Corolla wins 50 liter challenge

13 cars, 50 litres of fuel. Which will go farthest?


1st Place. Toyota Corolla

All the cars had conventional four-cylinder, front-drive powertrains.


Kilometres driven: 1,017
Average fuel consumption, L/100 km (m.p.g.): 4.9 (58)
Year after year, buyers have favoured the Corolla for its quality of construction and peerless reliability. Now they have another reason to treasure this Toyota -- outstanding mileage.
Long into the evening, our Corolla CE finally rolled to a halt at a GPS-verified 1,017 km.


For you americans, that 631.93 miles on 13.20 US gallons

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=ea9f2e8a-fdef-425f-8b5e-1002fbcac75f&p=5

2nd Civic 947 km
3rd Vibe 854 km
4th Elantra 812 km
5th mazada3 784 km
6th G5 755 km
7th lancer 754 km
8th spectra 742 km
9th Focus 742 km
10th sentra 717km
11th Golf 670 km
12th Caliber 653km
13th sx4 637km

Our cars were all in the $20,000 range and had conventional four-cylinder, front-drive powertrains (though CanadianDriver did employ a gas-electric hybrid Ford Escape as a support vehicle) and the 50-litre gas tanks that are standard in this class. And while we avoided fast starts and other fuel-wasting behaviour, we moved at the speed of traffic and clicked on air conditioning as needed.
Frequent stops to change drivers and fill up - with coffee, that is - and the general speed-up-slow-down nature of driving on a summer Saturday helped ensure that this would be a real-world test. Gas cans in our trunks ensured that no one would be left stranded on the shoulder.


Over 4 years (at today's gas prices) the Corolla is about $500 cheaper fuel than the Civic

Over 4 years the Corolla is $1400 cheaper to fuel than the Focus.

Both substantial numbers.

Fan

EPA estimates be damned. It looks like in real-world driving, the Corolla with the new 1.8L is more efficient than the EPA numbers. Based on the EPA numbers, a Corolla should only get 462 miles on a full tank of gas while doing primarily highway driving.

Also FYI, they did this challenge back in 2005. The new Corolla in this challenge travelled almost 100km more than the previous-gen Corolla did back in 2005. The previous-gen Civic back in 2005 was actually more fuel efficient than the current Civic. So it looks like the Civic went backwards in fuel economy, while the Corolla went forward (in real-world driving).

Also to add, a Corolla will be roughly $1800 cheaper (at today's gas prices) to fuel over 4 years than a Mazda 3. Per year, that will be roughly a difference of $450 (at today's gas prices). As gas prices increase, the amount you save will only increase.

The bigger question is this; excluding everything else, is it worth it to drive a Mazda 3 over a Corolla *purely* based on fuel costs? I am not taking anything else into account such as personal preference, maintenance costs, features, specs, and options. Is it worth it paying $450 more per year for fuel (at today's prices) just to have more "fun" or because of personal preference? I'm not expecting any answers, this is simply a rhetorical question and is something to think about.

Personally, I believe the hype and emotion that has surrounded the Mazda 3 will continue to die down, even after the next-gen Mazda 3 is released. The compact car market is very price-sensitive, especially here in Canada. As gas prices continue to go up, the cost difference for fueling up a Civic or Corolla compared to a Mazda 3 will only grow. It will likely reach a point where for many people a Mazda 3 will become too expensive to own. Mazda will likely try and improve fuel efficiency, but Toyota and Honda won't be sitting still. They too will continue to improve fuel efficiency. As an example, for the month of May (in Canada) the Corolla reclaimed it's spot away from the Mazda 3 as the #2 top seller among passenger vehicles.

