Last post on Oct 13, 2005 at 6:22 PM
You are in the Toyota Corolla
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Corolla, Nissan Sentra, Mazda MAZDA3, Sedan
#16 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [pat]
Jul 13, 2005 (8:37 pm)
The fact that some people here sadly call XRS suspension tuning soft tells how much they know about this car. Unlike other Corolla models, XRS capable of reaching up to speeds of 138 mph (other Corollas are governed at 110 mph). As a matter of fact Mazda 3 does not hold a candle to the XRS in any performance test. This is supposed to be a high performance model with an 8400 rpm rev limiter and extreme handling capabilities. XRS suspension is tuned completely different than other Corolla models. Different springs, high performance Michelin summer v rated tires, shocks, strut bars, stabilizer bars, chasis stiffening. Corolla XRS suspension tunning is much more aggressive and stiffer chasis than Mazda 3. XRS is a lot lighter so it is more agile around corners and can be thrown around in the corners with more confidence because the weight does not backfire.
Motor Trend declared that XRS was too extreme for most of the people to realize the full capabilities of the XRS atleast for those people who buy a car of this class while Mazda 3 was more friendly and easy to drive while offering a more city friendly drive.
XRS is not a volume seller or appeal to mass customers. It has only 6 speed manual transmission with no automatic transmission available considering 80% people buy auto. It is only for the people who like hard edged naturally aspirated performance with the practicality and reliability and economy of a Toyota Corolla.
Proof?? Well, pick up the July Edition of Motor Trend (not surprisingly there are references to it here) and flip to page 114. You will see a head to head comparo of Corolla XRS and Mazda 3. Here is the brief specs:
Motor Trend July 2005 5 Sport Compact Cars Comparo July 2005 PG 114
Cars: Corolla XRS, Mazda 3, Focus ST, Cobalt and Spectra 5
0-60: 7.0 secs
Quartermile: 15.4 92 mph
Lateral Acceleration: 0.85g (Handling)
Slalom Speed: 67 mph (Handling)
Braking 70 - 0 : 123 ft
Curb weight: 2650 lbs
0 - 60: 8.4 secs
Quartermile: 16.0 88 mph
Lateral Acceleration: 0.81g
Slalom Speed: 62 mph
Braking 70 - 0: 132 ft
Curb weight: 2800 lbs
Reading the complete article, it has 5 pages of tests and reviews about the tests. They pretty much admitted that the XRS dominated every performance test and if you go up in mountain twisties, XRS is the only car you want to take. It explains every different aspect of 5 sport compact cars and how the compare. XRS did better in every handling and acceleration test than rest of the 4 other cars. They did give Mazda 3 high points on more options available i.e HID lights, Optional Navi etc. Corolla XRS does not have a 60/40 split seat in the back to strengthen the chasis and hold the strut brace across the shock tower (for handling) so they marked it down on that and they liked the styling on Mazda 3 better.
Nissan Sentra Spec V (car and driver, Featherweight Serial thrillers Comparo)
0-60: 7.8 secs
lateral Acceleration: 0.87g
Curb weight: 2740 lbs
The comparison is simple.
#17 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [fa1]
Jul 14, 2005 (1:05 pm)
Wasn't the Mazda3 tested in the Motor Trend comparo an automatic? If so, the acceleration comparison between the manual equipped Corolla and the auto equipped Mazda3 isn't really valid.
#18 of 64 topic
Jul 14, 2005 (1:37 pm)
The Mazda3 is not part of the topic here, Todd, so let's let it drop now. Thanks.
#19 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [newcar31]
Jul 14, 2005 (2:14 pm)
You are right. The tested was auto. I think the question was more about handling and not straight line. Handling for an auto or manual does not make a difference. That is why I put the quartermile for what they had written in the article for a previously tested manual Mazda 3 2.3L 160 HP (It was tested at 16.0 secs in the quarter mile). I even quoted the weight for the manual transmission Mazda 3, which is 2800 lbs (150 lvs heavier than Corolla XRS) while the auto weighs in at 2890 lbs. Even with manual to manual comparison for straight line performance, the margin without a doubt is still big.
#20 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [fa1]
Jul 14, 2005 (2:27 pm)
"I think the question was more about handling and not straight line."
No, you said the XRS dominated every performance test. You shouldn't have posted the acceleration figures without mentioning that the Mazda3 was an automatic. That makes a HUGE difference.
"Even with manual to manual comparison for straight line performance, the margin is still big."
No it's not. Other mags have tested manual versions of the 3s and they did 0-60 in the low 7s. The 3s hatch did 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and the sedan is lighter than the hatch. Around town, the 3s is going to be faster than the XRS because the XRS needs to be wound out more than the 3 to accelerate.
Pat----I know the Mazda3 isn't in the discussion title, but it's a very similar car to the Spec-V and XRS. Can you add the Mazda3 to the title?
