Topic: CD Article: 2009 Toyota Corolla

[The Mighty Duck]

The Mazda 3 seems to win in all categories except rear seat room[very cramped,and not as much room in back as the Protege that it replaced]and fuel mileage.When the 06 civic was introduced the rear seat room seems less than the vehicle  it replaced. Style over function I guess.

I would guess that the majority of compact sedan buyers are either, like most cars, going to be used by one-two people most of the time, or b) bought by younger families.  In the first case, having rear leg room is not a top priority, since it is likely back seat passengers will be rare, and even then only in the car for short trips.  In the case of b), the back seat is likely being used by children, so leg room is less important.

There are exceptions to every rule, but it seems to me that someone who places a lot of emphasis on rear leg room is unlikely to be buying a compact sedan anyway.  If you're planning on having people back there all the time, you're likely looking at mid-size or better.  OTOH, I have been in a Corolla cab and it was TINY in the back.  Bad choice for a taxi...

For me, if buying a compact sedan, I know I would not place a lot of emphasis on rear leg room.  As long as it was reasonably comfortable, it would be fine.  If I was buying a cab or worked some job that involved moving lots of people often, I would look at a bigger car.

[Mitlov]

And I understood that this model was all-new, not a North-American-Focus-style reskin?

What's new about it, specifically, that will be prone to break down more than the current model?  The transmissions?  The 2.4?  The 5 speed auto coupled to that motor?  The rear brake drums?

How should I know?  You can never predict.  Who knew that coil packs in Jetta MkIVs or crankshafts in Tundra MkIIs would have problems before it actually occurred?

My point is this: if the part is new, I give it a blank slate for reliability.  If the Corolla is mostly new parts, I give it a blank slate instead of assuming it will be just like the previous.  If the new Corolla is largely recycled parts, then I think of it as a reskin instead of a new generation--and other manufacturers (i.e., Ford) get flamed online for reskinning old cars.

Which is it?  You're the one who sells Toyotas, so you know better than I how many components are from the last Corolla.

[ArticSteve]

Which is it?

Both. The new Corolla is a significant improvement over the last.  However, it is not the same leap that the Tundra took.  That unit was ALL new.  The 2007 model year Civic was essentially a brand new car, and ppl assumed, rightly so, based on the previous history of that car, that it would be a solid vehicle.  The new Corolla represents a small change in comparison to the Civic so to infer that quality might be lacking in this model based on a few hiccups with the Tundra (all since corrected) is without basis.

You're the one who sells Toyotas, so you know better than I how many components are from the last Corolla.

As I have mentioned before, I just drive them. 

[Leviathan]

The 2007 model year Civic was essentially a brand new car, and ppl assumed, rightly so, based on the previous history of that car, that it would be a solid vehicle. 

Other than the wheels falling off of course....

[Seafoam]

The Mazda 3 seems to win in all categories except rear seat room[very cramped,and not as much room in back as the Protege that it replaced]and fuel mileage.When the 06 civic was introduced the rear seat room seems less than the vehicle  it replaced. Style over function I guess.

I would guess that the majority of compact sedan buyers are either, like most cars, going to be used by one-two people most of the time, or b) bought by younger families.  In the first case, having rear leg room is not a top priority, since it is likely back seat passengers will be rare, and even then only in the car for short trips.  In the case of b), the back seat is likely being used by children, so leg room is less important.

There are exceptions to every rule, but it seems to me that someone who places a lot of emphasis on rear leg room is unlikely to be buying a compact sedan anyway.  If you're planning on having people back there all the time, you're likely looking at mid-size or better.  OTOH, I have been in a Corolla cab and it was TINY in the back.  Bad choice for a taxi...

For me, if buying a compact sedan, I know I would not place a lot of emphasis on rear leg room.  As long as it was reasonably comfortable, it would be fine.  If I was buying a cab or worked some job that involved moving lots of people often, I would look at a bigger car.

Who said anything about using it as a taxi. All i said was the newer versions of the cars are smaller in the back seat.Most people on here want more power in their compact and obviously don't care about the room.These are economy cars. I myself want more room but want this size of car.I am not going to choose a camry,accord or malibu they are larger cars  that consume more fuel.

[drederick]

Which is it?

Both. The new Corolla is a significant improvement over the last.  However, it is not the same leap that the Tundra took.  That unit was ALL new.  The 2007 model year Civic was essentially a brand new car, and ppl assumed, rightly so, based on the previous history of that car, that it would be a solid vehicle.  The new Corolla represents a small change in comparison to the Civic so to infer that quality might be lacking in this model based on a few hiccups with the Tundra (all since corrected) is without basis.

You're the one who sells Toyotas, so you know better than I how many components are from the last Corolla.

