Toyota Corolla Automatic at 2000 kms EDIT: Now at 20,000/1 year

[vasudeva]

US EPA has recently revised downwards FE stickers for all cars to be sold in the US for 2008 model year, The revised methods better represent current driving styles and conditions. The new methods—which apply to model year 2008 and later vehicles—include the city and highway tests used for previous models along with additional tests to represent:

• Faster Speeds and Acceleration
• Air Conditioner Use
• Colder Outside Temperatures

FE Estimates will also be adjusted downward to account for factors that are difficult to replicate in a laboratory, such as wind and road surface resistance.

According to revised ratings, Corolla manual goes down from 36 mpg (32/41 city/highway) to 31 (28/37). Civic manual goes down from 33 mpg (30/38) to 29 mpg (26/34). These figures are multiplied by 0.425 to get kmpl.

In automatics, Civic goes to 29 mpg (25/36). Corolla goes to 29 mpg (26/35).

[Wheeliej]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

. My last word about manuals: no matter how expensive the interiors and how comfortable the seats, if you drive yourself, buy an auto, and spare the constant chore of clutch shift and the resultant left leg fatigue. .[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]

I totally agree; my Honda City CVT is now almost 1 year old and I love the comfort that an AT offers.

[zakaaaaasss]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

Bad driving experience and bad FE is from Toyota and Honda sell mostly ATs in the US market, and their ATs are proven and successful. They are also class leaders in FE. If you are buying a car for your mother, why consider a manual at all. NHC CVT does give 13-14 kmpl and more, with proper driving (same holds for a manual as well). Toyota and Honda impose very liitle FE penalty for automatics.

absoultely correct !!!

i'm using NHC CVT since 2004 and beleive me never felt that buying CVT was a mistake...infact i feel proud of owning this the car with such a master piece of gear engineering....

consistently i get around 14 for city 'PUNE' driving and around 16-18 oh highways with 95% AC... for city drive the FE is almost the same that I get from my 7 year old Manual Matiz (hehhee they awarded Matiz as Worlds most fuel efficient car in 1998 with 32kmpl under test conditions)

[lamborghini]

Hey vasudeva,
nice report.
My father too is always like should we trade our corolla MT for the AT and i am always like NO!.
I guess the main reason is that the new corolla is going to be out soon.
But the fact is,
that once someone drives an AT in traffic, they love it and my dad is one case.
He was always like NO ATs but after the merc came into his life, he wants all cars to be AT's. It was the same case with some of his friends too, one of whom has only ATs in his line up except for one small car.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by Wheeliej

I totally agree; my Honda City CVT is now almost 1 year old and I love the comfort that an AT offers.

In fact when I was purchasing the Corolla, I also was quite keen on NHC CVT because of its price (I wanted a reliable, FE automatic which anyway made it only Toyota or Honda in the 8-13 lakh segment). No Skodas or diesels for my liking. I found NHC CVT to be a good car in city traffic with high FE, but Honda dealers in Delhi/Gurgaon totally turned me off. By comparison, Toyota dealers were nice and down to earth both pre- and post-sales, not saying a bad word about other cars/makers.

In Delhi, I met 3 Honda dealers-Ring Road (Gurgaon and CP), and Prime (Vaishali). In the course of my conversations, they found out about my existing car GM Opel Corsa, and all 3 made remarks as to GM's maintenance costs must be killing. That is simply not true as I can testify after 3.5 yrs of ownership. In fact, GM dealers are much more courteous and go the extra way because they are selling slow movers. Some Honda dealers in Delhi also have a habit of not calling back (if they are having lunch or something) when you first call. Of course when they know you are serious, they do call. But I had to write to Honda's web feedback for someone to finally answer my queries.

[appuchan]

Vasudeva,

I used to have an Automatic Corolla (see my profile picture) while in the US. My main gripe with Corolla was the high engine noise, especially when accelerating. I have not tried the Indian corolla. Does it also have the same issue?

While changing my car in 2004, I had a detailed comparison of Accord and Camry and finally settled for Camry. It felt more refined than Accord and I think the same holds good now seeing the sales figures.

Appu.

[vasudeva]

[quote=appuchan;427438]Vasudeva,

I used to have an Automatic Corolla (see my profile picture) while in the US. My main gripe with Corolla was the high engine noise, especially when accelerating. I have not tried the Indian corolla. Does it also have the same issue?

Since you stay in the US, your need for speed and ability to achieve that is higher than in India. I have not driven beyond 100 kmph in Corolla auto, and that speed the engine noise is not there. But yes some one on some website (some user) said that engine noise is high at around 140-150 kmph. However, it is not an issue at below 100 kmph, and I am not going to test it either at 140 kmph. What it definitely has is extremely low engine noise at practical Indian speeds (around 40-100 kmph). In fact I can from my own experience say that at low speeds you do not feel if the engine is on or not.

