accelerates at half trottle at 2-3,000 rpm is far more useful information, and I know from watching 1.8 Civics that they have absolutely no advantage over 1.6 Corollas, or Jazz of Vios for that matter.
These days car makers pay far more attention to low end performance and fuel consumption in the city than to top end output. These days torque peaks (and best acceleration) are between 3,000 and 4,000 rpm, even in Hondas. When it first came out here, Honda stressed that the economy is the same as in previous, smaller engines, and never tried to market Civic for speed.
The idea behind this new Toyota engine, as I understood from that thread, is that it provides valve lift at any rpm range - an instant power boost wihout the need to wait for revs to go up to 3,600, or let alone past 4,500.
So, basically, if you step on gas, it would fly right away. Then, after your build up your rpms to over 5,000 and as Toyota runs out of juice, 2l Civic will come catching up from behind and eventually overtake. The speed at that point, I think, will be between 180-200 km/h.
Racer types will still believe in Honda supremacy. Everyday drivers will be happy to beat crap out of any vehicle on the road, incl Civics, in everyday conditions. Everybody happy.
I don't think 4speed transmission will pay a very big role here - Toyota has longer gears on this particular model and should have even power delivery, so no need to shift often and lose time.
Edited by Plus, 2009-06-17 19:16:34.
Posted 2009-06-17 19:40:00
Checked out specs agains each other - max torque is equal, but 2l Civic max power comes at 6,000, while Toyota's at 5,600 - that's the explanation for a few missing horsepowers.
If Toyota doesn't offer new tricks with valve opening they might behave identically, but if it really can give extra power at any rpm on demand, that's just great.
Posted 2009-06-18 08:20:01
Plus
You are very loyal to Toyota. G-d bless you.
From watching Civics 1,8 you know they have less power than Corolla 1,6, Jazz and Vios. Thats impressing. Really impressing watching.
I guess everyone else can see that Honda and Toyota with same displacement has same torque but Honda is more clever at finding the hp.
Including the thai market.
Toyota is loosing market shares, Honda is gaining. Some buyers want up to date technologi.
Posted 2009-06-18 08:31:53
And some will not buy the new Altis as it is looked upon as the "TAXI"...
It all comes down to where you do your driving. I love the Camry, gorgeous car in white with some nice wheels on it.
I drive a Jazz and that suits me perfectly well for now, fast in town and so easy to park anywhere, try to park the Accord, Pick Up, Camry, and SUV in some of the places I have put my toy in! Just try...
Like my boss keeps telling me, I have a magical car. It can fit alot of people, alot of luagge and everyone claims I drive really fast (so I guess it has some power).
Next car will be a Toyota, as the afterservice at the local Honda dealer sucks...
Posted 2009-06-18 08:58:54
Quote From watching Civics 1,8 you know they have less power than Corolla 1,6, Jazz and Vios.
No, I said Civics have no visible advantage on the road. Maybe it's the drivers, I don't know, but I don't expect them to suddenly accelerate if given a chance, either with a gap in the traffic or merging on expressways. Maybe they can, I'm not the one driving, but they just don't do it. By comparison, Camries and Accords accelerate steadily and gracefully, and pickups can just fly out like bats out of hel_l, so I need to keep that in mind when overtaking or changing lanes and cutting in front. Nothing to worry about regular Civics.
And believe me - I was expecting great things from those new Civics when they first came out.
I don't know if I am a Toyota fan, my greatest beef with Hondas is that they sell people a dream, not a car. Honda fans who were sold on that dream are the most annoying bunch, imo. We had a guy here who believed his regular, stock Civic can do 0-100 in 7 sec, faster than 3 series. Of course he never tried, but that's the dream he lived with and didn't hesitate to share. Another example is how Accord was officially touted as equal to 3 series, to which some reviewer in the UK replied - BMW builds perfectly fine vehicles, why do we need a Japanese wannabe?
Posted 2009-06-18 09:18:50
snowflake, on 2009-06-15 11:06:07, said: Have someone heard anything about the new 2.0L altis?
Is is good, or is it bad?
I had the new 2.0L Altis last weekend as my new yaris was delayed so the Toyota dealer let me have their test drive Altis until it came, only 600kms on the clock and a really beautiful car to drive, plenty of power with great brakes and handling. I'd had the 1.6L the previous weekend and, as you'd expect, there was a noticeable difference between the two. It had the smart keyless entry and push button start/stop (which was nice to get used to as my Yaris also has that) and it also had the sat nav which turns into a monitor for the rear mounted camera when reversing. I thought about turning my fone off so I wouldn't know when the yaris arrived but now I have it I love it although I would happily swap it for the 2.0L Altis!
Posted 2009-06-18 12:37:27
Plus, this is what you said
", and I know from watching 1.8 Civics that they have absolutely no advantage over 1.6 Corollas, or Jazz of Vios for that matter."
Civic 1,8 is faster than any LOS Corolla Altis, just try it.
I am disapointed with Toyota LOS cause they keep on feeding us with old technology, even if they have modern stuff sold in other countries. Retired engines and autos. I am not saying Toyta is a bad choice, I m just happy Honda provides us with the same technology in LOS as in the rest of the world.
The Civic 2,0 R may do 0-100 in 7 sec, but probably not.
Accord is absolutely not a beemer. Its a frontwheeldrive with more interior space than a BMW 520 at less than half the price in LOS, and similar performance
BTW an uk Accord is quite different from LOS/US Accord.
Posted 2009-06-18 14:05:05
Quote ", and I know from watching 1.8 Civics that they have absolutely no advantage over 1.6 Corollas, or Jazz of Vios for that matter."
