Toyota Corollas are boring!

In the words of Edmunds.com "The Corolla makes for comfortable and pleasant transportation. Despite Toyota's hype that the car is more exciting than before, it still offers little inspiration, even in S trim."

If you are looking for "comfortable and pleasant transportation" (read boring) then a Corolla sounds like the car for you.

I realize that this is in the engine/drivetrain section, but as you’re doing a comparison - IMHO small cars are all about handling. Toyota went and changed the rear suspension of the Corolla to a non-independent torsion-beam design. This is a big step back in the suspension department. Perhaps better for ride comfort, but I want a car that handles! The Protegé’s handling blows away all the other cars in its class. The Protegé is a drivers car – the Corolla is not.

The reason that Protegés get mediocre gas mileage is (in part) because they are geared low. This is the same thing that makes them feel quick. After all, in 5th gear at 70mph the engine is at 3500rpm.

As a direct comparison, the Protegé delivers 135 ft/lbs torque at 4000rpm compared to the Corolla's 125 ft/lbs at 4200rpm. Horsepower is great on a race track, but more torque at lower rpms is more useful in day to day driving - because this also means more horsepower at lower rpms.

Remember: Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252

This means that horsepower is an arbitrary number based on Torque at a given RPM. The Corolla only delivers 130hp at 6000rpm because it delivers peak torque at a higher rpm

(If you want to better understand how Horsepower relates to Torque, post and I will email you a very informative explanation)

As far as aesthetics go, the Protegé wins hands down! It is MUCH better looking on the outside and comes with a more upscale feeling interior too. Hell, my car has leather from the factory. How many Corollas can say that? Every person who has gotten in my car has been blown away by the upscale feel and quality of the interior. I had a Corolla for a rental car a couple months back and it looks and feels like what it is - an economy car.

A note on cast iron vs. aluminum engine blocks: The industry is going toward Aluminum blocks, but the Aluminum block is not yet perfect. Cast iron blocks are still more durable - not to mention that Aluminum blocks still need cast-iron cylinder liners. This is straight from the automotive aluminum association: “Despite advances in aluminum engines, they still cannot withstand overheating, contaminated oil or dirty coolant the way cast-iron blocks can,” says Bill Whitney, president of Prestige Engine Co., a Dallas specialist in remanufacturing aluminum-block engines.
"They are definitely subject to premature failure," he says. "Aluminum-block engines are subject to blown intake and exhaust gaskets. They are the weak links in the chain."

Take this for what it’s worth. (sorry this post is so long)

 

M3's, along with an iron block, use BMW's Double Vanos system which steplessly varies valve timing and duration. The block is not much different than previous (E36 etc...) M3's. The head is all new and very advanced. Using the fact that the M3 has a iron block does not mean that all engines using iron blocks are technologically advanced or just as efficient or anything. The block composition itself has little to do with the efficiency of the engine. aluminum blocked engines use iron sleeves so the moving parts are rubbing on the same element. Toyota's zz's are newer, and more advanced as far as Technology. I believe the 1.8 in the Corolla and Corolla S are VVTL-i's which is their answer to V-Tec. The FS enignes have been around for over a decade. It is an old engine. Thats it.

 

Sorry guys! It was my fault to draw some of you into argument. It was my fault to mention just the Corolla as an example. I should have also mentioned other cars that doesn't use 2.0 engine but gives out 130hp.
I was just intended to ask why use the 2.0 engine but with the same hp as other smaller engines.
Now I have driven another argument about Protege better or Corolla.

Once again, for what it's worth, I am sorry!

 

Not a problem...

As mentioned above, money is most likely the issue. It is an extremely expensive endeavor to engineer and produce newer engines. Mazda kept the car competitive in terms of power and efficiency. It is a little heavier and bigger. In all the comparisons with the compact cars featuring Protege's, they always remained competitive with acceleration and engine noise and gas mileage. It wasn't the best in any or the shittiest. Mazda figured there was no need to spend all the money on the engine when it was performing competively and wasn't hurting sales.