The bigger question is this; excluding everything else, is it worth it to drive a Mazda 3 over a Corolla *purely* based on fuel costs? I am not taking anything else into account such as personal preference, maintenance costs, features, specs, and options. Is it worth it paying $450 more per year for fuel (at today's prices) just to have more "fun" or because of personal preference? I'm not expecting any answers, this is simply a rhetorical question and is something to think about.
That really depends on how much the person in question likes driving. If the highlight of your day is driving your car, then the answer is an easy yes, sacrifice some money to be happier. Those who see driving as a chore would think its bonkers to waste $450 doing the same thing. I'm actually surprised the Mazda3 managed to be in the top half since I thought it was the one of the worst in fuel efficiency in its class, I'm a tad bit surprised as to why the Caliber isn't dead last.

Over 4 years (at today's gas prices) the Corolla is about $500 cheaper fuel than the Civic. Or $10.41/month

Over 4 years the Corolla is $1400 cheaper to fuel than the Focus. Or $29.16/month

Both substantial numbers.

Fan

$10.41/month is substantial? Damn I am glad I don't make your salary. :lol:

$10.41/month is substantial? Damn I am glad I don't make your salary. :lol:

This sounds like the GM mentality in a nutshell.

If you don't get why that is important to small car buyer, it can't be explained to you.

Fan

This sounds like the GM mentality in a nutshell.

If you don't get why that is important to small car buyer, it can't be explained to you.

Fan

This is the truth. If VMax were running GM, they'd be Chrysler - essentially on lifesupport. This lack of knowledge about the NA buying public is shocking in its narrow-mindedness. That such a mentallity has never left the 90s brings some understanding to how the detroiters got caught so unaware by the shift in buying patterns.

GM once the largest business in the world now has a market cap smaller than Mattel. The word 'inconsequential' comes to mind.

That really depends on how much the person in question likes driving. If the highlight of your day is driving your car, then the answer is an easy yes, sacrifice some money to be happier. Those who see driving as a chore would think its bonkers to waste $450 doing the same thing.

Well put, V. I'm a gasoline addict, myself. The positive therapy that comes from driving close to WOT in a car that could just as well get me around with half the horsepower is something I choose not to do without. When I feel the need to get thrifty on gas I just take the bike.
Ans yeah, my girlfriend thinks it's bonkers.

Wow, you can pull 47 mpg out of a Corolla?!? :eek:

Wow, you can pull 47 mpg out of a Corolla?!? :eek:


And relatively normal driving conditions too.

Fan

This is the truth. If VMax were running GM, they'd be Chrysler - essentially on lifesupport. This lack of knowledge about the NA buying public is shocking in its narrow-mindedness. That such a mentallity has never left the 90s brings some understanding to how the detroiters got caught so unaware by the shift in buying patterns.

GM once the largest business in the world now has a market cap smaller than Mattel. The word 'inconsequential' comes to mind.

Wrong again Spiderman. If I were running GM, there would be no need for life support, they would need a mortician. You see, I, unlike you self-proclaimed automotive mfr experts that are nothing more than wannabe internet CEO's (or in your case, a Toyota salesman), do not claim to be an expert and am in no way qualified to run a company, especially one the size of GM. At least I am not too arrogant to admit that, are you? :D

I don't think I can ever come close to duplicating those numbers, not with the hectic driving environment here in the big city of TO.

Wrong again Spiderman. If I were running GM, there would be no need for life support, they would need a mortician. You see, I, unlike you self-proclaimed automotive mfr experts that are nothing more than wannabe internet CEO's (or in your case, a Toyota salesman), do not claim to be an expert and am in no way qualified to run a company, especially one the size of GM. At least I am not too arrogant to admit that, are you? :D


Wow, dude he was using hyperbole to emphasize how wrong he thought you were.


Yet you reply stating why you couldn't possibly be running GM. Thanks for the laugh.

Fan

.... Thanks for the laugh.

Fan

No problem, just thought I'd return the favor. :D

Fan

$10.41/month is substantial? Damn I am glad I don't make your salary. :lol:

I happen to agree...$10/month shoulnd't even enter your mind when buying a car. (Buy what you like) But reality is I've seen many people make decisions on much less then that.....ie $30 on a lease payment is quite substantial in entry level car.

