[mafan]

So I am on a mission to separate fact from fiction and attempt to present an objective viewpoint on our beloved Corollas.... Anyone who has read any supposed "expert" reviews recently regarding the Corolla (or almost any Toyota for that matter) will observe a common theme... one which spews subjective opinions driven by what appears to be a group intent on cutting down an organization for supposed greedy actions that put consumers at substantial risk - disregarding decades of evidence demonstrating integrity and quality that would argue a contrary point.

My first attempt at providing a neutral view is listed below. Ultimately, I will be posting on some of the more common review sites (Edmunds, Cars.com, AutoTrader, Vehix, etc) in an attempt to right-size the current mob-mentality.

In the aforementioned articles, you will read quotes that describe the Corolla as having anemic performance when compared to other small, ecomony sedans. While you will see that the Corolla is behind some of the media darlings (eg. Mazda 3 and Civic), it does not trail by much in 45-65 acceleration (highway merging/passing) and is equal in the 1/4 mile. Additionally, it is better than the class average in 0-60 time and excels in braking and, obviously, fuel economy. I could have also including things like ride quality, slalom speeds, noise, etc but I wanted to keep this relatively straightforward. Therefore, I selected what I thought was some of the more useful data points for everyday driving. The data was pulled mainly from consumer reports testing (so these are not manufacturer provided numbers). I also cross-referenced them to other tests from mags such as C&D (which actually had faster times all cars tested - eg. the Corolla was actually listed at 8.6 seconds to 60 mph) to ensure that the comparison ratios were consistent and they were.

Finally, the color coding below has Green for Best in Class (for the vehicles chosen), Red for Worst in Class and Yellow for somewhere in between.

All vehicles selected were the base model with manual transmission.

 

[SuperchargedMR2]

Great job with the stats. I've always felt that the Corolla was under appreciated by most reviewers. As a daily driver it does more than a good job & as proven with mine with a little infusion of suspension money it can handle extremely well. :thumbsup: I love my Corolla & I drove most of those other cars on your chart.

 

[RBK]

Weird, the Kia/Hyundai had the slowest time, but both have more HP than the Corolla.

 

[SuperchargedMR2]

Weird, the Kia/Hyundai had the slowest time, but both have more HP than the Corolla.

Remember that these were all with the base engine & manual transmission.

 

[mafan]

Weird, the Kia/Hyundai had the slowest time, but both have more HP than the Corolla.

While I dont have the specific stats in front of me, I would expect that the Forte and Elantra are a little heavier... other variables such as aerodynamic profile and even the rolling resistance of the tires used can impact actual performance as well so more HP does not always equal quicker times (even when the cars are as similar as these)

 

[flamedrgn]

that chart seems wrong, from what i know the corolla is faster then the regular r18 civics. its strange how we have slower 0-60 or 45-65 but come up with the same 1/4mile.
someone explain to me please?

 

[ilikebass7]

well in the quarter mile you go beyond 65 so our car must be a tad faster then the civic above 65? you were pointing out the 45-65 stat and 0-60 but nothing is said about above 65 i guess

 

[markymark975]

Great job with the stats. I've always felt that the Corolla was under appreciated by most reviewers. As a daily driver it does more than a good job & as proven with mine with a little infusion of suspension money it can handle extremely well. :thumbsup: I love my Corolla & I drove most of those other cars on your chart.

I can't say that I've driven all these other cars, but the main reason why I went with a Toyota (09 xrs) is RELIABILITY as my previous 2001 Corolla CE proved to me. Had it for almost 10 years and not a single mechanical problem. It has been there for me for many changes in season. I'm hoping the Corolla I have now will perform or outperform the previous.

 

[got-rice]

So I am on a mission to separate fact from fiction and attempt to present an objective viewpoint on our beloved Corollas.... Anyone who has read any supposed "expert" reviews recently regarding the Corolla (or almost any Toyota for that matter) will observe a common theme... one which spews subjective opinions driven by what appears to be a group intent on cutting down an organization for supposed greedy actions that put consumers at substantial risk - disregarding decades of evidence demonstrating integrity and quality that would argue a contrary point.

