2009 Corolla Short Take Road Test

8639 Views 79 Replies 24 Participants Last post by Tideland Prius, Mar 15, 2008

100$ GUY

Discussion Starter · Feb 22, 2008 (Edited)

This is another review from the -experts- that many here dont believe or dont wanna believe or even maybe dont even care cause they are simply another human being making an opinion....

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews..._c_d/2009_toyota_corolla_short_take_road_test

Nonetheless, here it is, for joy, amusement, satisfaction or more disbelieve.... U DECIDE.

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

mikered30

· #2 · Feb 22, 2008

The electric steering got bashed in other reviews. Maybe Toyota will fix it for the next year. Since it is electrical, I wonder if the steering is programmable?

Wolfman

· #3 · Feb 22, 2008

mikered30 said:
The electric steering got bashed in other reviews. Maybe Toyota will fix it for the next year. Since it is electrical, I wonder if the steering is programmable?

It is, in fact my university of Toyota rep mentioned this at the corolla/matrix launch.

Tideland Prius

· #4 · Feb 22, 2008

I assume the 8.6 run time is the 2.4 litre.

I wonder if Toyota put el cheapo tyres which might explain the lengthier stopping distance. Am I mistaken to think that the new Corolla was outfitted with grippier brake pads?

PhatRoyale

· #5 · Feb 22, 2008

Tideland Prius said:
I assume the 8.6 run time is the 2.4 litre.

How can it be?

C/D clearly test drove a CE model Corolla, which only came with the 1.8L engine.

91MR2quickNA

· #6 · Feb 22, 2008 (Edited)

The Corolla has never really been anything special. Aside from the one-off GTS coupe (AE86) back in the day, it's been a sensible commuter car since it was introduced.

blacken

· #7 · Feb 22, 2008

those silly people XD
the corrola is no sports car its a daily driver XD
why did they expect performance
its a car to get you from point a to point B

engineer

· #8 · Feb 22, 2008

194 ft 70-0!!!!

That is quite possibly the worst 70-0 time I have ever seen for a car.

I understand it’s not a performance car, but this is seriously bad. This thing only weighs 2720 pounds. . . . why the long breaking distance?

For comparison,

Suburban- 190 feet, 6100 pounds

Tundra- 197 feet, 5700 pounds

Silverado- 187 feet 5600 pounds

You can’t tell me that Toyota can not bring a 2720 pound Corolla to a stop faster than a 5700 pound Tundra, or a 6100 pound Suburban. And don’t give me this, ‘It’s a truck, so it has bigger brakes” excuse. There is no reason a car as small and light as the ’09 Corolla should take longer to slow down than a vehicle twice it’s size and weight, period.

Its competitors:

Cobalt- 174 feet, 2880 pounds

Focus- 190 feet (!!), 2688 pounds

Civic- 191 feet (!!), 2701 pounds

Mazda 3- 168 feet, 2889 pounds

The MPG is great, but that stopping distance is just plain scary.

See less See more

Boxedin

· #9 · Feb 22, 2008

I haven't the foggiest idea whether the Xb and the Corolla use the same electric power steering? However I will say that my Xb has a very good feel to the steering, actually better than most traditional hydraulic power steering systems... I will agree 190+ feet to stop from 70 is awful, for anything. Hopefully they will improve upon that.

blacken

· #10 · Feb 23, 2008

lets just hope that this 70-0 stoping is just a fluke done by these guys XD

Tideland Prius

· #11 · Feb 23, 2008

PhatRoyale said:
How can it be?

C/D clearly test drove a CE model Corolla, which only came with the 1.8L engine.

<shrug> 8.6 secs even with a manual is pretty damn fast to me (esp. given the weight). That's V6 territory (ok.. V6s of a few years ago).

ryannel2003

· #12 · Feb 23, 2008

I was shocked at the end of the article they didn't recommend the Civic or Mazda3 for a better driving experience. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Corolla is a huge improvement over the previous generation in styling, power, and quality. Period. That's pretty much, along with price, what the average consumer wants in A to B transportation. On that note, the Corolla is a winner.

91MR2quickNA

· #13 · Feb 23, 2008

engineer said:
194 ft 70-0!!!!

That is quite possibly the worst 70-0 time I have ever seen for a car.

Well, you have to factor tires into the equation because tires have a direct correlation to road holding ability. Usually economy cars use shitty, all-season tires with relatively poor traction and small brakes to fit small 15 inch wheels on it.

When I had my brother's tires replaced on his 2000 Corolla, his stopping distance shortened dramatically. He was still using all-seasons (a compromise tire), but one of better quality from Yokohama.