As I have mentioned before, I just drive them. 

Yes you do just drive them because you sure as heck don't know much about them.

So the 2009 Corolla is 'just a small change' from the previous generation? once again you are at odds with the 'Toyota Gods' that actually know about the products:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/25/toyota-releases-prices-on-2009-corolla-and-matrix/
2009 COROLLA
Nearly 40 years after the Corolla was introduced to American drivers, an all-new, 10th generation 2009 Corolla will continue to offer the quality and value for which the brand has long been known. The new Corolla with an all-new body that delivers increased interior and luggage room, more power, more economical engines and an all-new chassis and suspension.

or

http://www.canadiandriver.com/roadtest/09corollamatrix.htm
While specifics were not revealed, the 2009 Corolla also has an all new chassis and suspension. The body, as can be seen from the photos, is completely revised.

With respect to powertrains, Toyota was more forthcoming. Two new engines will be available

with all due respect please explain how 'all new' is so different between Toyota, and say, Honda?

or just admit you really just don't have a clue.


EDIT: Sorry I figured it out! based on your logic regarding the engine not being all new when Toyota says it is:
"Dude, if the displacment is EXACT, it's not "all new".  " LOL I still laugh at this one

it must be the following:

"Dude, if the car name is EXACT, it's not "all new".  LOL yeah thats the ticket

[Mitlov]

With respect to powertrains, Toyota was more forthcoming. Two new engines will be available[/b]

with all due respect please explain how 'all new' is so different between Toyota, and say, Honda?

or just admit you really just don't have a clue.

For all your harping on "new," you've missed the point.  One of those two engines, the 2.4L, while knew to the Corolla, is ANYTHING but new.  It's been in use in both the Camry and Scion tC for years, and it's pretty bulletproof.

Let me rephrase my original question, now that we've established that the new Corolla is not a reskin, is it (a) primarily a parts-bin special of reliable cars from other Toyotas, or (b) primarily new?  If it's primarily a parts-bin special, and the component parts have proven reliable, I have no problem calling it reliable before it ever hits showrooms.  Though of course, parts-bin specials are deserving of internet forum scorn, right?   On the other hand, if it's primarily new, then I'm going to start it off with a blank slate, just like Consumer Reports now does with Toyotas.

And Steve, a car cannot be both primarily made up of new parts AND primarily made up of borrowed, field-tested parts.  Nice try though

[drederick]

With respect to powertrains, Toyota was more forthcoming. Two new engines will be available[/b]

with all due respect please explain how 'all new' is so different between Toyota, and say, Honda?

or just admit you really just don't have a clue.

For all your harping on "new," you've missed the point.  One of those two engines, the 2.4L, while knew to the Corolla, is ANYTHING but new.  It's been in use in both the Camry and Scion tC for years, and it's pretty bulletproof.

Let me rephrase my original question, now that we've established that the new Corolla is not a reskin, is it (a) primarily a parts-bin special of reliable cars from other Toyotas, or (b) primarily new?  If it's primarily a parts-bin special, and the component parts have proven reliable, I have no problem calling it reliable before it ever hits showrooms.  Though of course, parts-bin specials are deserving of internet forum scorn, right?   On the other hand, if it's primarily new, then I'm going to start it off with a blank slate, just like Consumer Reports now does with Toyotas.

And Steve, a car cannot be both primarily made up of new parts AND primarily made up of borrowed, field-tested parts.  Nice try though

All the 'harping' is warranted. Articsteve continually shows he doesn't know anything about what he promotes as being the 'best' and even worse knows less than nothing about what he promotes as 'terrible'

As for the 2.4 once again there is some confusion it would seem:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/2009-toyota-corolla/2009-toyota-corolla-unveiled-317305.php
For those who crave even more horsepower and torque, there is the
2.4-litre engine. This engine is completely redesigned for use in the new
Corolla XRS model. The 16-valve DOHC engine with VVT-i produces 158 hp at
6,000 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm.

This is from the Toyota press release for the 2009 Corolla, from Toyota. I used to have a working link to the Toyota press release:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/corolla/prelaunch/corollapr.pdf

but it appears to be offline now - I couldn't find the Toyota press site online but it must be somewhere.

Based on this, is is just Toyota BS? or is the 2.4 really 'completely redesigned' for this application? I am going with Toyota and on a technical level it isn't 'all new', but also that it isn't ANYTHING like the previous use in both the Camry and Scion tC because it has been 'completely redesigned' for this application.

So if the 2.4 is 'completely redesigned' for this application, then what exactly is not all-new or at least 'completely redesigned' for this application? the name of the car?

