Toyota Corolla review

My Chevy Tahoe is in the shop getting some of its "quality" issues addressed, so I have had a rental for the last couple days: a 2014 Toyota Corolla. Keep in mind that I am used to driving a Tahoe.

Exterior: fit and finish appears to be excellent. The doors, hood, and trunk all fit straight, no uneven gaps. The only real low point are the wheels, which have the fake plastic 'alloys'. They're also kind of small, which I guess is normal for this size of car.

It isn't a bad looking car, sleek and definitely not boxy. In some respects, it is almost too sleek, as It appears to compromise interior space a bit. The inside is a bit cramped. The windshield is very sloped, as is the rear window. The windshield starts way in front of the driver. The slope continues with the roofline almost to the B pillar. The effect makes it feel a bit tight, and when I get in/out I feel like I need to duck to avoid hitting my head. The A pillar reaches much further back toward the seat than I am used to, and also feels like it is curving in. It is much closer to me than I am used to , which makes the cabin space feel small. I am 6'2" with a 34" inseam. I had the seat all the way back, and need more room. I didn't have much headroom left either. When looking out the side window, I felt like I had to look under the roofline a bit. For driving around town it is ok, but I wouldn't want to do a long road trip.

I didn't sit in the back seat, but I wouldn't want to ride back there for long. They claim it seats 3, and there are 3 head rests. Good luck with that.

Went grocery shopping once, and to the range once. I was able to get all my stuff in the trunk, it seems adequate. You would not be able to get anything big and bulky in it though. The trunk opening is a bit narrow, and it isn't very deep.

Quality of materials used for the interior is excellent, and puts my Tahoe to shame. The cloth seats appeared to be excellent material, and should be far more durable than my last car with cloth seats (a '90 Chevy Lumina).

Seat adjustments are manual, everything else is power: doors, windows, mirrors, trunk, gas door. It has a touch screen in the dashboard that is used for a backup camera when in reverse, otherwise it displays settings for the stereo/climate control. It doesn't have a navigation system, it may be an option. The stereo has a usb connector, it looks like it has bluetooth connectivity for a smart phone. No start button, it has the classic key slot in the steering column. The steering wheel has all kinds of buttons and switches which I didn't bother to figure out.

Driving was actually better than I expected. It has a 1.8 inline 4, auto transmission. Around town, it was plenty peppy off the line. it is very aggressive about shifting into a high gear for fuel efficiency. If you need to accelerate, you really need to lead foot it to make it downshift, and it is kind of reluctant to do so. It doesn't really accelerate well unless you get it to 4-5000 rpm. It's only a 4 cylinder, so it isn't really all that smooth, but better than I expected. It is much less terrible than any GM 4 cylinder I have experienced, but not something I want to listen to on a long road trip. It had a high-pitched drone going on constantly in the background, which while not loud it, was annoying. It has a 150 mph speedo, which is probably optimistic. The tach has an 'eco' light that intermittently came on. I don't know what that meant. An admonishment? Congratulations? No idea.

Handling was ok, it felt nimble (compared to my Tahoe). I think it has electric steering, which was a bit numb but not completely terrible. At highway speed if felt ok, at low speed steering felt kind of vague and weird, way too much assist. It is better than the BMW 528 I test drove a year or so ago. In turns it actually self-centered, which the BMW didn't do correctly. Turning radius was pretty good. Driving down the road, the steering wheel was straight and didn't pull left or right, it tracked true.

Braking: Well, the car stopped.

Overall, while not the car for me (I'm too big), it is actually a pretty good car. It would be excellent for driving around town and commuting, but less good for long road trips. Engine has decent performance (for a 4 cylinder), but I'm not much interested in listening to it, has kind of a nasty drone to it. I am very impressed with the interior, especially for such an inexpensive car. A manual is available instead of the automatic transmission, which would avoid the lazy downshift issue.

For 2014 the Toyota Corolla is available with a CVT type transmission, which gives better mileage (according to the EPA) and should give better power and acceleration, as well.

I keep hoping to see a review like yours for a Corolla with the CVT. The older 'regular' 4 speed automatic transmission is still listed too. I'm guessing they will be phased out as soon as the supply of the older style transmissions is used up.

3 seats? Really? Not 4?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Arik said:

3 seats? Really? Not 4?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

3 in the back seat, total of 5.

Oh. Lol. Ok!! I'm thinking 3 total. Like 2 up front and 1 in the back!

I have a 2010 model and these have a 3spd auto with overdrive. That is really my main problem with the car. It would be peppier and better on gas with 1 more gear.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Arik said:

Oh. Lol. Ok!! I'm thinking 3 total. Like 2 up front and 1 in the back!

