Does the 2009 Corolla get lower mileage than 2008 model?
Toyota introduced the 2009 Corolla at SEMA Wednesday. According to the LA Times, the car is 140 pounds heaver, two inches wider and "will show little to no improvement in fuel economy, and maybe even a small drop for some versions of the car." Edmunds however says it "has made some substantial improvements in ... fuel economy." The LA Times article quotes a spokesperson saying that the fuel efficiency is already quite good, the numbers are not official but should be "a little less." USA Today says "fuel economy should be about the same."
So which is it; better, worse or the same? Mike Michels, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales USA, says "It's putting out more power and has better fuel economy than it's predecessor. ... But if you look at the outgoing Corolla, those numbers will look higher. It's because the EPA changed the rating method." Okay, so maybe everyone is confused because the numbers changed... but wasn't the transition from 2007 to 2008? I am getting confused now.
I will just compare the company press release to the EPA site data. The press release says 27/35 mpg. The EPA site says... it has two numbers. Wonderful. The automatic has lower mileage so if they meant that one, it's higher but if they mean the manual, then it's lower. I think they meant the
[Source: LA Times, Edmunds, USA Today, International Herald Tribune]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mike 4:54PM (11/01/2007)
Does the Oil Industry own 42% of Toyota too?
- More Horsepower? On Heavily Congested Roads, Arctic Ics cap melt at 25%+, Higher Fuel Prices, Fuel shortages in China? And the auto industry is still Shoving More Horsepower( to suck gas ) down our throats.
Reply
steven 5:08PM (11/01/2007)
No no, no!, Everyone knows Toyota is owned by a consortium made up of the saucer people and small group of reverse vampires. You should also keep in mind that the oil companies have already figured out that if the polar ice caps melt, all their offshore rigs will be under water, so they have a vested interest to stop global warming.
Reply
Snowdog 5:12PM (11/01/2007)
I was looking at the matrix numbers. Which was a car I would consider because it had a lot of room functionality with good fuel econ.
So I checked, the new model has less fuel economy by a small amount, which is not good these days.
2007: Old rating 30/36 mpg
2007: New rating 26/33 mpg
2009: new model 26/32 mpg. Real drop of 1MPG.
So really it is about the same. It did actually drop about 1mpg that had nothing to do with the rating change.
So it is BS at least on the Matrix side that it has better fuel economy. Not to mention that last year there was only an economical engine, now there is a guzzling 2.4L to choose. Instead a small loss on the base engine and an available big engine is definite drop in overall economy.
Reply
John B 5:26PM (11/01/2007)
Just wait until the Union for Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace introduce their high mpg compact. Because they're brilliant!
Reply
compy386 8:47AM (11/02/2007)
I wonder why the Japanese companies are lowering fuel economy (or staying on par) when the American autos are increasing them.
The Accord lost 1 MPG city while Taurus got 2 MPG highway lost 1 MPG city but also got 50+ HP. The Focus is really only refreshed but went up 2 MPG on highway. Partially it's the domestics catching up, but it still doesn't explain the Japanese companies getting worse.
Reply
MikeW 11:57AM (11/02/2007)
Lets see. '08 corolla, 4 speed automatic.
New one, new 1.8 (yeah variable exhaust valve timing) but wait, same old 4 speed automatic ?!? and the weight is up, and so is the swept area (improved Cd cancels that, so unimproved aerodynamics)
If toyota wanted it to get better mileage, it would have a 6 speed automatic.
Reply
Robert 12:27PM (11/02/2007)
You have to remember that Edmund's is but a talking piece of Toyota's marketing department. That glowing praise of the new Corolla and Matrix probably existed before those models launched based on speculation instead of fact.
The Corolla did not make significant gains in fuel efficiency. Sorry. It's still good at 27/35, though. Its city mileage still trumps anything in its class. The highway mileage is less impressive, though, probably from the weight and the new lines.
It's still a pretty bad redesign (this makes Ford's redesign seem like an entirely new vehicle - and we waited 12 extra months for this new Corolla). I'm quickly running out of small cars that I would consider with the Civic, Focus and Corolla sedans all a bit... yeah... and the xB going all fat and the xD going all ugly.
Reply
detroit9000 3:23PM (11/03/2007)
Toyota is not the green company. Honda is. Toyota just figured out how to pull off the marketing coup.
Toyota is a growth company. They make money.
Honda has been making an effort to make engines more efficient for longer than Toyota has. Honda has pushed this effort across their entire lineup.
Lets not forget the mileage of the Tundra vs. the American trucks. It's worse.
Reply
kdhspyder 1:40PM (11/05/2007)
Do you realize how confused you got the auto industry blogsphere with one contradictory sentence in the above article? Reactions run from 'HUH' to 'AHA' all because you wrote this...
"I think they meant the automatic as standard so there is a drop which would make sense because it's heaver and larger"
First the facts which you present reasonably well.
A) The 09 Corolla press release states 'improved fuel economy' and gives these values ' 27 City / 35 Hwy'. What the press release doesn't do is precise to which tranny these numbers relate, the 5M or 4AT. You correctly note this confusion. It may have been intentional in order to generate blogsphere interest and keep the Corolla in the public's eye until Feb 08.
B) The relative EPA values
'Old' value for the 5M is 41 Hwy
New value for the 2008s is 37 Hwy
'Old' value for the 4AT is 38 Hwy
New value for the 2008s is 35 Hwy
The press release says 27 City and 35 Hwy for the 2009.
Again, correctly, you note the confusion and from the reading come to the same conclusion as I do that they are referencing the new 1.8L linked to the 4AT. No problem.... until you add the above sentence.