[ArticSteve]

As for the 2.4 once again there is some confusion it would seem:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/2009-toyota-corolla/2009-toyota-corolla-unveiled-317305.php
For those who crave even more horsepower and torque, there is the
2.4-litre engine. This engine is completely redesigned for use in the new
Corolla XRS model. The 16-valve DOHC engine with VVT-i produces 158 hp at
6,000 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm.

There is no confusion.    That 2.4 is an off the shelf Toyota motor straight out of the Camry along with it's 5 speed auto and the output specs are exactly the same.

 'completely redesigned' for this application.

You know what that means?  Toyota redesigned the engine cover, or they relocated the alternator because it wouldn't fit the Corolla engine bay as it was.  It's all marketing hype.

The 1.8 is the same short block, but with a more complicated valve train.  If that rises to the marketing level of "ALL NEW" then that's how it is.  Strange that the 4 speed auto and the manual setup is an exact carry over, but works with this "ALL NEW" motor.   

[ArticSteve]

And Steve, a car cannot be both primarily made up of new parts AND primarily made up of borrowed, field-tested parts.  Nice try though

The Corolla will have X new parts and X carryover parts.  Since all the transmissions (3) are carryovers from existing Toyota models as well as the 2.4 and the 1.8 short block, it's impossible for me to say which will be more PRIMARY; the new or the carryover.  It will all be as reliable as any previous Corolla. 

[initial_D]

I am a stronger believer in marketing literatures.

[mrthompson]

I am the highly suggestible type.  Yes I am. 

[Seafoam]

This thread is about to go down the tubes .Or will it migrate to the malibu topic?

[drederick]

As for the 2.4 once again there is some confusion it would seem:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/2009-toyota-corolla/2009-toyota-corolla-unveiled-317305.php
For those who crave even more horsepower and torque, there is the
2.4-litre engine. This engine is completely redesigned for use in the new
Corolla XRS model. The 16-valve DOHC engine with VVT-i produces 158 hp at
6,000 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm.

There is no confusion.    That 2.4 is an off the shelf Toyota motor straight out of the Camry along with it's 5 speed auto and the output specs are exactly the same.

 'completely redesigned' for this application.

You know what that means?  Toyota redesigned the engine cover, or they relocated the alternator because it wouldn't fit the Corolla engine bay as it was.  It's all marketing hype.

The 1.8 is the same short block, but with a more complicated valve train.  If that rises to the marketing level of "ALL NEW" then that's how it is.  Strange that the 4 speed auto and the manual setup is an exact carry over, but works with this "ALL NEW" motor.   

articesteve your right! the 2.4 is not all-new at all..... it is just completely revised for the 2009 Corolla. LOL

I knew it wasn't all new but just wanted to show you how Toyota uses different terms to mean different things.

Remember when you last tried to explain how the 1.8 in the 2009 is not all new? I never mentioned the 2.4 as being all new then - because it isn't all-new at all.

The point I am trying to make - and I will spell out as simple as I can make it is this:
In the 2009 Corolla the 2.4 is called 'completely redesigned' which is the truth - it isn't all new - who knows what they changed but the basic engine isn't all new.

Whereas

Toyota says the 1.8 in the 2009 Corolla is all new.

Big difference right? apparantly you don't know too much about engines, or cars for that matter.

How is an engines displacement determined? hmmmmmm according to you a 1.8 engine is the same as every other 1.8 because it is the same displacement.

Wrong again artic

borexstroke = displacement

not all 1.8's are the same........

If you don't believe me, try Toyota AGAIN telling you that you are WRONG:

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/06/0613.html

Item Specifications
Engine model              2ZR-FE (new model)                  1ZZ-FE (previous model)
Engine type               In-line 4-cylinder DOHC-16 valve          ←
                               Dual VVT-i (intake and exhaust)         VVT-i (exhaust)
Displacement [cc]       1,797                                            1,794
Bore x stroke [mm]      80.5 x 88.3                                    79.0 x 91.5

Is there any chance that you could at least try and get some of your points to be acurate?

Then again it is too much fun to pick apart what you say because you honestly have no clue.

[ArticSteve]

I"ve got a jet ski and I've changed the bore 3 times.  It's still the same motor dude.  The 1.8 has a slightly changed the bore and stroke.  So what?  It's the same block, it uses the same starter, it has the same crank, it has the same the exhaust manifold, the same flywheel which transfers power to the same trannys.

If you think a change in the bore or stroke of an engine constitutes building a new short block you know nothing about about motors.  Because they installed a more elaborate valve train on the intake side they needed less stroke but had to compensated with enlarging the bore.  There was never any dispute that Toyota changed the valve train for the 2009 1.8.  All the companies have or are switching to variable valve on both sides.  So what if they had to shorten the stroke and increase the bore to accomodate the new intake system.