Do people who BUY Corollas even care about 0-60 times? I'm sure MPG and reliability are important, but non-car people who buy Corollas (of which they are more of), whom I guarantee don't read enthusiast magazines could care less. Car mags don't care much about MPG and reliability when they do their tests...it doesn't sell magazines (Consumer Reports the exception).

 

[mafan]

Do people who BUY Corollas even care about 0-60 times? I'm sure MPG and reliability are important, but non-car people who buy Corollas (of which they are more of), whom I guarantee don't read enthusiast magazines could care less. Car mags don't care much about MPG and reliability when they do their tests...it doesn't sell magazines (Consumer Reports the exception).

My selection of 0-60 times was less about whether people care or don't care about them subjectively and more about selecting objective data points that would confirm or disprove what the media is saying .... essentially that the Corolla is anemic, slow, etc. If there was consistency the reporting, I would have less of a problem, however, there isnt. The same publications that indicate the Corolla is anemic call other vehicles with similar performance peppy, quick, etc. Why does this matter? To me the answer is two-fold: (1) I just have a personal problem with mob-mentality and that is what I believe is happening with the media and many consumers as it relates to Toyota these days... people seem to be overlooking facts for the popular opinion and (2) a more pragmatic argument - bad press can ultimately hurt our resale value down the road.

 

[Toyoroad]

My selection of 0-60 times was less about whether people care or don't care about them subjectively and more about selecting objective data points that would confirm or disprove what the media is saying .... essentially that the Corolla is anemic, slow, etc. If there was consistency the reporting, I would have less of a problem, however, there isnt. The same publications that indicate the Corolla is anemic call other vehicles with similar performance peppy, quick, etc. Why does this matter? To me the answer is two-fold: (1) I just have a personal problem with mob-mentality and that is what I believe is happening with the media and many consumers as it relates to Toyota these days... people seem to be overlooking facts for the popular opinion and (2) a more pragmatic argument - bad press can ultimately hurt our resale value down the road.

AMEN brother! This is exactly what I've been saying to friends and family. Thus far my car (09 Xrs) has proven to outperform my expectations. There has been a blacklisting going on with Toyota ever since the American auto's have become government run. Why Honda and the others have been excused is not clear. But to be back on point with the thread the corolla is a very satisfying car to drive. May time prove us out and Toyota reputation and resale value go back to where they should be.

 

[Zembonez]

I don't own a Civic or Corolla but I do have some recent experience with both of them.

My wife was recently wanting a new car to replace the 09 xB. We drove Civic and Accord... then Corolla and Camry (plus a bunch of others - all 4 cyl AT models for her). The Corolla and Civic we drove were more upscale versions but they offered very different driving impressions. The Civic was more precise and sporty in nature (but louder) and the Corolla was more geared toward softer ride and was quieter. Both drove very well... just different. Each proved to be smaller than we were after, so we ended up buying a 2010 Accord EX by a slim margin over the Camry because it also had a sportier feel Emily liked the styling better than the Camry. The Camry was much more "Buick Like" (not trying to offend) in ride quality. Much softer.

Everybody has to like something. My brother's 01 Corolla S is still cruising daily at 140K and going strong.

Just my .02

 

[BLiT]

...enthusiast magazines report on how cars feel, and I can assure you the Corolla doesn't "feel" peppy. Now, granted, the other day when I was practicing my launches it did surprise me a good bit, but still... I'd take a Civic over it if I had the option, simply because of the steering. That is the Corolla's #1 most-complained about problem: the dull-ass steering. Granted, with just a few modifications this can be greatly corrected, but try explaining that to the ricer boys and their Civics.

--EDIT--
...actually, I take that back. I'm not sure if I'd take the Civic over the Corolla anymore. =/

 

[Zembonez]

Well. Nobody here is going to argue that the Corolla is not dependable. I'd put it against just about anything else in that department. I believe that is why most people buy them. Reliable and fuel efficient cars FTW!

BTW. My 10 Accord is getting a solid 31 on the freeway. WIN!