^Geez guys, lighten up, money is really tight for some people. And think, if every single driver in America spent 124.92 less on gas each year (10.41 a month), and spent it on something else, that would probably help the economy as that would ad up to billions of dollars.

Why am I not surprised that as soon as Vmax got involved this went from a nice discussion to a bunch of people being a-holes. Seriously V, you need to be a little less of a douche.

Seriously V, you need to be a little less of a douche.

That goes both ways. ;)

I happen to agree...$10/month shoulnd't even enter your mind when buying a car. (Buy what you like) But reality is I've seen many people make decisions on much less then that.....ie $30 on a lease payment is quite substantial in entry level car.

most people who buy these entry level econo sedans are very $$ conscious and they want to save every penny they can....saving $10 a month = $120 a year, and if they keep the car for 15 years which a lot of people will they'll save $1800 over the lifetime of the car on gas alone

that doesnt sound much, but when u are $$ conscious and save money on EVERYTHING u do from gas to groceries and clothes you end up saving lots and lots of money in a year, so even though $10 alone doesnt sound like much but when u add it into other aspects of life it's enough to sway people who aren't too well off

most people who buy these entry level econo sedans are very $$ conscious and they want to save every penny they can....saving $10 a month = $120 a year, and if they keep the car for 15 years which a lot of people will they'll save $1800 over the lifetime of the car on gas alone

that doesnt sound much, but when u are $$ conscious and save money on EVERYTHING u do from gas to groceries and clothes you end up saving lots and lots of money in a year, so even though $10 alone doesnt sound like much but when u add it into other aspects of life it's enough to sway people who aren't too well off

Very well said. And many people who are well off are in that position because of their spending habits and their discipline with money. Saving ten dollars at a time here and there can have an enormous impact over the long haul.

I think this challenge would be more fair if all the cars has the same engine displacement rather than just price, # of cylinders and drivetrain alone.

I think this challenge would be more fair if all the cars has the same engine displacement rather than just price, # of cylinders and drivetrain alone.

All the cars are in the same class. Its very fair.

I think this challenge would be more fair if all the cars has the same engine displacement rather than just price, # of cylinders and drivetrain alone.

All the cars are in the same class. Its very fair.

Yes, this was a fair comparison. All the cars tested were compact cars, the largest selling group of vehicles in Canada. Canadians looking for an economical family car will be looking at and cross-shopping the cars that were in this comparison.

Why compact cars?
CanadianDriver chose compact cars not just because most of them have a 50-litre gas tank, but because this class of vehicle represents a viable alternative for many families looking to save money on the purchase and ownership of a vehicle.Source: http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/why-compacts.htm

Furthermore, the winning vehicle, the Toyota Corolla, would not have been the vehicle expected to win, by technical specifications, at least. Four of the test vehicles had manual transmissions; 2 had continuously-variable transmissions; 1 had a six-speed automatic transmission; the Corolla had a only 4-speed automatic transmission.

Why were the Corolla and Civic so much more fuel-efficient?

...

First, let me explain that there were more similarities with this group of 13 cars than there were differences. All the cars were four-cylinder models. Interestingly, the top three finishers, the Corolla, Civic and Vibe all had 1.8-litre engines, so it would be correct to assume that smaller engines deliver better fuel economy. However, the Pontiac G5 had the largest engine at 2.2 litres and still finished in the top half of the group.

...

The Focus, Civic, Mazda3, and Lancer were equipped with manual transmissions. You might think a five-speed manual gearbox would give an advantage, but the final axle ratio on manual transmission equipped vehicles is often steeper to allow drivers to start out smoother. This causes the engine to rev faster on the highway and use more fuel. Unless the gearing is the same, an automatic might actually give better fuel economy on the highway.

...