 

what did i miss?

 

No, not quite. In the U.S., the premium engine will be the 3.0L 220 hp V-6. The 2.3L (not 2.4L) MZR 4-cylinder will be the base engine. AFAIK no other engines will be offered in the 6 in the U.S. I've read that Mazda is producing smaller variants of the MZR; I suspect that the 6 may get the smaller engines in fuel-concious areas of the world like Europe, but I doubt we'll ever see those engines in the U.S.

 

Hey dork ...read my post...I said Mazda 3, not Mazda 6

 

Hey, where'd you get the info on the Maz3? Are you an insider?

 

I think I said like a million times I work for Ford,Mazda's Parent company ....I know for a fact the 2.3L(I said 2.4 by mistake b4) is going to be the premium engine,as in ES model,or probably like the 6 s or i model...so maybe the 2.0L FS-DE engine will remain as the lower engine??? who knows..

 

Someone mentioned people use iron blocks because they are cheaper, which isn't always the case. Iron and steel are roughly four times cheaper per pound than aluminum but aluminum has a SG of only 2.7 while CI is about 7.1. When all is said and done, the CI is not much cheaper. And lest us forget about how much cheaper it is to machine aluminum, both in tooling and feedrates. Lot's of times when we design equipment we go to aluminum for cost measures, so don't make the blanket statement that Al is always the bomb, your aluminum block could be a cost cutting measure, not a performance boosting design.

 

It seems I’ve been misunderstood, even though I explained what I meant in my last post. Here’s how I defined inherently more efficient: All other things being equal, aluminum engines are more efficient. Why? Because they’re lighter. I didn’t say anything else about aluminum having any other endearing, magical characteristics. That’s obvious and shouldn’t even have to be questioned. So, to synopsize:

1. The FS-DE is comparatively inefficient because it’s block is made of cast iron, and it has no variable valve timing whatsoever. (I'm also long aware that all aluminum engines have iron sleeves lining the combustion chambers-- Aluminum alone could never handle the stresses in there)
2. ALL major Japanese auto makers are going to aluminum engines. Why? Because, like I said, they’re more efficient (because of weight). They’re also making use of variable valve timing. All of this supports my standpoint that the FS-DE is outdated and we’d be better off with a more modern engine in the Protégé.
3. I never said anything about aluminum engines being flat out better in terms of strength, although I did say I don’t believe it makes that much of a difference (and should have added, “for average drivers”). For ricers/racers? Maybe, but not most people.
4. Again, I never said anything about aluminum engines being better in terms of strength or other efficiency characteristics (but they might still exist).
5. I said aluminum is inherently more efficient. Then I further clarified what I meant in using the word “inherent”. (refer to definition in previous post)
6. No one seemed to get that.
7. Although unintended on my part, people have become enraged and seemingly driven by emotion rather than sensible discussion, resorting to name calling and questioning of one’s intelligence-- This is ill advised.

I am self admittedly very demanding. I’ve said that many-a times. Based thereon I’m passionate about my dissatisfactions, and I don’t hide them. When such things come to play however, I quite should take better note that this forum is populated by individuals who love their cars and take offense to criticisms. To that effect, I entirely understand the possible labeling of Troll, which hasn’t ever been my true intention, and I respect, TheMan, leungwingkei, etc., that your sensibilities are stirred. To that I totally apologize, respectfully.
I still maintain, however, that there’s a reason aluminum is increasingly being used by auto makers, thus supporting my standpoint. There’s a reason variable valve timing is indeed inherently better. And, to this comment, which is totally accurate:

************************
The BP is an iron block, still used... inefficient? suuuuree
The KA24 is an iron block, was used... inefficient? riiiight
The 3S-GE... inefficient you say?
As for 6 bangers... RB25DE... 2JZ-GE inefficient my ***!
************************

I never said any of these engines are inefficient. What I said was that if you put in an aluminum engine with everything else being the same, then, yes, the aluminum engine would be more efficient (as in, it would use less fuel). Why? Because it’s lighter. That’s all I meant, folks, and I even further defined what I meant by using the word “Inherent” (defined as weight, per above).

