similar accessories included... corolla has 130 hp and runs at almost 40mpg on highway.

 

That's true, but here are a few things to consider. The Corolla is kinda bland and boring unless you get the "S" model, but then you're priced way above the xA. The Corolla is not a hatch, therefore it suffers a bit in the usability department. And lastly, I don't care for the driving position in the Corolla. I can't quite explain it, but when I drove the Corolla (had one for 4 days as a loaner while my xA was on order) I didn't like the steering wheel position in relation to the seat and stuff. I tried ajusting it several ways, but nothing helped. In my opinion, the xA is much sportier, and more comfortable. Not to mention less expensive.

 

Not surprising. Detroit figured out a some time ago that small engine doesn't always equal high fuel mileage. A new Corvette even gets impressive fuel mileage on the highway.

Tiny 1.5 liters roaring along at 4000 rpm on the highway just get "OK" mileage. Not much better than many V6 sedans actually.

Unfortunately Americans aren't so open to diesels, otherwise a small diesel would be perfect. A bigger engine like the Corolla's 1ZZ-FE simply won't fit in these cars without extensive modifications to the design. A hybrid powerplant would be too expensive and hybrids don't even deliver on their promises.

Lowering the final drive ratio on these cars would make them more relaxed at highway speeds, but they would also feel pretty gutless.

Some have suggested a 6 speed. That might be nice, but it is not cost effective for Toyota to develop a new 6 speed for a $13k car that they did everything in the world to keep a low price on. Toyota didn't even build models or test mules of the xB/xA to keep costs down so they could sell them at a very low price.

So I think Toyota did the best they could under the circumstances.

Those of us who pay attention to fuel mileage, and especially those of us who've owned diesel cars, know that high strung little motors rarely deliver high fuel mileage. My friends all marvel at my 30-31 mpg where I find it just barely acceptable. I'm coming out of a VW Jetta TDI diesel that REGULARLY got 47-50 mpg no matter how I drove.

It's just a fools pipe dream, but I wish Toyota could have somehow offered the 1.4 D4-D diesel with these cars. We'd have similar acceleration, 144 lbft of torque and easily 55-60 mpg with no hybrid BS complication and the 1.4 drops RIGHT IN to these cars because it's designed for this platform!

Oh well...

Corolla's are nice. I thought of getting one except there was no wagon version (except the funky Pontiac designed Matrix) and I found the Corolla's handling just so-so and the seats were softer and less supportive than a bean bag chair.

That was before the Corolla XRS though. That one might have caught my eye...maybe...

 

I got a Corolla S rental right now since my box got rear ended.

The power difference is very noticeable, and the Rolla rides sooo much smoother than my box (i got stock wheels/springs). If the xA rides anything similar to the xB, then the corolla definitely outperforms.

I love how the gauges in the xA/xB are in the center, and it sucks having to go back to the gauge cluster in front of the steering wheel.

Some other minor things... the Rolla has an outside temp gauge under the speed gauge, and two map lights in the rear view which is cool. Also, the A/C is a LOT better in the Corolla.

I think the stock system in the xA/xB is a lot better. I upgraded everything in my box, but I remember that the stock system sounded damn good. The Corolla is about average.

BUT, the corolla is so common and boring as far as looks. In the coolness department, xA's and xB's own.

 

Having driven Corollas for 9 years and beign a fan of the xA, I just thought I'd weigh in briefly. In terms of price, I think the xA wins hands-down, at least if you look at any type of comparable option package on the Corolla. The xA is significantly smaller, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your outlook; however, the xA probably has more usable space, except in the back seat. I disagree with the assessment that the xA is sportier, but I think this is entirely a matter of personal opinion since neither car is very sporty at all. Like someone else said, if you are talking about the XRS, it's not even a valid comparison to the xA anymore. The standard model Corolla is obviously going to be a little quicker than the xA.

I think that it would be hard to go wrong with either one -- if you like the xA and are comfortable with its limitations, then you're going to save a bunch of money over the Corolla. On the other hand, the Corolla has a proven track record of reliability that is hard (if not impossible) to match, period.

