Last post on Nov 27, 2013 at 10:33 AM
You are in the Toyota Corolla
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Corolla, Sedan
#894 of 3104 Re: I wouldn't pity... [alpha01]
Jun 08, 2007 (5:07 pm)
Is it fair to criticize a car for crash test results when the crash tests had not even been designed when the car was designed? How many small cars with torso side bags (not curtains) received better than "Poor" in the IIHS side impact test when it was first run on small cars, I think in 2004? The Corolla got Acceptable with its optional SABs and SACs. I think there was only one other small car that got better than Poor, when it was equipped with optional side curtains.
Maybe the reason Toyota doesn't add side bags/curtains as standard to the Corolla is that lots of people buy Corollas without them. Perhaps to these people, a lower price is more important than this safety feature. Hard to fathom, but could be true.
#895 of 3104 Re: I wouldn't pity... [backy]
Jun 08, 2007 (7:17 pm)
The Matrix I just bought doesn't have SAC/SAB. I wouldn't have minded paying a bit extra for them, but they certainly were not a make or break feature for me. I would suspect that for many Corolla buyers the same is true. These cars are not the family minivan, they are probably more often than not doing duty as a solo-occupant commute car.
I think Toyota would be wise to make side bags and curtains standard on the next Corolla only because the market has rushed to standardize them, not because I think they are particularly worth the $300-500 they probably jack up the price of the car.
(And yes, I am aware of the crash test results out there, I just think we have reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to safety gear. Already we have this mandate coming from the IIHS to make VSC standard, and that is going to jack up the cost of cars and trucks too)
#896 of 3104 Re: I wouldn't pity... [nippononly]
Jun 09, 2007 (6:41 am)
FWIW, the IIHS doesn't make safety mandates. The mandate for standard stability control came from the Federal government.
#897 of 3104 Re: I wouldn't pity... [backy]
Jun 09, 2007 (7:35 am)
Correct of course. The IIHS pressures vehicle makers through the press and other media venues and through weight of public opinion/perception. It can't mandate anything to the public.
#898 of 3104 crash tests
Jun 09, 2007 (9:11 am)
"Is it fair to criticize a car for crash test results when the crash tests had not even been designed when the car was designed?"
I understand your point, but the newness of the testing at that point in time does not invalidate comparisons. My statements re: the Elantra and Civic were made in reference to a point made by eldaino that those vehicles "have been doing it [ostensibly, safety] better". I simply argue/disagree with that.
Certainly, the new Civic is very impressive in its tests, due in part to a strong safety cage, and advanced/curtain airbags.
Nippononly- FWIW, when Toyota made SAB/SAC standard on the Camry for '07 MY, the price did not increase when comparing comparably equipped models.
I still feel that vehicles in '08 should have SAB/SAC standard, and I am still disappointed that Toyota fails to offer this on the Yaris, Corolla, and Matrix alone.
#899 of 3104 Re: I wouldn't pity... [backy]
Jun 09, 2007 (11:37 pm)
Oh yes, of course, I knew it was NHTSA mandating the stability control, I don't know why I wrote IIHS, which if course is a private concern.
alpha: Well, I hear you, but I am just saying that all these things we are standardizing in the cars cost money, which has to come from somewhere, whether it's more frequent and larger price increases during the first year of a new model to "catch up" with costs, or whatever.
And when you mention the Yaris/Corolla/Matrix as the models "alone" without standard SAC/SAB, I wonder if you have considered how hard it is to get those items on the Tacoma (is it even possible to get SAB in the extended cabs? And it is a very rare find indeed in the crew cabs). I don't know about Tundra - does it have standard curtains now?
#900 of 3104 AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTS THE FOLLOWING!
Jun 10, 2007 (12:28 am)
I am glad Toyota isn't bumping the size of the engine past 1.8 liters, but I would personally prefer a smaller enine option.
Use the latest and greatest, (super VVTI, whatever that is) to increase power/liter and offer a 1.6 liter engine and super efficient CVT.
Such a car should be able to get 40+ mpg combined, even with the new EPA standards.
On top of that would appreciate a trip computer, (from the center monitor) that in a prius like manner, offers real time mpg, overall mpg for trip, mp for lie of car, and range remaining, as well as temp.
That would be perfect for me, who dosn't need my Corolla to go any faster!