In fact if it is the 4AT then the new values are HIGHER by 1 mpg in City and the SAME on the Hwy and this for a vehicle which is wider and heavier with more room and more features than the outgoing model. Thus the new 09 values are HIGHER and there is no drop as you confusedly wrote.
Well you did get the blogsphere hopping, however inadvertent it was.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 3:08PM (11/05/2007)
Kdhspyder, The press release never said that and the Automatic is lower. I don't think they meant to mislead anyone but statements like it's the change in EPA rating seem wrong. I could be wrong but I don't see where and no one has showed me where.
Reply
kdhspyder 5:24PM (11/05/2007)
Clarify please because I think you're still confused...
Here are the relevant EPA values assuming that the numbers in the press release are referrring to the new 4AT:
'OLD' 2007 4AT 30 City / 38 Hwy
'New' 2008 4AT 26 City / 35 Hwy
'New' 2009 4AT 27 City / 35 Hwy
Under the 'New' EPA standards the new 2009 4AT Corolla actually improves in fuel economy over the current 4AT, it does not drop. As you noted the new vehicle is both bigger and heavier.
Now if these numbers refer to the 5M then you're correct. But it's not clear and we all will have to wait for the official announcement.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 5:34PM (11/05/2007)
Kdhspyder, The 2007 number. 1. That's the old rating. 2. There is no 2007 rating for a hybrid. Is there a 2007 Corolla hybrid? I don't think he compared 2007 to 2009 because they are the same anyway. You are right, I did make a mistake and I corrected it but there still remains the possibility that the rating could go down which would be the only way to explain the one the other statement from Toyota i.e it's a little lower. The rating change statement really does not make sense. Sorry for making a mistake while writing about a mistake.
Reply
armmat 3:35AM (11/06/2007)
Toyota is taking everyone for a ride.
1) Their cars in general DO NOT get good fuel mileage. They are average at best and the SMOG indexes suck.
2) Why do Toyota engines knock and ping so much? Bad design?
3) Had a test drive in a Yaris and xA....they are piles of junk...what is it that people see in these cars?
Reply
Rick 2:17PM (11/06/2007)
Wow, my civic kills the corolla in mpg. That's almost as surprising as the thinking behind Toyota's decision that Corolla buyers WANTED a faster car?
Seems they are indeed after the bloated US car lover market. Their cars are getting blander, bigger, faster and dirtier.
Reply
middleoroad 10:02AM (11/11/2007)
Toyota has changed the Corollas job description due to changing needs in North America.Corolla must play the role Camry held 5 years ago,transport 5 adults with high comfort and convenience levels,now 2.5 inches wider and 200 lbs heavier the fact that it almost matches the 08 mpg is nothing short of an engineering feat.The Yaris will now take up the role of super gas mileage champ.Toyota holds second place in the UCS rating of environmentally friendly auto companies while providing a full range of vehicle types.Toyota will continue to be at the cutting edge of fuel efficiency as they have been for 50 years.I will concede that the Tundra needs more fuel efficient engine choices but Toyota tried to sell us a more efficient large truck(T100) but we didn't buy it.
Reply
elray prejean 4:21PM (11/18/2007)
It looks like the Corolla will have to stick with their significantly undersquare 1.8L engine (87% of square) if they use a 4 speed automatic...too bad. Undersquare engines of these proportions are very rough at high rpm due to such high piston velocities. The new Honda 1.8L civic took a different and better approach and used an engine closer to square (93%)but had to use a 5 speed automatic in order to offset the added vehicle weight.
Question...does anyone know if the 09 Corolla will carry over the same semi-independent rear suspension used on the 08 Corolla and Yaris? This design is not nearly as good as the fully independent rear suspension used on the Camry, Civic and Mazda.
Reply
jeff 6:12PM (4/24/2008)
Just got a 09 corolla and I'm getting about 41 mpg the way I drive.
Reply
John 11:19PM (8/25/2008)
The 2009 Corolla engine is a new design. It apparently has efficiencies that have not been accounted for here. I have a 2009 Corolla. With some easy driving techniques I average 45 mpg on long interstate trips, based on the avg mpg display over the long distance. That's with a/c off and tires inflated to 35psi, cruise control set at 58mph. Locally (a mix of city and expressway driving), with care I can get 41mpg. It's a great car. Note these mpgs are after compensating for the avg mpg display error, which is about 5% too high (based on my fill-up measurements). The avg mpg on long interstate trips display at 48 mpg. Less the 5% makes it about 45mpg. This approaches the Prius mpg. So it's possible to drastically exceed the EPA figures. I don't think the Corolla is given full credit for its fuel efficiency. The EPA ratings are not the last word; a lot depends on the specific driving techniques.
Reply
Sam 4:44AM (8/31/2008)
I have a 2007 and on long trips I get 49 plus miles to the gallon. Mixed driving I get about 45. A low average would be about 42.5. Toyota has dropped the ball on lowering the mileage of its new model. There was no reason to make the new cars larger and with more power causing lower mileage. Simply put Toyota has closed their eyes to the need of better mileage. Yes the hybrids get a little better, but not much. The extra expense for the hybrid is not justified just to get 1 ot 2 more miles to the gallon. I say buy other brands until Toyota sees the light.
Reply
Gerald 7:26PM (9/01/2008)
This is so wrong! Why our government does not investigate this lowering of mileage is beyond me. This company is showing its disdain for America by causing the people to pay more to drive. I suggest to not buy their cars until they see the light.
Reply