Civic 1,8 is faster than any LOS Corolla Altis, just try it.
I just don't see them being faster, this Civic has been five years on the roads, I've seen them in all kinds of conditions, and I've never read anyone on this board praising its speed either.
When driving I observe thousands and thousands of cars for hours, every day, all the time trying to predict their behaviour on the road for my own safety and calculate their accelerating or breaking potential, and Civic was specifically the subject of my curiousity for a while.
So, on average, they offer absolutely no advantages over 1.6l Corollas, at least in city traffic.
Doesn't mean Corollas are better, just that Civics are not as good as some people assume simply looking at max horse power.
Posted 2009-06-18 15:29:48
Plus, on 2009-06-18 14:05:05, said: Quote ", and I know from watching 1.8 Civics that they have absolutely no advantage over 1.6 Corollas, or Jazz of Vios for that matter."
Civic 1,8 is faster than any LOS Corolla Altis, just try it.
I just don't see them being faster, this Civic has been five years on the roads, I've seen them in all kinds of conditions, and I've never read anyone on this board praising its speed either.
Read this board again. According to Grant its 227 kmh on the meter and 219 kmh on the GPS. I v never passed 200, never tryed to. But at 200 it handles quiet well too.
When driving I observe thousands and thousands of cars for hours, every day, all the time trying to predict their behaviour on the road for my own safety and calculate their accelerating or breaking potential, and Civic was specifically the subject of my curiousity for a while.
So, on average, they offer absolutely no advantages over 1.6l Corollas, at least in city traffic.
Totally disagree, based on my own driving experience. Not watching others.
Doesn't mean Corollas are better, just that Civics are not as good as some people assume simply looking at max horse power.
Edited by katabeachbum, 2009-06-18 15:32:53.
Posted 2009-06-18 15:55:16
snowflake, on 2009-06-17 20:31:53, said: ... I love the Camry, gorgeous car in white with some nice wheels on it....
I agree, the new white Camry is a beaut, give it some chrome wheels and a V6 and it is a real winner. I remember driving one a few years ago in the states which had the V6 and I was shocked how smooth and powerful the engine was. And quiet, like an electric motor. The trans was quiet too, unlike in the 1.6 I have here now which is always whirring on acceleration.
I will only consider a V6 in my next car, should I ever get another car. I don't think any four can give me the low end torque I like. But I have a rich man's taste and a poor man's wallet.
Posted 2009-06-19 10:24:54
snowflake, on 2009-06-18 08:31:53, said: I drive a Jazz and that suits me perfectly well for now, fast in town and so easy to park anywhere, try to park the Accord, Pick Up, Camry, and SUV in some of the places I have put my toy in! Just try...
Um... I just throw my Vigo in 4WD and park on top of your toy car   
Like my boss keeps telling me, I have a magical car. It can fit alot of people, alot of luagge and everyone claims I drive really fast (so I guess it has some power).
Fast and Jazz really shouldn't be used in the same sentence... A cute car for girls and girly boys... 
Next car will be a Toyota, as the afterservice at the local Honda dealer sucks...
You could just try a different dealer- my wife has been very happy with the service on her Civic 2.0 R (and man that little Civic R is a blast to drive!)
Posted 2009-06-19 10:39:05
BigBikeBKK, on 2009-06-19 10:24:54, said: snowflake, on 2009-06-18 08:31:53, said: I drive a Jazz and that suits me perfectly well for now, fast in town and so easy to park anywhere, try to park the Accord, Pick Up, Camry, and SUV in some of the places I have put my toy in! Just try...
Um... I just throw my Vigo in 4WD and park on top of your toy car
Like my boss keeps telling me, I have a magical car. It can fit alot of people, alot of luagge and everyone claims I drive really fast (so I guess it has some power).
Fast and Jazz really shouldn't be used in the same sentence... A cute car for girls and girly boys...
Next car will be a Toyota, as the afterservice at the local Honda dealer sucks...
You could just try a different dealer- my wife has been very happy with the service on her Civic 2.0 R (and man that little Civic R is a blast to drive!)
Tony, what are you doing in a car thread? Nice to see you here anyway.
Posted 2009-06-19 14:25:56
Quote Read this board again. According to Grant its 227 kmh on the meter and 219 kmh on the GPS. I v never passed 200, never tryed to. But at 200 it handles quiet well too.
But that's not 1.8l Civic!
His is heavily modded and he dropped in a different engine to begin with.
Quote my wife has been very happy with the service on her Civic 2.0 R
Another puzzle - Honda doesn't sell TypeR here. They planned to build them in Thailand but dropped the idea for the lack of buyers.
Posted 2009-06-19 17:37:34
stingray, on 2009-06-14 19:23:53, said: Plus, on 2008-09-07 10:00:36, said: We think 1.8 is thristy, but we have nothing to compare it to. The difference would be minimal.
Do they even sell 1.6 engine in Europe or the US. I think it's Asian spec only.
In US they sell 1.8 liter and 2.4 liter in the Altis. How can be thirsty with only 200 cubic more in compare with the 1.6? Gary is right, as underpowered cars use more gasoline then the ones with the bigger engine, because everytime you need to "floor" the pedal when you accelerating. This uses more fuel.
In the city I should go for the smaller enginze sizes: 1.2 / 1.4 / 1.6 any higher highway use, and long distance travel. Indeed it's true, bigger engines can use less, because they need less power ( thus fuel ) to accelerate, if the car is at the same weight. Not talking about a big heavy iron american car 
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
