Tercel, Corolla, noisy rat-box?

Is a Corolla any less noisy and rough than a Tercel? I drove my nephew's 95 Tercel on the freeway and
now I'm sure I don't want one. It is rough on bumps, there's a lot of road noise, etc.

I am sure I cannot afford a used Camry or Avalon so Corolla is most likely what I will get.

So, is it noisy and rough like the Tercel, or smooth and quiet?

What if I add a few layers of dynamat?

thx
Tom
Seattle

"I Love Edsels" <henry@ford.com> wrote in message
news:5jd9s2pl9lmghf58as2u7vijv3bm04u87h@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Is a Corolla any less noisy and rough than a Tercel? I drove my nephew's
> 95 Tercel on the freeway and
> now I'm sure I don't want one. It is rough on bumps, there's a lot of road
> noise, etc.
>
> I am sure I cannot afford a used Camry or Avalon so Corolla is most likely
> what I will get.
>
> So, is it noisy and rough like the Tercel, or smooth and quiet?
>
> What if I add a few layers of dynamat?
>
> thx
> Tom
> Seattle[/color]

Take one for a test drive.

Cathy

My previous car was a 92 Tercel LE sedan. I like the way it handled, not
excessively noisy, and a fun car to drive. My new 2007 Corolla CE sedan
feels like a bigger car, quieter and smoother, but still retains some of the
handling characteristics of my old Tercel. The biggest difference I found
was that I felt much closer to the ground and bumps in the road were felt
much more acutely in the Tercel. There is lots more head room in my new
Corolla, so I don't need to bend my head way over to get in and out of the
car. The trunk is more roomy, and the engine compartment doesn't seem to be
as crammed.

Right now I just use my Corolla for local errands and it hasn't really been
broken in yet. I find the Corolla's fuel consumption is greater than my old
Tercel -- I thought it would have been about the same or better given the 14
years of advances in engine technology. With that in mind, I'm glad I
didn't go with the Camry, because I didn't really need more cabin space and
higher operating fuel costs.


"I Love Edsels" <henry@ford.com> wrote in message
news:5jd9s2pl9lmghf58as2u7vijv3bm04u87h@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Is a Corolla any less noisy and rough than a Tercel? I drove my nephew's
> 95 Tercel on the freeway and
> now I'm sure I don't want one. It is rough on bumps, there's a lot of road
> noise, etc.
>
> I am sure I cannot afford a used Camry or Avalon so Corolla is most likely
> what I will get.
>
> So, is it noisy and rough like the Tercel, or smooth and quiet?
>
> What if I add a few layers of dynamat?
>
> thx
> Tom
> Seattle[/color]

"homepc" <wiebe08@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OPoxh.215919$Yu6.123661@newsfe16.lga...[color=blue]
> My previous car was a 92 Tercel LE sedan. I like the way it handled, not
> excessively noisy, and a fun car to drive. My new 2007 Corolla CE sedan
> feels like a bigger car, quieter and smoother, but still retains some of
> the handling characteristics of my old Tercel. The biggest difference I
> found was that I felt much closer to the ground and bumps in the road were
> felt much more acutely in the Tercel. There is lots more head room in my
> new Corolla, so I don't need to bend my head way over to get in and out of
> the car.[/color]

This is also due to the latest Corolla design being higher, in general.
(I've had Corollas since '84.) The roof is considerably higher than it used
to be, so the top line of the doors is also, the seats sit up higher... the
whole thing sits up higher than it used to.

Cathy



The trunk is more roomy, and the engine compartment doesn't seem to be[color=blue]
> as crammed.
>
> Right now I just use my Corolla for local errands and it hasn't really
> been broken in yet. I find the Corolla's fuel consumption is greater than
> my old Tercel -- I thought it would have been about the same or better
> given the 14 years of advances in engine technology. With that in mind,
> I'm glad I didn't go with the Camry, because I didn't really need more
> cabin space and higher operating fuel costs.
>
>
> "I Love Edsels" <henry@ford.com> wrote in message
> news:5jd9s2pl9lmghf58as2u7vijv3bm04u87h@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> Is a Corolla any less noisy and rough than a Tercel? I drove my nephew's
>> 95 Tercel on the freeway and
>> now I'm sure I don't want one. It is rough on bumps, there's a lot of
>> road noise, etc.
>>
>> I am sure I cannot afford a used Camry or Avalon so Corolla is most
>> likely what I will get.
>>
>> So, is it noisy and rough like the Tercel, or smooth and quiet?
>>
>> What if I add a few layers of dynamat?
>>
>> thx
>> Tom
>> Seattle[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:15:44 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>my '95 Tercel was a GREAT CAR!!! I sold it to buy a Supra. I'm sorry I did
>that...almost! I was getting 44MPG with an Automatic Tranny![/color]

I'd like to know how that was accomplished... my overall is 33ish.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:52:39 -0800, Joe Schmuckatelli wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:15:44 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>my '95 Tercel was a GREAT CAR!!! I sold it to buy a Supra. I'm sorry I did
>>that...almost! I was getting 44MPG with an Automatic Tranny![/color]
>
> I'd like to know how that was accomplished... my overall is 33ish.[/color]

Hmmm...I live in a semi-rural area of Mass...my average speed is probably
35-40 MPH, almost all open terrain. I have my choice of the highway
(Freeway, or Interstate, depending where you're from) at 65-70 MPH (most
of my Toyotas have gotten noticeably better economy at 70MPH) or 'back
roads' (the old 'Federal' Highways that are now state controlled) at 45-55
MPH.

I also use a mix (50/50) of 89/93 Octane, for an octane of about 91.5.
This seems to work the best.

When I got the Tercel I ran 3 tanks of 87 Octane and recorded 36-38 MPG
between fill-ups. Then I switched to 93, and recorded 44-46MPG. The
'mixture' was running 41-44 MPG.

I did a spreadsheet, and with the increased fuel economy, I was spending
LESS for fuel than if I had used 87...I posted it here about a year ago...

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:27:46 GMT, "Vash The Stampede" <Trigun@2am.cn>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>When I got the Tercel I ran 3 tanks of 87 Octane and recorded 36-38 MPG
>between fill-ups. Then I switched to 93, and recorded 44-46MPG. The
>'mixture' was running 41-44 MPG.[/color]

Indeed... I'll have to give that a go and see what happens. I suppose
I should also take into account the fact that most of my mileage is
commuter driving, and as such, sitting in traffic on Interstate 5
doesn't exactly help my cause. :-)

thanks for the info. now, if anyone could gimme the straight poop on how to
fit big 6x9 speakers in the doors, life will indeed be good.

as for the OT comments, I order the closure of the old thread on the basis that
it has become too silly! Stop! Stop that being silly! Thank you.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:56:57 -0800, Joe Schmuckatelli wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:27:46 GMT, "Vash The Stampede" <Trigun@2am.cn>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>When I got the Tercel I ran 3 tanks of 87 Octane and recorded 36-38 MPG
>>between fill-ups. Then I switched to 93, and recorded 44-46MPG. The
>>'mixture' was running 41-44 MPG.[/color]
>
> Indeed... I'll have to give that a go and see what happens. I suppose I
> should also take into account the fact that most of my mileage is commuter
> driving, and as such, sitting in traffic on Interstate 5 doesn't exactly
> help my cause. :-)[/color]

I had a feeling I-5 was in California...near what?