 

Quick, somewhat related question. The XRS has 180 HP, and somwherer around 125 Torque.
Which, HP or Torque, is better to have more of?
Isn't torque, what gets the car moving, so wouldn't that be what would make it faster? Or something?

 

$14,825 for an S vs $13,045 for an xA


Rear Spoiler for xA $385
Fog Lights for xA $350

 

I also had a Corolla for a few days while my xB was in the shop. I've also driven an xA for a few days. As much as I love my xB, I was really impressed by the Corolla (LE trim). While I agree that the Corolla lacks the bold styling that both the xA and xB offer, the interior just seemed so clean, with an understated elegance - enhanced especially by the faux wood trim. Acceleration, handling and ride were also much more impressive than either of the Scions in my opinion. My only problem with the Corolla was the interior room as it just can't compare to the xA or xB in terms of comfort - I'm 6'4" and I'm so much more comfortable driving the two.

As far as styling goes, I think that a 5spd, TRD-dropped Corolla LE (if TRD offers performance suspension components for it - I didn't check) with some 18" luxury-ish rims and tires (and maybe a brairwood Momo ****) would look great. Of course I realize that as far as sticker price goes that would put the Corolla near $20k which would really put it in a different price demgraphic than the xA targets. But since so many people mod their xA's anyway...

Truth be told, I really like all three, the xA, the xB and the Corolla - I don't think you can go wrong...if bold styling is what you're after certainly stick with the Scion line, but all in all I think the Corolla deserves serious consideration. I was really impressed - and who knows, had I driven one before I bought my box, maybe I would be driving one now....but that's a big maybe ;)

 

There is an old saying that goes something like this ..."People buy horsepower but they drive torque."

This is a very true statement. Torque is what gets the car going. Horsepower is what keeps a car going. The thing that amazes me is that someone will drop a wad of cash on an Acura because it has 260 HP but the RPM required to make that kind of power is well out of the typical driving range.

Consider a high strung gasoline engine. (XRS, or similar) It makes impressive HP numbers at screaming RPM but has relatively low torque - and the torque also comes in at a pretty high RPM. Compare that to a TDI which has amazing low end torque but modest HP in comparison. The TDI will get better fuel economy and will feel a lot quicker in around town driving because it is the torque that you feel in stop and go traffic. Also, in a TDI, when you hit a long uphill grade while cruising along you are already at the lower RPMs where the meat of the torque is available. Translation, you don't have to downshift to make it up the hill. Compare that to the high strung gasoline engine where you have to down shift to get the RPM's to the range where the torque is best.

Ideally, a Toyota based TDI hybrid would be awesome in an xA or xB. Imagine getting the benefits of both a hybrid system and TDI. Phenominal low end torque is available in both electric and diesel engines and the combined power would make it a lot of fun to drive. Tack onto that fuel economy in the 50+mpg range and you have a great vehicle. I wouldn't mind the extra weight of the hybrid system if it meant getting 500+ miles per tank of gas. And if the hybrid system is out of the question, at least offer the TDI. The torque would be better than in the current vehicle and you would barely notice the difference in HP. The increased fuel economy would be a big plus as well.

 

That's a complicated question to which there is a complicated question. Fans of either side will argue their side. But the facts depend on the application of the engine (intended use) and the gearing.

HP=power (energy/time)
lb/ft=torque=force

A good analogy would be a bicyclist. Imagine a really strong guy, who could push really really hard. He'd drop the bike into high gear, push real hard, and smoke the tires.

Imagine a really skinny guy on speed. He'd spin those pedals as fast as sound (in high gear), but put him on a hill, and he'll be goin real slow. More clearly defined, energy is the amount of work you can do in a specific amount of time. Can you spin those gears 20 times a minute or 200? I'm not really talkin revs persay, but output.

In real life, it is a combination of both energy and torque which result in acceleration. You won't see 15L engines running 1/4 miles, but you'll see em hauling tons and tons of cargo up steep grades. And you won't see a tweaked out Ferrari hauling a speed boat. And even so, torque is still necessary in every application, as is power. Personally I believe that a balanced approach is ideal for everyday use. . . but it all depends on the application.