That brings me to the real answers to fuel economy. Rolling resistance, including wind drag, driving style and vehicle fuel injection programming are likely the biggest factors in variances in fuel economy. We switched drivers often to reduce this as a factor, but it only takes a few quicker accelerations to make a significant difference. The winning Corolla achieved only about 0.3 litres/100 km better fuel economy than the Civic, and drivers could easily make this difference.

Vehicle drag from outside influences should have been equal. However, you can't tell by simply looking at a vehicle whether it will slip through the air easily. Engineering expertise and attention to details are what make the difference here. As consumers, we can only go by the manufacturer's reputation on previous vehicles, what we like and the reports of other drivers.

Finally, the program in the engine computer can be tailored for fuel economy, performance, or sometimes both, but never at the same time. The Corolla seemed to have a mild, conservative manner to it that I am sure was the biggest reason it topped the group. The Civic was a little more spirited. That additional fun does use more fuel, which would also explain why some other cars such as the Mazda3, VW Golf and Dodge Caliber used more fuel.

Looking for economy? Any of these cars would be a fine choice but the expertise of Toyota and Honda has still put them at the top of the economy chain.Source: http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/tech-opinion.htm

That goes both ways. ;)

Agreed, my apologies. I suppose we all are biased in one way or another, aren't we. :cool:

I am wondering, why is the Matrix not included.... its essentially the same thing as the Vibe... and almost the same as the Corolla.

then we would be pitting Toyota vs Toyota. They only wanted one car to represent each car maker(brand)
Also you said it your self, the vibe is the same thing.

I still think the new Vibe is leaps and bounds better looking than the new Matrix. The Matrix just looks weird IMO.

then we would be pitting Toyota vs Toyota. They only wanted one car to represent each car maker(brand)
Also you said it your self, the vibe is the same thing.

well he is asking a very good question why didnt they
Look at Pontiac they had two vehicles in the same price range
the Vive and the G5(cobalt/Ion) and im wondering why they used pontiac
why not use the chevy cobalt model
Interesting test, alot more cars in these price ranges that they could have used im wondering why they didn't

1st Corolla
2nd Civic
3rd Vibe
4th Elantra
5th mazada3
6th G5
7th lancer
8th spectra
9th Focus
10th sentra
11th Golf
12th Caliber
13th sx4

And relatively normal driving conditions too.

Fan


I'm shocked at this as well. I just did a 1500 mile round trip (SC to NY and back) in our 99 corolla and checked every tank. The best tank I got was 35.2 mpg. The odometer is spot on and I filled the tank the same every time. Each tank was between 35 and 35.2mpg. The A/C was run minimally and my average speed was probably around 65 mph.

Because of high fuel costs I've been checking our "city average" over the past couple months and it's been between 26-28mpg. I want to know how 47 was achieved????

Edit: I'd like to add that our car is the stupid 3spd auto (with OD) and not the 4spd, however, I wouldn't expect more than a 2-3mpg improvement.

All the cars are in the same class. Its very fair.

same class but not the same engine displacement. for example, the base engine for the mazda3 is a 2L while the civic is a 1.8L

they are all in the same class
get over it

all are cars people consider when getting a daily driver
it is a very fair comparison when even those cars compare themselves to each other
they are all competitors

I'm shocked at this as well. I just did a 1500 mile round trip (SC to NY and back) in our 99 corolla and checked every tank. The best tank I got was 35.2 mpg. The odometer is spot on and I filled the tank the same every time. Each tank was between 35 and 35.2mpg. The A/C was run minimally and my average speed was probably around 65 mph.

Because of high fuel costs I've been checking our "city average" over the past couple months and it's been between 26-28mpg. I want to know how 47 was achieved????

Edit: I'd like to add that our car is the stupid 3spd auto (with OD) and not the 4spd, however, I wouldn't expect more than a 2-3mpg improvement.


You have a 4-speed. Its just the fourth is the overdrive gear.