Now if Toyota had announced a 1.9 or a 2.0 then yes it would have required a new base engine.  But it's still the exact same size in mass with the exact same transmissions attached to it.  Softwear will be different.

Can I help you out with anything else. 

[initial_D]

 A Loyal Fan for Artic. 

[drederick]

I"ve got a jet ski and I've changed the bore 3 times.  It's still the same motor dude.  The 1.8 has a slightly changed the bore and stroke.  So what?  It's the same block, it uses the same starter, it has the same crank, it has the same the exhaust manifold, the same flywheel which transfers power to the same trannys.

If you think a change in the bore or stroke of an engine constitutes building a new short block you know nothing about about motors.  Because they installed a more elaborate valve train on the intake side they needed less stroke but had to compensated with enlarging the bore.  There was never any dispute that Toyota changed the valve train for the 2009 1.8.  All the companies have or are switching to variable valve on both sides.  So what if they had to shorten the stroke and increase the bore to accomodate the new intake system.

Now if Toyota had announced a 1.9 or a 2.0 then yes it would have required a new base engine.  But it's still the exact same size in mass with the exact same transmissions attached to it.  Softwear will be different.

Can I help you out with anything else. 

If YOU think that changeing the bore/stroke DOESN'T constitute building a new short block then YOU know NOTHING about engines.

Toyota isn't a small auto shop down the street. They don't take the old 1.8 block and bore out the cylinders and shave down the deck to make the new 1.8 have the bore/stroke that it does

So of course it is a NEW engine block. Just like everything else on the engine is all-new.

So you think that the following are the same:
- engine block - WRONG
- starter - who cares about a starter? so I could stick a starter off of the ls6 onto an lt1 and they are the same engine? but just for the heck of it as you are such a Toyota fanatic find some part numbers to prove this or be quiet
- crank - once again all that you need to offer is some proof..... I didn't think so
- exhaust manifold:
http://www.pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?clientID=2&navSectionID=11&categoryID=1000&kitID=225#2298
The stainless-steel exhaust manifold has two built-in three-way catalysts to boost catalyst temperature and reduce hydrocarbon emissions from cold start.

This design accelerates the warm-up of the catalyst immediately after start-up and reduces exhaust emissions.

Did the previous 1.8 have this same manifold? Proof please..... oh sorry there isn't any because it is ALL NEW

I'd be willing to wager that the air filter is even different!

You shouldn't bother to try and help me or anyone else until you help yourself.

sad sad sad blah blah blah

[Mitlov]

This is worse than Steve v. Barrie.  Could we have a subforum for these pointless fanboy flamefests?  OMG TOYOTA IS THE BEST!  NO UR DUMB GM IS THE BEST!  NO UR DUMB FORD IS THE BEST!  NO UR DUMB TOYOTA IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!1111

[ArticSteve]

They don't take the old 1.8 block and bore out the cylinders

They change the liners.  If Toyota went to the expense of developing a brand new engine from scratch I hardly think they would make the exact same displacement or within .03% and then hook them to the previous transmissions. 

 Did the previous 1.8 have this same manifold? Proof please..... oh sorry there isn't any because it is ALL NEW
 

They will be interchangeable in terms of fit.  Studs and ports will line up/be the same.  The manifold my be more green friendly, because it is getting a different exhaust mix due to the change in valving, but dude, the 2009 1.8 is all about the addition of the variable valving on the intake side.  So probably the intake will be different.  But it's not a "new engine".

[KRS]

 This raises an interesting philosophical question. What constitutes all new? If you take an existing block casting, and change the crank, rods, pistons, valve train and ancilliaries to fit a new application is that an all new engine. It is my understanding when GM turned the 327 small block into the 350 small block, the basic casting was the same but every one seemed to think it a new engine. because it had new rods, pistons, crank Etc, so I would say yes.
 
 In any event I think Mitlovs belief that the (new?) Corolla needs to prove it is as reliable as the previous model, is not unreasonable. Again going back to my favourite GM examples when GM's 305 V8 was introduced, on the basis of the previous V8's it may have seemed reasonable to expect iron reliablity from the engine. It took a number of months before the cams proved to be a problem. For all I know the new valve train in the Corolla may have a fault just as the 305's did. I do expect that Toyota would fix any problems that may arise and wouldn't hesitate to buy one if I was shopping and I felt it met my needs. That doesn't mean I automatically assume that on the basis of a different vehicle using the same name it will be as reliable though. I have read of problems on some of Toyota's new Models that would have seemed unthinkable a few years earlier. the only way to know that the new Corolla will be as reliable as the old one is after a few years of service.