I have a 2010 model and these have a 3spd auto with overdrive. That is really my main problem with the car. It would be peppier and better on gas with 1 more gear.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I checked the specs, 132 hp, 128 lb-ft torque. I am actually surprised how well it takes off from the line, given those numbers. It is pretty light for these days (2800#). I suspect the first couple gear ratios are pretty low also.

1 person in the back is probably more realistic, sitting sideways. I don't see how 3 normal sized people could possibly fit back there. But since I don't have anyone to sit back there, that isn't much of a priority.

I don't see 3 but 2 I can see. I've driven with 3 friends long distance ( 2 hours) and everyone was fine.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You let -- pump -- that driver's seat down as far as it would go? I am 6'2", drive a small Toyota, and can wear my fedora when I drive.

I think little, light cars are just naturally noisy at highway speed, unfortunately.

Onomea said:

You let -- pump -- that driver's seat down as far as it would go? I am 6'2", drive a small Toyota, and can wear my fedora when I drive.

Click to expand...

The rental 2013 Corolla I drove recently had the pump up/down seat height adjuster.

IIRC Toyota still sell the basic Corolla with the 4-speed auto. Loos leader/rental special I am guessing.

I think little, light cars are just naturally noisy at highway speed, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

True, but they are still WAY quieter than nearly everything made 15 years ago. Body rigidity in the quest of better handling and tougher safety standards helps refinement, although it does add lard to all cars. I shake my head when somebody calls 2800 lbs "light". The other thing is that the latest Corolla is HUGE compare to the 2000 model. Cars keep growing. I'm sure the current Civic is bigger than the '78 Accord my dad owned, and maybe bigger than the '82 model.

Did a little more research. This car is an LE model, which supposedly does have the CVT. The 4 speed auto is only on the L model.

I've never driven a CVT before, so I don't know how it is supposed to behave. This one behaved just like a regular auto transmission.

Idles at a little over 1000 rpm, hit the gas and it revs, and depending on how lead footed I am shifts at around 6000 rpm or so.

I thought a CVT was supposed to keep the engine rpm in a certain range and vary the gear ratios instead? This didn't do that.

I don't know if the seat has a height adjustment, I just played with the fore/aft adjustment. I don't really want to lower the seat, as that makes the legroom a bit more cramped.

2800 isn't really a light, hence my qualifier of "these days...". For the size of the car, I am surprised it is that heavy. It has grown, but it is still a pretty small car, just not micro-sized.

It appears to have airbags everywhere, but I guess that is normal now. My Tahoe only has 2 (driver and passenger). The Corolla has them everywhere - dashboard, steering wheel, pillars, sides, etc. I think it has 8 total.

Good reliable car. 80% ever built are still running.

My last two cars have been Corollas and I am very impressed with them. I had been driving GM cars and they seemed to be in the shop for one thing or another quite often. Not so, the Toyota.

I really like the cars and think they represent remarkable value.

But I'm just 5' 10 " and about 165 lbs., so I don't have the size issues that John Galt does. My son is at least six feet with long legs and he fits in okay. He's driven my cars.

Brakes better than John said. I once had to hit the brakes very hard when a nurse who'd gone to sleep at the wheel of a big Mercedes after a 12-hour shift blew through a red light and I had to stand on the Corolla's brakes to avoid being T-boned at an intersection. If I hadn't had excellent peripheral vision and quick reactions, I'd be dead now.

Close? Well, she was going about 50-60 MPH and she left paint from the side of her car on my bumper! Thank God for good Toyota brakes!

The ceiling covering eventually rotted and came loose, but the car was about 15 years old by then and I'd spent a lot of nights in it, surveilling protective clients and property in a security job. It was more exposed to night weather than most are.

Overall, I give the Corolla high marks. If you don't have passengers often, other than a wife or date, and don't take long trips with a lot of luggage, and you aren't a large person, you'll probably like this car.

I compared it to a Honda Civic before buying my first Corolla and felt the Toyota offered more for the money and repairs were cheaper, when needed. The Honda had a more Spartan interior, was smaller and didn't handle as smoothly. And the Honda salesman had his nose in the air, like he was selling Rolls-Royces. Actually, I suspect that you look well off, you'd usually get more friendly treatment at a Rolls dealership.

I do like the way the controls are laid out. They feel very natural to me.The only negative is that the car has limited power, a handicap when passing or dodging danger. But if you drive carefully, it usually won't be a factor, and it does save on fuel. It just won't take off from the launch pad at Mach 3 like my son's hyped-up Audi...Whoever redid the engine on that one probably used to work for NASA. The son and his wife do have P/U trucks for heavier loads. Like a deer in the back or when driving rutted semi paths on their rural land. (Not where they live.)

John, thanks for a great, useful review of a very nice little car. I'd buy another in a flash. Actually, I probably wouldn't even shop for other brands or models, unless I was maybe stepping up to a Camry.