As far as your trip. If you had extra stuff in there that takes points on mileage. Acceleration and deceleration. Don't break if possible. Coast when you're coming to a stop if you can or even when you know traffic ahead is slowing down don't use the breaks then gradually add gas when you have to go again. If you're windows were down that takes points especially the faster you go (drag). Tires are inflated to specs or even more, that helps mileage. You might know all this but just suggestions. Also has your car been serviced lately, ie. new or newer air filter, spark plugs etc.

You have a 4-speed. Its just the fourth is the overdrive gear.

As far as your trip. If you had extra stuff in there that takes points on mileage. Acceleration and deceleration. Don't break if possible. Coast when you're coming to a stop if you can or even when you know traffic ahead is slowing down don't use the breaks then gradually add gas when you have to go again. If you're windows were down that takes points especially the faster you go (drag). Tires are inflated to specs or even more, that helps mileage. You might know all this but just suggestions. Also has your car been serviced lately, ie. new or newer air filter, spark plugs etc.

Does that 1999 Corolla engine have VVT-i? Single VVT-i on the intake valves increased efficiency; the new Gen10 Corolla engine has Dual VVT-i, which increases efficiency even more.

Does that automatic transmission have a lockup torque converter? If it did, it likely had offered it only on the top gear. The Gen10 Corolla's 4-speed automatic probably has lockup on lower gears as well, preventing transmission slip. Was that old automatic transmission electronically controlled? The new one would be, and likely programmed for fuel efficiency, upshifting as early as possible, and downshifting as late as possible.

Does that 1999 Corolla have cruise control? Steady speeds, controlled electronically by cruise control is a great aid to fuel efficiency.

I don't to mean to speak badly about a member's car. What I want to suggest is that technology has moved on in the decade since that generation Corolla came out, and engines, transmissions and electronics are now that much more efficient.

You have a 4-speed. Its just the fourth is the overdrive gear.

As far as your trip. If you had extra stuff in there that takes points on mileage. Acceleration and deceleration. Don't break if possible. Coast when you're coming to a stop if you can or even when you know traffic ahead is slowing down don't use the breaks then gradually add gas when you have to go again. If you're windows were down that takes points especially the faster you go (drag). Tires are inflated to specs or even more, that helps mileage. You might know all this but just suggestions. Also has your car been serviced lately, ie. new or newer air filter, spark plugs etc.


No, it's a 3 speed. The "OD" is the TC locking. There is NO 4th gear.

Yup, windows up, tires inflated to max psi (right before trip.) Cruise control was on. We left at 4:30 am on thursday, stopping/slowing down for traffic was not an issue. We're both skinny turds so between us we weigh about 280 lbs. We only brought a gym bag of clothes each. Otherwise, the car was empty.

The revised EPA rating is 24/30 and the "old" rating was 28/33 for this car. The '09 is rated at 27/35. I just can't see going from the EPA's estimate of 35 to 47. That's one hell of a jump.

Here's some '09 owners mpg's. There's a couple right at 40 for all highway.

http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234385

It's great that we're doing better than the epa estimates. My s-10 is also exceeding it by a few mpgs, but unfortunately, the silverado and tacoma are spot on and don't get driven much anymore :(

they are all in the same class
get over it

all are cars people consider when getting a daily driver
it is a very fair comparison when even those cars compare themselves to each other
they are all competitors

i never said theyre not competitor to each other, i am saying it would be a more accurate comparision if all those cars have basicially the same engine specs

Does that 1999 Corolla engine have VVT-i? Single VVT-i on the intake valves increased efficiency; the new Gen10 Corolla engine has Dual VVT-i, which increases efficiency even more.

Does that automatic transmission have a lockup torque converter? If it did, it likely had offered it only on the top gear. The Gen10 Corolla's 4-speed automatic probably has lockup on lower gears as well, preventing transmission slip. Was that old automatic transmission electronically controlled? The new one would be, and likely programmed for fuel efficiency, upshifting as early as possible, and downshifting as late as possible.
.