We could get into theoretical discussions about thermodynamics of aluminum vs. iron, which surely is a neglected factor in efficiency, but that’s another interesting issue digressing from my original contention that that new Corolla’s engine is better because it’s aluminum (lighter) and has variable valve timing, and that, comparatively speaking, the FS-DE is outdated based thereon, and that the Protégé would be a better, more refined car if it had a more modern engine.

Anyway, I certainly don’t wish to be banned, and will temper my comments to more sympathetic ears (eyes, more like it!). To be sure, positive commentary is always better received-- In pretty much all areas of life. I’m not backing off of what I said, but I am admitting I should have presented it more lightly, perhaps. And I also apologize for pissing people off. This has always been a useful, mostly civil forum and I’ve appreciated its value with great merit.

I’ll now close (and hence, shut up!) with positive commentary on the Protégé:

*We all know it looks awesome. I fact, I believe it’s the sharpest small car on the market, hands down.
*Protégé handles with aplomb.
*Braking is excellent (and will be a lot better for me when my front brakes are repaired tomorrow morning under warranty)
*Despite my comparative complaints, Protégé still is pretty good in fuel economy (especially in contrast to friggin’ SUV trends; those things being a whoooole other area I love to whine about), and fuel economy is of particular, critical importance these days, for multiple reasons: Dependence of volatile foreign oil, environmental stewardship, etc..
*The interior of Protégé is made of high quality materials, with satisfying, “grippy” textures. That’s very cool.
*Protégé incorporates excellent safety features, and Mazda offers them for less cost than other auto makers like Honda and Toyota. I personally have always been thankful I drive a car that has 4 wheel disc ABS with EBD, driver/passenger/side airbags, and seat belt pretensioners/force limiters. Most of us have seen posts from fellow forum members about people being direly hurt or even killed in accidents. I content that we all have a lot to live for and safety is important.
*Has appearance yet been mentioned? Protégé looks awesome.

I now commenceth with shutting up!

 

whoa he backpeddling so fast he may just fall over!!

 

Must be in Public Relations...

Anywho, the efficiencies of an aluminum block (which is better thermally) could possibly be a by-product, not a design feature. As I was yapping about before, carmakers aren't idiots, they will try to achieve a balance of performance of cost, and they do a good job of it. Let's say all these Japanese car makers figured out that they could produce their blocks cheaper out of Al (hell I don't know for sure, but I suspect), that's why they make the switch. As a bonus, they have some weight reduction and some marketing ammo. They also have more R&D to do though, as Aluminum (especially cast) is hella weak, and so they have to fix the problems with it.

Summarize: car makers might not have switched to Al b/c of performance, could be b/c of cost.

 

But Pseudo, 2.5 times as much material in a honda block? Cuz that's how much denser iron is to Al.

And that's gas mileage thing doesn't sit well with me....when you are cruising at highway speeds you are constanting accelerating (kind of) to fight against wind and rolling resistance (which also increases with weight). Since you are pushing this heavier iron vehicle, it takes more energy to initially accelerate it and also to keep it going. Think about road race bikes, they love going the same speed; if what you said was true, they would want depleted uranium bikes, instead of ultralight composites. You should apologize to Protegemaster and Isaac Newton for bringing inertia into this.

I personally would prefer an aluminum block over an iron one.

 

For what its worth, i understood the original comment from the "hated one" that aluminum is lighter than iron and therefore, more than likely, would provide better fuel economy.

I think he was pretty clear in stating thats all he meant.

Yes, you could use less iron because its stronger to get the same strentgh as aluminum, but wouldnt the aluminum still be lighter?

I dont know. Aluminum does disapate heat faster than iron, promoting faster warmups which also promote better fuel economy.

And it does seem that Hondas have higher fuel mileage ratings than other makes, and if they are using aluminum engines, is it a factor why?