 

Have you actually gone in to the Toyota website and tried to "Build Your Own" Corolla S? I have, and if I choose standard 5-speed with NO options at all, I can't get it for less than $16,335. I paid $12,995 for my xA.

 

big_guy, djct_watt thanks for the info. I was very educational.

 

Simple answer: Torque, because that is what you'll use the most unless you only drive on the highway and race tracks.

A car with 180 lbft of torque and 125 hp would FEEL alot more responsive in around town driving and jump off the line, but run out of steam quickly at the higher RPMs/speeds. For example the top speed wouldnt be that high and the 0-60 would be modest.

A car with 180hp and 125 lbft of torque wil actually GO faster and kick the crap out of the other car in acceleration, but you will have to wind the engine up to get it there. It won't feel like it has a huge wallop of thrust from the get-go, but as it revs up it would gain speed quickly as the RPMS climbed.

Sport motorcycles have lots of horsepower.
Diesel pickups have lots of torque.

Make sense?

Actually, Toyota retuned the Corolla XRS engine for that very reason. It has 170 hp vs. 180 for the XRS Matrix and Celica and it has a bit more torque to make it more friendly for light to light driving.

 

It should be Corolla XRS VS Scion tC that's more of a match up NOT Corolla and Xa. we are talking too much of a difference, at least match up cars that are some what similiar in some kind of way

 

actually, motorcycles do have a lot of torque. . . it's not even that they have a lot of horsepower. They have both high torque to weight and high power to weight ratios. . . the reason why they are fast isn't because they have extreme amounts of HP in regards to torque, but because they are light.

Gearing also makes a big difference. High displacement motors rely on torque to achieve top speed (ie the Corvette). They rev rather slowly, and achieve top speed where torque is maximized on the powerband and they push endlessly against the wind resistance, rather than bouncing off a redline (unless there is a limiter). . . just look it up. Motorcycles and many Japanese/european sports cars are gear limited, ie my unrestriced 1990 LS400. You'll hear the engine bouncing off the rev limiter, as the engine cannot possibly spin any faster (utilizing HP). But in general, without the use of gears, hp is more effective at attaining high speeds, and torque is more effective at acceleration. But with the use of gears, anything is possible.

 

Imagine a really fast ninja guy pulling weight up with a pulley, vs a really strong slow guy pulling the weight by hand. In good sports, you don't want to be so strong you restrict your movement, yet not so weak as to not be able to apply force. Balance is key.

 

I know this is Corolla vs xA and not xB, but...I have always loved Corollas and my decision came down to Corolla vs xB...and I have to agree with Matt...when I was shopping them I priced out a comparably equipped LE...

Model:

LE 4-Speed Automatic Transmission (1822) $15,790

Delivery, Handling and Processing Fee:** $540

Options: $1,165
50 state emissions, Driver & passenger side airbags, Jbl value package includes: JBL AM/FM/Cass/In-Dash CD Changer w/6 Speakers and Cruise Control

Accessories: $244
Cargo mat (C1) $58
Carpet floor mats (4pc. set) (CF) $87
Emergency assistance kit (7R) $70
First aid kit (3Z) $29

Total MSRP:*** $17,739

Granted I don't have cruise but the difference between this and my $15,115 xB is $2,624....

As far as performance, MPG, etc...

Corolla LE Auto 130 HP/125 TQ 2615 lbs 31/38 mpg
xB Auto 108 HP/105 TQ 2450 lbs 31/35 mpg

The Corolla is a great car and exceptional value......but I'm very happy with my box

Edit: Added MPG info

 

I like what Lotus did with the 1.8L engine from Toyota. 190 HP, 138 ft-lbs of torque and they still get 23 mpg city and 27 mpg hwy. Strap that motor along with the 6-speed transmission into a 1975 lb chassis and BOOM, you can hit 0-60 in under 5 seconds. (The Lotus Elise would be a really fun car to toss around :D )

 

elise rocks. now there's an elise sport 240R that has a supercharged 2ZZ.. 240HP

my parents 04 came up to 17K somethin and we offerend 14 on it anyway and they took it so..

 

Actually, I didn't write that. But thanks for the credit. Makes it seem as if I actually know something!

Looks like this became a HP vs Torque thread. My bad.