[appuchan]

Well, I live in Bangalore now. I was not talking about engine noise at high speeds. Btw, In US also you cant drive much above 65mph(~100kmph) in most places. I felt the engine noisy when the car is accelerated from a stationary position, say at signals. Under normal driving circumstances and cruising speeds, it appeared ok.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by appuchan

Well, I live in Bangalore now. I was not talking about engine noise at high speeds. Btw, In US also you cant drive much above 65mph(~100kmph) in most places. I felt the engine noisy when the car is accelerated from a stationary position, say at signals. Under normal driving circumstances and cruising speeds, it appeared ok.

I do not have a technical instrument that can measure decibels at various speeds and various roads. At any time, when accelerating, I do not press the throttle hard. I use a light foot on the automatic and let it accelerate on its own. With the 1.8 L engine, getting up to high speeds through a light foot is quick enough. In fact, my Opel Corsa also has very little road and engine noise at proper gear shifting and upto 100 kmph speeds. Everyone has their own preferences and my preference is for very little road and engine noise, and in fact that made me finally buy the Corolla. I would say that road and engine noise in Corolla is lesser than Corsa (Ok that is a flop car but a decent car with comfortable and silent ride). NHC CVT was more FE and cheaper, but I test drove it 3 times, and in my test drive car, the road noise was pronounced at above 60 kmph. It was like papers fluttering in high wind. I really cannot say that Corolla is silent at all speeds and on all road, because I am not technically qualified in that respect. But for my practical purposes, if driven with a light foot (which is anyway more FE), it is pretty noiseless upto 100 kmph. Have not tested it beyond 110 kmph.

[samirsarkar]

Originally Posted by Dippy

I agree with you vasudeva. And yes that makes two of us. I'm a short driver too.

For traffic conditions such as ours an AT is the best bet. The Toyota and Honda ATs are pretty quick. The Marutis used to have the old 3 speed tranny and on top of it they did not have the know how to deal with an auto tranny problem, surprising considering they are India's largest manufacturer.

A speed of 60 to 70 kph cosistenly at around 1500 to 1600 rpm gives good FE.

The key difference between a manual and an automatic transmission is that the manual transmission locks and unlocks different sets of gears to the output shaft to achieve the various gear ratios, while in an automatic transmission, the same set of gears produces all of the different gear ratios.
My reasons for preferring the manual over the automatic are :

1. In manual, you can feel your car. You ’’listen’’ to your engine and decide what gear to engage. This gives us a more personal connection to the car engine and we can shift gears/rev the car as per our needs. In automatic, there is a genie between you and the car’s engine.

2. In most manual cars, you can start the car from standstill while your engine is revving around 1500 RPM. In most automatics (even expensive ones), you’ll see that rev counter often touches 3000 RPM while moving. So, you waste more fuel. Moreover, unnecessary revving at high RPM reduces engine life. Also, cars are more difficult to control at high RPM range. Most automatics tend to rev engine high. In manual cars, you can always select correct gear to keep engine rev low, thus a pleasant drive.

3. Contrary to popular belief, Indian road conditions actually warrant the use of a manual for our day-to-day city driving unless we are doing the highway on most occasions. This is because automatics are really not meant for stop-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic and the auto transmission system in such a case is more likely to deteriorate with time thus hampering smooth acceleration in the long run. This is exactly why in the US most cars are automatics whereas in Europe (which has narrower & twisty roads and more stop-go traffic) most cars are manual.

4. It is much easier and less expensive to repair a manual gearbox than an automatic one.

Samir
--------------------------------------------------------------
Any clod can have an opinion....a logical one is a rarity.

[vasudeva]

Dear Mr. Sarkar.

I shall answer your issues as follows:

1. In manual, you can feel your car...engine.

That is a personal preference.

2. In most manual cars, you can start the car from standstill while your engine is revving around 1500 RPM. In most automatics (even expensive ones), you’ll see that rev counter often touches 3000 RPM while moving. So, you waste more fuel. Moreover, unnecessary revving at high RPM reduces engine life. Also, cars are more difficult to control at high RPM range. Most automatics tend to rev engine high. In manual cars, you can always select correct gear to keep engine rev low, thus a pleasant drive.

This is not the case at least in my Corolla auto. It is a 4speed auto (3+overdrive) and gears are auto shifted upwards/downwards before 2-2200 rpm. Of course, you can choose overdrive off (keep it off overdrive gear or waste more fuel), or 2 (keeps it only in 1st and 2nd gear). But the default at D drive is always efficient gear shifting at around 1500-2200 rpm. Only at overdrive, rpm can be increased with speed. At 90 kmph, rpm is 2000 rpm in auto. Thus, there is no need to check rpm before changing gears. Bottomline of all is my Corolla with auto AC gives around 11-11.5 kmpl now. Corolla manual gives 11.5-13 kmpl. Of course, there is a FE penalty in automatics but that is a tradeoff for less legaches, more driving comfort, less Brufen consumption, and not being worn out by Thursday (I drive around 350-400 kms per week)

3. Contrary to popular belief, Indian road conditions actually warrant the use of a manual for our day-to-day city driving unless we are doing the highway on most occasions. This is because automatics are really not meant for stop-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic and the auto transmission system in such a case is more likely to deteriorate with time thus hampering smooth acceleration in the long run. This is exactly why in the US most cars are automatics whereas in Europe (which has narrower & twisty roads and more stop-go traffic) most cars are manual.