Texas Star said:

John, thanks for a great, useful review of a very nice little car. I'd buy another in a flash. Actually, I probably wouldn't even shop for other brands or models, unless I was maybe stepping up to a Camry.

Click to expand...

Glad you found it useful.

I wasn't really criticizing the brakes, I just didn't do anything to test them. Nothing stood out to me as being particularly good or bad about them, they just worked. But then I am used to GM brakes, which in general are the bare minimum necessary to stop the car. Braking distances should be measured in zip codes. My first car was a '90 Lumina, with the infamous rear discs. The calipers would freeze up, so they didn't work and forced the front brakes to do all the work, eventually causing all kinds of problems there too.

I've only had it for 3 days now, so I can't comment on reliability or fuel consumption.

The car does seem to be a lot of value for the money, it just isn't for me. Primarily because it is too small for me to fit comfortably for long trips and the 4 cylinder engine.

My brother travels a lot and rents lots of cars. He tells me the Ford Fusion is about the nicest he has had.

johngalt said:

Glad you found it useful.

I wasn't really criticizing the brakes, I just didn't do anything to test them. Nothing stood out to me as being particularly good or bad about them, they just worked. But then I am used to GM brakes, which in general are the bare minimum necessary to stop the car. Braking distances should be measured in zip codes. My first car was a '90 Lumina, with the infamous rear discs. The calipers would freeze up, so they didn't work and forced the front brakes to do all the work, eventually causing all kinds of problems there too.

I've only had it for 3 days now, so I can't comment on reliability or fuel consumption.

The car does seem to be a lot of value for the money, it just isn't for me. Primarily because it is too small for me to fit comfortably for long trips and the 4 cylinder engine.

My brother travels a lot and rents lots of cars. He tells me the Ford Fusion is about the nicest he has had.

Click to expand...

My brother and my daughter like their Fusions.

toyota corolla

Had a 2000 model
Drove it 250,000
Never any problems
Put brakes on it 2 times
Wore out 8 sets of tires
Never needed to have rotors turned once

Daughter has one now 2012 model
Best thing to VW Beetle

Not a flashy car

Just basic

like a 5906 or Colt 1911 or S W K model
Put ammo in, pull trigger-bang
Put gas in, go

Just gets the job done

Glad you all liked the car, it is a good car but hopefully you wont be involved in a crash with one. Like any compact car, expect it to be hit hard.

Close the doors three or four times and them do that with a Chevy Cruze or similar model. The Chevy and Ford doors feel and sound solid. The Honda and Toyotas door feel light and sound tinny.

Not trying to poo poo the above comments, just my opinion.

Have an update to the review, I was planning only having the car for a few days, but I had to drive home and my Tahoe wasn't ready. I did a one way rental and dropped it off here.

The trip was about 230 miles. Some things were good, others not so good. Power was good, I had no trouble cruising at 75-80 mph. It was very windy, it felt like the car was being blown around, worse than my Tahoe. That surprised me, since the Tahoe has so much more surface area. But it is also 2000# heavier.

I couldn't get the cruise control to work. I didn't bother reading the manual, but I thought the controls were self explanatory. The controls are on a stalk on the right side of the steering wheel. Push a button in the end to set the speed, toggle up to increase/resume, toggle down to decrease. When I pushed the button to set the speed, an indicator lit up on the dashboard, but the speed wasn't set - the car decelerated when I took my foot off the gas. So either it didn't work or the controls are not intuitive.

Comfort was acceptable, but not as good as my Tahoe.

Radio is ok, but I didn't really use it much. I plugged my iPod into the AUX jack. Sound through the aux jack is different than the radio - much more booming bass that tended to drown out the higher ranges. It's possible that each source has different equalizer settings, and the aux settings were off, but I didn't investigate.

Fuel efficiency was better than my Tahoe, but not up to advertised numbers. I averaged 30.9 mpg for the trip (filled up just before and after arriving). Toyota claims 38, but I was also in lots of wind and did 75-80 for most of the way.

Toyota cruise controls work as follows. Push the switch at the end to arm the system. Push again to disarm it. Once armed, toggle down to initially set speed or reduce speed one it is engaged. Toggle up to increase speed. Pull towards you, like flash to pass, to disengage the cruise speed but keep the system armed. It was like that on my late wife's Sienna van and on the last Corolla rental I drove.

Toyota does not claim 38, it's what the car achieved using the EPA Highway test method. That method does not include regular cruising at 75 mph or more, nor does it make any allowance for headwinds. I killed the gas mileage on a Nissan Versa and a Corolla making the same trip because on both days I had heavy headwinds. The Versa just made 30 mpg and the Corolla didn't. Oh, and also climbed from 2400' to over 6000'. Both cars achieved about 40 mpg on the return trips as it was downhill and the wind had dropped.