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
#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.
#26 of 64 Re: Thanks Pat! [biggus3]
Jul 16, 2005 (8:58 am)
Beauty is always in the beholder's eye. I personally think the very high trunk line, short deck lid and bland tail lights are a complete turn off in Mazda 3. XRS with it's lowered and wider stance and trendy lights in the back looks way better. Then again, personal choice. The side profile is alright, but it does not look decent without the bigger 17 inch rims. It looks like a cheaply built car with those smaller rims with hubcaps that I see on some models (maybe those are 2.0L models).
As for city driving, regular Corollas are very light (almost 350 lbs lighter than the Mazda 3), though with less HP and torque than the Mazda 3, but they are not all that slow compared to Mazda 3. They offer the reasonable pep that is required in the city. Car and driver compact car comparo in November 2003 edition:
03 Corolla LE ( Car and driver comparo, November 2003)
0-60: 7.9 secs
Quartermile: 16.2 secs
Lateral Acceleration: 0.77g
Transmission: 5 speed
Weight: 2590 lbs
The only thing that is average is the handling. Mazda 3 has a much better handling by a reasonable margin. The tested acceleration numbers given for a Mazda 3 are 7.4 secs and 16.0 secs respectively for 0-60 and quartermile, regular corollas are not all that slower. These still have the Toyota quality, reliability and superb resale. The price for Toyota reputation is something they have earned because Toyotas runs great even after 200K miles. The main edge Mazda 3 will have over these cars is the more available options and a better value for the dollars.
XRS is a Toyota. People will pay premium price for a Toyota because of the reputation and respect they have earned for giving their customers high quality trouble free vehicles. When fully loaded XRS is compared to the fully equipped (after XRS is the top of the line Corolla model) Mazda 3, the XRS IS actually a bit cheaper and it is a small performance Toyota. That is a big plus and adds a lot to the confidence of the customer. It will hold it's value better than any other Corolla and it will have a much lower cost of ownership over the long term,
As for your idea that Mazda 3 can handle as well as the XRS, I have posted the Motor Trend review and it clearly told that Mazda 3 (again, auto or manual as nothing to do with how the car handles) does not even come close to the XRS in handling performance tests. It simply outhandled every other car in the comparo. They even said XRS is the only car you want to take if there are dangerous mountain twisities involved in journey since it is much easier to throw the XRS in the corners with confidence and poise. It is much more agile and athletic, so to speak. XRS suspension is tuned a lot more aggressively than the Mazda 3. The downside, is a stiff ride. In the city, it should not be much different for normal driving conditions, but then again even Corolla LE, CE and S handle pretty decent and have decent power for the city as well. Why bring XRS into the picture?? For city driving, one should not be speeding or driving aggressively anyways??
#27 of 64 My summary
Jul 16, 2005 (12:17 pm)
Might I add, about 80 % and not 95% of the performance is more like it. Comparing their performance numbers will have about 7 - 8 car's lengths on Mazda 3 by fourth gear. I have spoken about the handling above already.
Revving up to 8400 rpm is one of the most fun things in a car. XRS is a total blast to drive and toss in the corners. The chasis never gets upset and acts unpredictably. There is nothing like shifting at over 8 grand rpm. Once the cam switches over at 6000 rpm and lift kicks in, it howls like an F1 racing car/Sport bike (the engine was built by Yamaha Motorsports/Toyota).
#28 of 64 Re: Thanks Pat! [fa1]
Jul 16, 2005 (2:04 pm)
A loaded Mazda3 does not compare with a loaded XRS in terms of price. A loaded Mazda3 has a navigation system, xenon headlights, telescoping steering wheel, audio/cruise controls on the steering wheel, 17 inch wheels, and leather seats (which needless to say the XRS does not). I purchased my Mazda3 hatch for $17,000 with a sunroof/6-cd changer, abs/side airbags and from what I can tell from toyota's website, the only difference is a TPMS which would have been an additional $1,000. A fully loaded XRS ran me to $20,000
Not to get into too much of a mudslinging contest, but how do you figure that the matrix tail-lights are trendy and the mazda's are bland. the corolla has run of the mill red tail-lights with run of the mill turn signals and reverse lights. The mazda on the other hand has smoked glass with more contemporary lenses. You will need to elaborate on how you got to that consensus.
Furthermore, the reason that I called the XRS ugly is the tacky looking body kit. It looks like it came from a 16 year old who inherited his mom's corolla and watched a few too many episodes of "pimp my ride."
Your statement about the resale value for the 3 vs. the XRS is not entirely accurate. While history has stated that toyotas fetch good money for resale, this is no ordinary toyota. Most parents arent going to buy their 16-18 year old a used XRS. That being said, the 3 isnt your run of the mill mazda either. The Matrix isnt doing hot in terms of reliability (its only doing average for the industry) for toyotas standard, so who is to say that corolla will fare any better. After all, there are a lot of shared parts between the two. Both cars are too new to dictate resale values.
I do say that the Mazda can handle as well as the XRS. There is more to handling than numbers. While motor trend gave their opinion, I have heard numerous accounts that say that the XRS doesnt feel very sporty in that respect. Below are some accounts from other press.
"What the Mazda offers is an almost European level of sophistication at a Japanese price. A Toyota Corolla XRS is similarly priced (especially comparing invoice prices), but doesn't look or feel as sporty"
"[the XRS] is not quite as sporty as a Mazda3 GT"
"...[the XRS] ultimately doesn't feel particularly confidence inspiring on twisty roads. Despite the stiff suspension, bumps and camber changes upset the XRS more than the Focus and the 3. The XRS also understeers considerably more than those cars. Based on the late arrival of enjoyable power and our chiropractor bill, the XRS seems like a poor compromise"
One more just for kicks
"2004 America's Best economy car: Mazda 3"
#29 of 64 Re: My summary [fa1]
Jul 16, 2005 (2:17 pm)
I wanna know where you got your numbers
XRS -- 7.1 sec
3 -- 7.4 sec
XRS -- 15.8 sec
3 -- 16 sec
(All measurements were taken from Car and Driver)
Maybe 7-8 go-karts, but not much else. Besides which if you do the math .2 secs at 90 miles per hour is 26 feet. 2 car lengths maybe and the 3 is gaining ground. I have never denied that the XRS is a faster car. Im just saying that the 3 is close and has more useable power for everyday driving.