Again automatics are in fact better in bumper to bumper traffic. Stop and go causes the most fatigue, and keeping it in D and neutral reduces that fatigue significantly and keeps blood pressure under control. Bumper to bumper reduces FE for both manual and automatic. My friend has a Corolla auto who drives in mainly city conditions with an average speed of 15 kmph at 10AM and 630PM. His Corolla auto is still giving around 9.5-10 kmpl.

4. It is much easier and less expensive to repair a manual gearbox than an automatic one.

That may be so in lesser quality automatics, but from my own feedback (from my sister and some relatives who own automatics here in India and US), that is not the case for Toyota. This is also testified by ConsumerReports, who have rated Corolla as excellent on reliability and maintenance for all model years from 1998 on transmission and drive system. Even Civic's transmission system has been rated as excellent for 2005-07, and much better than avge. for 1998-2004. Of course, there is more usage of brakes, but no clutch usage, but even that is not a major cost for Toyota.

In conclusion, I would say that automatics (esp. of Toyota and Honda) have only one penalty: that of FE which is also around 8-10%. No other major penalties. As compared with manuals, Automatics are considered to give higher times for 0-100 kmph but lower times for 20-100 kmph. I do not know how 0-100 kmph are calculated, but it could be by driving at the gear that results in higher rpm and higher torque, without consideration for FE. Practically for FE driving, both may give the same time. Toyota auto shifts automatically at FE rpm, and there is no time loss in manual shifting. Even if there is, Corolla and Civic autos are pretty fast: Corolla auto gives 0-60 mph in 9.8 secs, 45-65 mph in 6 secs, 0-30 mph in 3.7 secs. That may be lower than a manual, but I am not a race car driver and seconds count most when the road is empty and you are racing against a manual for kms on end. In practical situations, there is always someone in front of you, weaving and changing lanes, and in that situation, Corolla auto is very fast, and a light throttle push from standstill makes it run ahead of others pretty soon.

[vasudeva]

Dear Mr. samir, Refer my post no 16

US EPA has recently revised downwards FE stickers for all cars to be sold in the US for 2008 model year, The revised methods better represent current driving styles and conditions. The new methods—which apply to model year 2008 and later vehicles—include the city and highway tests used for previous models along with additional tests to represent Faster Speeds and Acceleration, air Conditioner Us, Colder Outside Temperatures. FE Estimates will also be adjusted downward to account for factors that are difficult to replicate in a laboratory, such as wind and road surface resistance.

According to revised ratings, Corolla manual gives FE of 31 (28 city/37 mpg). Civic manual gives 29 mpg (26/34). These figures are multiplied by 0.425 to get kmpl. In automatics, Civic goes to 29 mpg (25/36). Corolla goes to 29 mpg (26/35).

That is hardly a great penalty in FE (around 6-7% in city use). For India, figures are available from Autocar/Overdrive. I find Overdrive's figures (I do not know exact figures for Corolla but I think it is 7.9/14.3) more acuurate. Autocar gives Corolla auto as 7.7/11.2 but I find that totally ridiculous. I am achieving a 7-week average with auto AC of more than 11 kmpl with a high of 11.5 kmpl. My range is narrow at 10.8-11.5. In better traffic conditions (I face 4 bottlenecks that need 35 mins for 4 kms, but some will be cleared in 4-5 months), my FE could go up by 10%. In winters, I am confident of a bottom figure of around 12-12.25 kmpl with a best FE of around 13 kmpl.

[samirsarkar]

Hi Vasu,

I am not debating much on the FE here. I agree that the difference in FE between automatics and manual in today's age is not much if at all. All I intend to say is that due to the general design of the automatic transmissions, they tend to wear out the gears sooner in stop-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic and when that happens, the car doesn't perform as optimally as it used to, i.e. the gear changes are slow to take place, acceleration suffers and the vehicle seems to drag compared to the manual cars.
However, I agree that there is a fatigue component involved when driving in such traffic with a manual.

So, if you look at the comfort factor, I would definitely vote for the automatic but for more longevity of the gearbox, a manual gearshift is preferable in Indian traffic conditions. The Americans generally sell-off or trash their cars after around 4 years, so the question of longevity does not arise over there.

[HSV]

Actually, I'll have to agree with vasudeva on this one. Mainly because not everyone is a perfect driver. many a times I have seen that most of the people while driving a manual keep their foot on the clutch pedal, thereby suppressing it by 20-30% without noticing it. Now THAT actually wears out your clutch and pressure plates sooner reulting in replacement.

Therefore if one was to do an apples to apples comparison of the maintenance then you would actually end up paying more for the maintenance of a manual (if the clutch and pressure plate replacement cost was to hit you due to your driving style) as compared to that of an automatic.

[appuchan]

Does Corolla AT or Civic AT comes with cruise control?