#21 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [newcar31]
Jul 14, 2005 (5:48 pm)
I mentioned in my original post that Mazda 3 will feel stronger around the city because XRS really gets the power once it switches to the high performance cam at 6000 rpm that takes it way up to 8400 rpm and you get the big jolt in the back. The power at low revs in city driving with traffic is just about as a normal compact car. So that was never point of focus to begin with. It is much easier to drive.
I was talking about quartermile and not 0-60 because first two gears do not mean anything in racing. XRS does a 0-60 in 7 secs flat while Mazda 3 does it in 7.5 - 7.7 secs range (manual transmission). However, this difference gets bigger as both cars get into 3rd and 4th gear where XRS's superior top end and closer ratio gearing and smaller final drive takes charge. Manual XRS quartermile is 15.4 and XRS traps at 5 - 7 mph higher in the quartermile.
#22 of 64 Re: 2005 Toyota Corolla XRS vs 2005 Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V [newcar31]
Jul 15, 2005 (3:18 am)
Jul 15, 2005 (4:08 am)
"I was talking about quartermile and not 0-60 because first two gears do not mean anything in racing. XRS does a 0-60 in 7 secs flat while Mazda 3 does it in 7.5 - 7.7 secs range (manual transmission)."
You posted 0-60 figures and then said: "As a matter of fact Mazda 3 does not hold a candle to the XRS in any performance test."
I just thought it was kind of shady to post those 0-60 figures without disclosing the fact that the 0-60 figure on the Mazda3 was from an automatic and the 0-60 figure for the XRS was from a 6 speed manual.
Like I said before, Car and Driver tested the hatchback version of the Mazda3 and they did 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. Since the sedan is lighter, it should be a tenth or two quicker.
Was the original poster going to race these cars? I think it's kind of silly to be shopping for a Sentra or Corolla and be worrying about trap speeds and 1/4 mile times. All of the cars are pretty close.
#24 of 64 Re: Thanks Pat! [newcar31]
Jul 15, 2005 (9:09 pm)
When Toyota calls XRS the "performance-driven Corolla", perfomance numbers do matter because that is why one will want to not look at a regular Corolla and at the XRS instead. It is Corolla in appearance and a Celica GT-S underneath. If you truly want a typical Corolla and looking at XRS, it will disappoint the owner because:
1 - It comes with summer performance Michellin tires (winter tires/all season radials are needed in winter)
2 - Minimum of Octane 91 premium fuel required
3 - No automatic transmission available. Only 6 speed manual transmission.
4 - No 60/40 split because of the rear strut bar and light weight fixed bench to strengthen the chasis.
5 - Stiff ride because of sport tuned suspension.
6 - 26/34 mpg (c/h) gas mileage as opposed to 34/40 mpg for other Corolla models.
7 - Close ratio 6 speed manual requires a lot of shifting in city driving to keep the revs from climbing since the needle zooms upto 6000 rpm in no time.
I could go on. All of these things are absent in other Corolla models and the Mazda 3 as well. All in all, Mazda 3 should be compared to Corolla S, LE and CE because like I said before XRS is not a volume seller. It will appeal to only the people who are into compact performance and tuning and want some serious performance (though not as extreme as an SRT-4 or WRX etc.).
That is why yes when XRS comes in quartermile times and performance numbers do matter because it will defeat the purpose of sacrificing so much that other Corolla models offer. When the performance components and portion is taken out of the equation, XRS looks like a souped up Corolla with good bells and whistles i.e electronic optitron guages, sport seats etc., but not that much different from other Corollas. As a compact sport sedan, performance is the main strength in it's class where it outshines most of the other cars in it's class.
#25 of 64 Re: Thanks Pat! [fa1]
Jul 16, 2005 (6:08 am)
The reason why the mazda3 is not being compared with the Corolla S,LE, CE is because none of those can hold a candle to the mazda. The only plausible advantage for a regular corolla over a mazda3 is reliability/resale and gas mileage.
Moving along, lets bring up the issue of torque. The corolla peaks at 127 pound feet of torque 4400 rpm. And while the corolla engine makes 170 hp that doesnt occur until 7600 rpm. As a result, for typical driving, the power is fairly useless. You have to rev the engine to ungodly high speeds to get any power out of it. That is not to say that the engine is bad, just that it isnt very practical (unless you enjoy revving your engine to 8000 rpm at a regular basis). The advantage that the 3 has is that it delivers 95% of the performance of the corolla while being cheaper to buy, cheaper to fill up at the pump, and has more useable power. Another issue with the XRS is its handling. The 3 offers handling just as good and does it with out being overly stiff. I have also read numerous reports of above average amounts of understeer. Overall, the 3 is just a much more practical car while still having the plus sides to the XRS. One last thing...the XRS is FUGLY.