Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Toyota Matrix All-New 2009 Toyota Matrix
179 messages, Last post on Sep 04, 2009 at 11:48 AM
You are in the Toyota Matrix Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: jaxs1 (Jan 31, 2008 9:44 pm) The 2.4 has been around for awhile now, so it's not the most modern 4 out there. I think the Nissan 2.5 is possibly a better engine overall, and the VW 2.0 Turbo is just amazing. I've really curious as to what Toyota has up its sleeve in the new 2.7L 4-cylinder coming in the new Venza.
|
|
|
Replying to: ecotrklvr (Jan 31, 2008 11:05 pm) The Camry also gets competitive mileage with this same engine.
|
|
|
Replying to: jaxs1 (Feb 01, 2008 6:02 am) Reference: the revised 2008 Ratings for the RAV4 with 2.4 Auto are 21 / 27 - both numbers down 3 mpg from 2007. Matrix 2.4 Auto are 21 / 29. I was surprised that the wheelbase of the Matrix is only 2.3" less, and that the weight is only 335 lb less. (Matrix gained 209 lbs in the re-do). Yet, the same City mileage for a 10% lighter car is kinda fishy. I'll bet that physics won't be cheated, and we'll see better real-world City mpg with the Matrix. I wonder if the higher stance on the RAV allows for a freer-breathing exhaust? The good news is we have the option of the 1.8 Auto; it's listed at 25 / 31 - 19% better City mileage, and nearly 15% Highway than RAV4. THe Manual numbers are 1 mpg better. This is the model I want to test drive for myself. I now have Highlander with the 2.4 Auto, 3516 lbs. and I'm hoping the Yamaha-built 1.8 is smoother than 2.4, and gives me equivalent (or better) performance with better mileage.
|
|
|
|
|
Where are you getting those numbers? Per Toyota's own website today, RAV4 AWD 2.4 (auto) is rated at 20/25 for 2008. Matrix AWD 2.4 (auto) is at 20/26. The '09 Matrix in its AWD trim only weighs about 100 pounds less than the RAV4 2.4 AWD, probably the main reason the numbers are so similar. What stinks is that all 2.4L versions of the Matrix get the 5-speed auto EXCEPT the AWD! What's that all about? The AWD only gets the 4-speed, which must detract from fuel economy. Another significant item to me is that the gas tank in the Matrix remains only 13.2 gallons, fine for the smaller engine with its higher mileage, but not so great for a 2.4L Matrix which will require fill-ups every 250-300 miles with that little gas capacity. Compare this to the Subaru Impreza, priced the same and making a point better in gas mileage (and an extra 10 hp), but with a 16 gallon tank for much improved range compared to Matrix. What's puzzling is that the Camry, with exactly the same 2.4L powertrain (and slightly better gas mileage) as the '09 Matrix, gets an 18.5-gallon gas tank, so clearly someone at Toyota acknowledges the need for a car with this fuel economy to have a bigger tank. Perhaps there's just no space under there to shoehorn it in?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Feb 01, 2008 1:27 pm) Wanna know something even crazier? I just sat in two new 2009 Corollas - they are both listed for 27/35 mpg with the 1.8 Auto. I just checked, the Corolla final drive ratio for the 1.8 Auto is 4.130, and the Matrix is 4.312. And the Matrix is taller, so it'll have more drag at highway speeds. Toyota is positioning the new Matrix as a "Sport Coupe" look with a hatchback. They even try to disguise the rear doors be removing the 2007's side glass behind the rear doors. So, the diff ratio is numerically higher, so the Matrix will be quicker off the line, but get lower mileage. Your mileage may vary, though. I guess you just can't beat the physics of it, no matter what. |
|
|
Replying to: ecotrklvr (Feb 01, 2008 8:32 am) The Nissan Rogue is much, much larger and gets 22 MPG city vs 21 for the 2.4 liter Matrix.. |
|
|
final drive ratio of the top gear will determine highway gas mileage, not the number of gears. another factor no one mentioned is the axle ratio. you'll have to know that also to make a fair comparison. this is only speculation, but from reading various forums here and other sites, the 4 speed auto is more durable than the 5 speed. i have read that the toyota 5 speed transmission has had some problems. this must explain why they are using the 4 speed for the awd matrix... it will stand up to more stress. |
|
|
Replying to: jefe47 (Jan 17, 2008 10:42 am) |
|
|
Just stopped by the local dealer in Irvine. They had a dark gray S Auto, and I got a quick drive in it. It had the optional 215/45-17's. Impressions: - Roomy enough for this guy, 6"4" 260. Enough adjustment in the tilt/tele for me to lift off the gas and hit the brake without banging the back of the wheel with my knee. Seats above average comfort. Seat height relatively high - much higher than, say, and Altima. Getting out, my knees were above 90'. Big plus for me. Noticeably narrower than an xB, but OK. - Nice combination of ride and handling; just a tad rough for my taste, but considering the wheel/tire combo, I thought it was very good. Steering was very good. Brakes were very firm and linear. - A little too much road noise, again OK considering the 45 series tires. - Power was more than adequate. Merged onto the freeway without needing more than 3/4 throttle. (this is the 2.4L) - Impressively quiet ride. Very smooth engine. Less bouncy in this configuration than in the Scion xB. - Good rear-set room for two, or three small people. With Driver's seat ALL the way back, I sat behind it fine. - Very good cargo room. Seemed even larger than the fish-eye pictures showed. A nice, flat floor, with some additional storage underneath. Plenty wide, and even deeper than it is wide. Seats fold down true flat. - Nice dash layout. Sharp overall styling. Nose less pointy in person than in pictures. Overall, very sleek. Shapely enough for Gen Y, but classy enough for the over-50's too. - Well-placed mounts for roof rack for my bikes. Roof-height perfect for putting two bike up there. - Only negative - five speed auto shifting only so-so. Not nearly as crisp as my 4-speed auto in my 2.4L Highlander. Three distinct episodes of hunting between 2-3 upshift. (Maybe this brand-new trans needs to learn?) I had heard negative comments of 2005-2007 3.3L Highlander 5-speed auto, and went 2.4L 4-speed as a result and have been glad I did. Toyota Service reports that the 4-speed is very rugged. I originally wanted to try a XRS, but the one they'd had was gone. With choppy-riding 215/45-18's on the XRS, I'm more interested in seeing how comfortable the ride the Standard's tires would give. I left requesting a call when they got a 1.8L Auto in. I'll let y'all know what that's like as well. All in all, a very positive drive in a very modern ride. |
|
Having brooded on the 09, I just bought the 08. I don't like the lower roof and the swept, solid rear pillars on the 09. Less vertical room and worse vision. Especially for our dogs--who wouldn't have been able to see to the right or left! Only thing I regret is not having an MP3 ready sound system.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Toyota Matrix All-New 2009 Toyota Matrix
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Matrix
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