I believe that particular Corolla doesn't have VVT-i. Even the ECHO got it before the Corolla. I think the 2000 Corolla was the first Corolla to receive VVT-i. (Source: VVT-i variable valve timing was added to the engine for 2000 with a small increase in power from 120 hp (89 kW) to 125 hp (93 kW).) And now of course Dual VVT-i.


Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_E110

See my post below about the transmission.

No, it's a 3 speed. The "OD" is the TC locking. There is NO 4th gear.
(


Looks like we're both right my friend.

In the US market only sedans were offered and all came with daylight driving lights. Grades were VE, CE, and LE. The VE model was available in a 3 speed automatic or the 5 speed manual transmission. LE and S models offered the 4 speed automatic with overdrive or the 5 speed manual transmission.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_E110

So my logical conclusion is you have the very base model VE. I know Toyota discontinued the VE even before the 8th gen ended.:thumbup:

For the 2001 US model year (2000 calendar year), the VE was eliminated and the S model was introduced.

i never said theyre not competitor to each other, i am saying it would be a more accurate comparision if all those cars have basicially the same engine specs

Its the auto maker's choice to decide what engine to put in their car to compete with its competitors. Each auto maker uses a different tactic to get buyers. With a bigger engine you might win the horspower and torque challenge but lose in the fuel consumption challenge. The 50 liter challenge is no different from putting the performance of one car against the other when one is equiped with a smaller less powerful engine and loses. If you're gonna argue against the engine specs then you might as well say its not fair cause one has better aerodynamics than the other. Or, one was heavier than the other so they should've made the weight exactly the same. All the cars were in the same class and all of the cars were priceds right around the same price. The challenge was very fair.

If you're gonna argue against the engine specs then you might as well say its not fair cause one has better aerodynamics than the other. Or, one was heavier than the other so they should've made the weight exactly the same.

We don't wanna be splitting hair, but if all of testers had a 1.8L, at least we can say it was a fair challenge.

If you're gonna argue against the engine specs then you might as well say its not fair cause one has better aerodynamics than the other. Or, one was heavier than the other so they should've made the weight exactly the same.

We don't wanna be splitting hair, but if all of testers had a 1.8L, at least we can say it was a fair challenge.

So you're saying it wasn't a fair test?? I can't think of how it could have been done any better. The Corolla won THIS fuel economy test. It doesn't mean that it's the safest/fastest/best looking etc. But it is the most fuel efficient under the conditions of this test. You can't argue that the challenge wasn't fair. Could another vehicle win the same test under other parameters like filled with 5 adults and towing a small trailor? Maybe. But that's not what was being looked at. If all the cars had a 1.8l engine you'd complain that one car is larger, or more powerfull or weighs more. You can only test the cars that are sold. I can't believe I've run on so long on something so obvious cause I don't see how you can't get it.

So you're saying it wasn't a fair test?? I can't think of how it could have been done any better. The Corolla won THIS fuel economy test. It doesn't mean that it's the safest/fastest/best looking etc. But it is the most fuel efficient under the conditions of this test. You can't argue that the challenge wasn't fair. Could another vehicle win the same test under other parameters like filled with 5 adults and towing a small trailor? Maybe. But that's not what was being looked at. If all the cars had a 1.8l engine you'd complain that one car is larger, or more powerfull or weighs more. You can only test the cars that are sold. I can't believe I've run on so long on something so obvious cause I don't see how you can't get it.

Let me offer this point to the discussion: If the test had been restricted to cars only with 1.8-litre engines, how small of a group of cars would that be? Would it have restricted the test to all badge-engineered cars? I have not gone back to review the article again, so let me ask how many 1.8-litre cars were in the test? Could it have been restricted to only the Corolla, the Vibe and the Matrix, which are all essentially the same car? How fair of a test would that be?