I drive a 94 Corolla with 165,000 miles on it. I hope to make it to 250,000-300,000 which would have me buying a new car in the next gen or perhaps even the one after that.
My current acceleration is just fine, and I currently use a 1.6 liter. With current tech like vvti Toyota could probably replace my engine with 1.5 liters, and the 2009 could make due with 1.4 liters.
I never could understand the American obsession with speed. With traffic congestion so bad these days who cares about acceleration of 0-60 in 9 seconds vs 10? Is it really worth sacrificing 2-3 mpg for it?
#901 of 3104 Wishing...
Jun 10, 2007 (4:29 am)
Toyota would offer a poor man's sport sedan along the lines of the old BMW 2002. Something compact that feels solid; with great handling and feel; and has a sole purpose of providing driver enjoyment. Current designs weigh us down with luxury gadgets, safety features that surround us in air bags, and don't allow for "edgy" driving (ABS, etc.). The closest we get to this ideal nowadays is the Mazda Miata.
There weren't so many other cars on the road. Since I started driving 30+ years ago, the number of cars on U.S. roads has doubled, without a significant increase in the miles of lanes. As agalas says, why have a sports car with all this traffic congestion?
The roads were in better shape. Why have a sports car when what we need are SUV's to navigate U.S. roads?
#902 of 3104 Corolla LE with Leather
Jun 10, 2007 (10:35 am)
How do you get it, as it's not an option on Edmunds.
Also, someone wrote and said the Civic and M3 hAVE timing chains rather than belts.
How come you can buy a V Dub and a Focus with heated seats, but not a Corolla.
Usually that's how Toyota gets you with the extras .
#903 of 3104 Fuel Economy is #1
Jun 10, 2007 (10:37 am)
Well after reliability, but the point of my post is this:
We are entering the final era of oil, when world production peaks and begins to decline.
Within a few years, supply will dip beneath demand permenantly, and that means the price of gas will soar exponentially as China, India, Japan, the EU and the US are forced into a bidding war for the ever diminishing fuel supplies.
Gas prices will climb past $10/gallon and no body will care about performance, only fuel economy will count.
Since I drive my cars until the wheels fall off, as do many Toyota owners, we have to anticipate $10-15/gallon gas and ask ourselfes, " is the current offering going to cut it when it costs $150 to fill your tank?"
That is why I am so frustrated at all the car companies. For the US market they pump up the size of the engine to absurd levels!
In mid 1980's a Corolla went 0-60 in 12 seconds, and that was fine with millions of owners who bought them.
My 94 Corolla goes 0-60 in 10 seconds and I am able to muster enough power to confidently pass at 80 mph on the interstate!
Now 0-60 time is something like 9 seconds or less and I hear that Toyota's latest Corolla will have more power!
SO GIVE IT A SMALLER ENGINE FOR GOD'S SAKE! Keep the performance the same but better MPG is what counts!
Do I need to go 0-60 in 8 seconds? HELL NO!
When gas hits $4/gallon next summer will I car for 1 second faster acceleration when it costs more to fill my tank? HELL NO!
I am sick to death of the size and power of the Corolla growing over time!
Yes I like saftey, such as 6 irbags and ABS and Traction control.
For that I am willing to accept a few hundred pounds more, but saftey alone dosn't explain why the all cars keep getting so much larger!
Imagine if Toyota were to go back to 12 second 0-60, how small an engine could they put into the 09 Corolla? 1.2 liters, 1 liter?
If they used a turbo diesel, which has great low end torque, they could do 0-60 in 10 seconds with a 1.2 liter diesel that's mileage would knock your socks off!
The Honda Accord Diesel gets 62 pg imperial, 52 mpg American and that's with a 2.2 liter diesel.
Assuming that is for Highway and considering that the Corolla is a smaller car, one could assume a 1.2 liter diesel gets 60-65 mpg combined real world mileage.
And if you're willing to accept 0-60 in 12 seconds, as was the case in the 1980's, then a 1 liter diesel does the trick.
Now you're talking 70 mpg combined mileage, and without a hybrid no less, driving on cheaper fuel, and in an engine that that will outlast a gas version!
Combine a 1 liter turbo diesel with a super efficient CVT transmission and you are talking 75 mpg combined real world mileage!
At this point 15,000 miles/year sucks 200 gallons of diesel, which, assuming the worst case scenario, $15/gallon, only costs $3,000 annualy, a number most of us could make due with.