ECHOKnight2000

· #14 · Feb 23, 2008 (Edited)

The stopping distance is pretty high. I hope its not a sign of Toyota lowering their standards or suppliers cause when I test drove the Yaris hatch awhile ago I felt the brakes were spongy and it took more to break harder. As a opposed to my ECHO which the brakes are phenonmenal! Okay, I know the Yaris weighs more than the ECHO but not that much, plus the breaks just seemed low grade.

A lot of reviewers say the electronic steering is disconnective to the road so it feels like dead weight. Too bad but most Corolla buyers aren't concerned about that. Even the XRS from tests they say its a good car but there is a disconnectiveness from the road and the XRS shouldn't be that way. Maybe Toyota's electric steering is boosted too much. I know its a new technology so hopefully over time it will get better.

See less See more

Camread

· #15 · Feb 23, 2008

does the LE have painted b-pillars? looks so f/u....

100$ GUY

Discussion Starter · #16 · Feb 24, 2008

engineer said:
194 ft 70-0!!!!

That is quite possibly the worst 70-0 time I have ever seen for a car.

I understand it’s not a performance car, but this is seriously bad. This thing only weighs 2720 pounds. . . . why the long breaking distance?

For comparison,

Suburban- 190 feet, 6100 pounds

Tundra- 197 feet, 5700 pounds

Silverado- 187 feet 5600 pounds

You can’t tell me that Toyota can not bring a 2720 pound Corolla to a stop faster than a 5700 pound Tundra, or a 6100 pound Suburban. And don’t give me this, ‘It’s a truck, so it has bigger brakes” excuse. There is no reason a car as small and light as the ’09 Corolla should take longer to slow down than a vehicle twice it’s size and weight, period.

Its competitors:

Cobalt- 174 feet, 2880 pounds

Focus- 190 feet (!!), 2688 pounds

Civic- 191 feet (!!), 2701 pounds

Mazda 3- 168 feet, 2889 pounds

The MPG is great, but that stopping distance is just plain scary.

Yeah, that shocked me too!!

U forgot the lancer ----170 feet 3050 pounds.

And that this new rolla is slower, is no surprise, barely no more horses but the car is heavier.

Safety wise, a way longer braking distance isnt what I nor any was expecting from toyota.

In other aspects, seems the car has improved :thumbup:

ryannel2003

· #17 · Feb 24, 2008

Why does Toyota insist on putting body colored B-pillars on a handsome looking car? It looks so cheap, especially with the blue color they are selling. Otherwise, I really like the new Corolla. Kinda getting up there in price, but then so are most cars in the USA. Damn inflation....

Tideland Prius

· #18 · Feb 24, 2008

ryannel2003 said:
Why does Toyota insist on putting body colored B-pillars on a handsome looking car? It looks so cheap, especially with the blue color they are selling. Otherwise, I really like the new Corolla. Kinda getting up there in price, but then so are most cars in the USA. Damn inflation....

No idea other than "Look at me!! I bought a base model!" and maybe it's cheaper than adding the black rubber to cover it. I don't know.

Toyota is just making themselves look bad cause 60% of the cars sold in Canada are CE models. When my friends think Corolla, they think of the CE model with the ugly black handles and the colour-keyed door frames.

They don't realise that the LE model looks like a normal car. (They know the S model does but assume it's because it's a Sport model).

ryannel2003

· #19 · Feb 24, 2008

Tideland Prius said:
No idea other than "Look at me!! I bought a base model!" and maybe it's cheaper than adding the black rubber to cover it. I don't know.

Toyota is just making themselves look bad cause 60% of the cars sold in Canada are CE models. When my friends think Corolla, they think of the CE model with the ugly black handles and the colour-keyed door frames.

They don't realise that the LE model looks like a normal car. (They know the S model does but assume it's because it's a Sport model).

In the US, Toyota is just now starting to put body colored door handles and body molding on their base model cars. However, it's really simple to tell a standard Corolla vs. a LE or XLE because the base has ugly black mirrors. I'm sure the normal consumer doesn't notice, but I'm not a normal consumer. Details: The #1 important thing to me on a new car, especially something costing $20-25 some thousand dollars.

Tideland Prius

· #20 · Feb 24, 2008

ryannel2003 said:
In the US, Toyota is just now starting to put body colored door handles and body molding on their base model cars. However, it's really simple to tell a standard Corolla vs. a LE or XLE because the base has ugly black mirrors. I'm sure the normal consumer doesn't notice, but I'm not a normal consumer. Details: The #1 important thing to me on a new car, especially something costing $20-25 some thousand dollars.

Yeah the regular Joe won't care.

You guys got colour-keyed door handles for 2005, we got colour-keyed bodyside mouldings lol.

Now you can get colour-keyed handles and mirrors (no more mouldings right?) on the Canadian CE but you're still stuck with colour-keyed door frames.

And most can't tell the difference btwn wheel covers and alloys anyway.

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.