Toyota Corolla T-Sport

mikeyb

Member
Contributor
:
01 BMW 325xi Touring
If there's one thing that Toyota's Corolla specialises in, it's anonymity. That's fine for your average family hatchback, but not so great when it comes to setting the pulses of enthusiastic drivers racing.


So as part of a new facelift, does performance flagship the T Sport now deliver the thrills and drama to make buyers think twice about choosing the Honda Civic Type R?

Despite its global success, the Corolla hasn't been able to keep up with the class leaders in the British sales charts. That's partly down to the lacklustre styling, which is something that designers have been keen to address with this hot hatch.

Along with the new front and rear lights common to all revamped Corollas, bumpers finished with a mesh grille now feature, as well as a large rear spoiler and low side skirts. Yet despite the changes, the T Sport still lacks the visual appeal of its rivals.

Inside, it's a similar story. The car is comfortable and ergonomically sound, and Toyota's attempts to liven up the cabin with carbon fibre-effect trim and white-faced dials are welcome. But the cabin still looks a bit dull. The surprise, though, is that this newcomer is more than capable of raising a smile when behind the wheel. With improved suspension both front and rear, and a ride height lowered by 20mm, the manufacturer has worked hard to give the T Sport top-notch handling. And the result is impressive.

More direct steering ensures a greater feeling of control, while the 189bhp 1.8-litre VVTL-i engine is a real thriller. But it takes some frantic cog-swapping with the six-speed manual gearbox to keep the engine in its almost unbearably high 6,000rpm-plus power band. However, if you can live with the intrusive noise, a 0-60mph sprint of 8.4 seconds is achievable.


And yet the T Sport never quite feels equal to the sum of all its parts. Taken in isolation, it does well in most areas - it has finely weighted steering, excellent body control and superb ride quality given its sporty handling. Added to these attributes is a powerplant that pulls harder the further you push it, which suits the character of cars competing in this class. Despite all that, as an overall package this Corolla simply can't provide the same level of excitement as its hot hatch rivals.

At 15,995, it's not cheap, either. However, buyers will want for very little in terms of standard equipment, with climate control, vehicle stability with brake assist and rain-sensing windscreen wipers all included in the price. Honda's more capable Civic Type R costs virtually the same, but comes with a comparatively sparse interior. The revised T Sport is much better than its predecessor, but it's likely to stay an also-ran in a market where you have to be mean to be seen.
car_portal_pic_16020.jpg


car_portal_pic_16021.jpg


car_portal_pic_16022.jpg


car_portal_pic_16023.jpg
 
The 2zz-ge would've been used to it's full potential, along with the 6 speed, if it would've come in the mr-s. But, with the demise of the mr-s, 05 being the last model sold in the U.S., it's never going to happen... (pissed)
 
Stormtrooper77 said:
8.4 sec with 189 hp?...must have no torque and weigh a ton.
or 2 ;)

it looks like a friggin' Civic Type R hatch. also like a much bigger Vitz. the rear-end is probably just part of the matrix.
 
toyota strikes out yet again.

the exterior I admit looks VERY nice....almost like a 3dr mazda3s the inside should be shot 4 real!!
 
2ZZ-GE = no torque at ALL. I've driven three cars with that engine, and hated every second of it; Up to the second that I hit the powerband, that is. I really disliked driving most cars with variable timing at all, be it Toyota, Honda or whatever. Unless, of course, it was just unintrusive, like it is on the SE-R SpecV's.
 
Yes, but put that "torqueless" powerplant in a mid-engined car that weighs <2200 lbs and you have a winner. Too bad it'll never come that way directly from Toyota...
 
^ careful, its not a direct equation. 16K pounds is really like 16K dollars with regard to the value of money.
 
(werd) cars just plain cost more over there...Last i heard it cost the equivalent of $34KUSD for a WRX(shocked)
 
flat_black said:
2ZZ-GE = no torque at ALL. I've driven three cars with that engine, and hated every second of it; Up to the second that I hit the powerband, that is. I really disliked driving most cars with variable timing at all, be it Toyota, Honda or whatever. Unless, of course, it was just unintrusive, like it is on the SE-R SpecV's.
unintrusive?...this doesn't make any sense...the SE-R has a big block 2.5 liter displacement motor which is nothing like a 1.8 liter screamer like the yamaha 2zz-ge or the b18c5...you're comparing an engine that is also 72% larger

btw...the SE-R doesn't have true variable timing...it only affects the intake side where more advanced systems like double vanos, dohc vtec and the yamaha built toyota engine, etc.

drive a GTS, ITR, CTR back to back with other normally aspirated 1.8 liter motors and compare apples to apples...even drive them against turbo 1.8 like vws and they keep up with them pretty well

if you don't like most cars with variable valve timing then you'd must also hate driving an e46 m3, 911, nsx (all with variable valve timing) when you can drive a 5.7 liter camaro or a 8.3 liter v10
 
Last edited:
Let me restate that; I dislike it when a car hinges it's power primarily from the VVT system... As VTEC/VVTL-i tend to do, especially in the GT-S/ITR. And I have driven either of those cars, and found them to be invariably not my style of car at all. In fact, I dislike driving them a lot. While you can't argue with results, the power IS there, and they ARE quick cars, I don't like driving them at all; It feels like I'm straining everything the car has to offer to just keep it in the reasonably quick portion of the rev range.

E46 M3, I can't say I've driven, though I have disliked every BMW I've driven. But I have driven a 911... It was fine, but it also didn't rely heavily on the VVT for the brunt of it's power, and it had a nice, broad powerband, not peaky at all, as-per the likes of Honda/Toyota's cars.

Seriously, it's a matter of driving preference; I prefer to have a nice, smooth onset of power, and a good deal of it at the lower range as well has the higher range, whereas some people like to have it all at the top, and some people like it all at the bottom.

Just like brakes, man; Some people like modulating brakes with travel, some like to modulate it with pressure.

My 2.0L non-VVT, non-turbo engine in the Protege5 feels better, and faster at times (Now, not at first) to the 1.8L engines of the Honda and Toyota styles. I liked the Protege's (FP series) 1.8L far above even the likes of the Honda and Toyota, as far as feel, no less, as well as the early model Miata's 1.6 and 1.8 powerplants, so it's not an issue of displacement; It's an issue of how you use the technology you have; VVT is an AWESOME technology, I wholeheartedly agree with that... But I think it can be overdone, a lot. But that's all personal oppinion. =)
 
Last edited:
Well as an owner of a 03 SE-R. I like not redlining the motor to make power and have the torque available whenever I want it.

The QR25de uses Continuosly Variable Valve Timing Control System (CVTCS) electronically measures the throttle position, vehicle speed, and engine RPM. Than adjusts the moment each valve breathes in. And it does this throughout the power band from, the first boost off the line to when you approach redline. Response time and efficiency are optimized. Power and torque, too.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=220 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=Subhead2></TD><TD rowSpan=4></TD></TR><TR><TD class=InformationText></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Last edited:
opinions differ and to each his own

i just thought it was quite a stretch to comare those engines as the 2.5 liter is a completely different animal to a 1.8 liter engine...when they are that small a .1 liter bump is quite significant (that is where you feel the low end torque from large displacement)

a more accurate comparison was the k24a (TSX engine) versus the qr25e...where stock k24 makes 170whp and 165wtq and pulls easily from 800rpm and gets 80% of its torque at 2400rpm (my wife owns one and put down 183whp with just an intake)...this is where variable valve timing (staggered with intake) and cam timing (throughout the powerband) make a huge effect and a lot more power...it also runs right to the redline (and not out of breath) where you get a much broader powerband
 
jaje said:
opinions differ and to each his own

i just thought it was quite a stretch to comare those engines as the 2.5 liter is a completely different animal to a 1.8 liter engine...when they are that small a .1 liter bump is quite significant (that is where you feel the low end torque from large displacement)

a more accurate comparison was the k24a (TSX engine) versus the qr25e...where stock k24 makes 170whp and 165wtq and pulls easily from 800rpm and gets 80% of its torque at 2400rpm (my wife owns one and put down 183whp with just an intake)...this is where variable valve timing (staggered with intake) and cam timing (throughout the powerband) make a huge effect and a lot more power...it also runs right to the redline (and not out of breath) where you get a much broader powerband
That is a good comparison but the QR25 only has roughly around 144 to 150 whp depending on the performance parts installed and if its an Auto or Manual. The TSX is quicker then a SE-R. Man, I wish I can afford one.
 
(wtf)???Ok,did Toyota send over a spy to Mazda to check out the plans for the 3 cuz that D-pillar looks a lot like the 3's D-pillar.I think I like the WRC Corolla HB look better.
 
Back