Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?

What is meant by "1 comment awaiting moderation" near my entry?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Technology > Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth? 13 April 2005 22:54:49

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Ask How To Replace Headlight…
I would like to know the following about changing the headlight bulb(s) on a 1992 Toyota Corolla 4-door…

Re: Transmission shudder when…
"150milesperday" <dionfluttert@gmail.com> wrote in message…

Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
Could someone please direct me to where I can find the meaning of ECU error codes on a 94 Mitsu…

98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I have 2 separate (I think) problems with my 98 Grand Caravan. Problem #1 The first one started 8…

Re: 1997 "mercury sable"…
Ouch is taht easy to get to or do I have to rip the whole colum appart to get at it? any test point's I…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?
Albin Dzurnak 3 April 2005 09:28:24
	Dear All; Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback? Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback. Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback. Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback. Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to Industry Canada. Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to Industry Canada. Any ideas? Free energy discovered by Toyota? Thank you all in advance, Albin.
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 3 April 2005 11:00:16 [ permanent link ]
	"Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message news:2aL3e.2772$yD.18707@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> Dear All;> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback?> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to > Industry Canada.> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to > Industry Canada.> Any ideas?> Free energy discovered by Toyota?> Thank you all in advance, Albin.> I have heard that the VVTi engine in Echos hurt its fuel economy, but my automatic 2000 Echo gets 38 city, 41 highway. Probably helps that I don't drive like a raped ape Natalie
		Add comment


Griffin 3 April 2005 14:28:31 [ permanent link ]
	I have heard that the VVTi engine in Echos hurt its fuel economy, but my> automatic 2000 Echo gets 38 city, 41 highway. Probably helps that I don't> drive like a raped ape> Natalie> My buddy drives his like a raped gorilla (2001 5spd) and still gets 500km+ to a tank. My '01 (auto) Corolla with VVTi gets 450km to a tank when I baby the hell out of it and my '97 5spd Corolla gets even less.
		Add comment


Scott in Florida 3 April 2005 16:16:29 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:00:16 -0400, "WickeddollВ®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message >news:2aL3e.2772$yD.18707@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...>> Dear All;>> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback?>> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.>> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.>> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.>> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to >> Industry Canada.>> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to >> Industry Canada.>> Any ideas?>> Free energy discovered by Toyota?>> Thank you all in advance, Albin.>> I have heard that the VVTi engine in Echos hurt its fuel economy, but my >automatic 2000 Echo gets 38 city, 41 highway. Probably helps that I don't >drive like a raped ape> Natalie > I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive? -- Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Bassplayer12 3 April 2005 17:12:12 [ permanent link ]
	I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive? With a monkey on his back. JP
		Add comment


The Real Tom 3 April 2005 19:27:52 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 00:28:24 -0500, "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote: Dear All;> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback?> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.>Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.>Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to Industry >Canada.>Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to >Industry Canada.> Any ideas?> Free energy discovered by Toyota?> Thank you all in advance, Albin. > Since they are almost the same size, wouldn't air drag difference between the two be very little? As for weight, isn't that a major factore when changing, speed, direction, etc, so at crusing speed the small difference in weight is almost unnoticiable? Just curious, maybe the numbers aren't addressing the reall killers of fuel economy, like size, shape, and engine stats. later, tom
		Add comment


Ray O 3 April 2005 23:33:30 [ permanent link ]
	"Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message news:2aL3e.2772$yD.18707@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> Dear All;> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo > hatchback?> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to > Industry Canada.> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to > Industry Canada.> Any ideas?> Free energy discovered by Toyota?> Thank you all in advance, Albin. A big factor in fuel economy is how hard the engine has to work to do its job. You have done quite a bit of homework and calculations, you may want to calculate engine peak horsepower vs. curb weight and engine peak torque vs. curb weight. An engine with more power will not have to work as hard to accelerate and maintain a cruise than one with less power, although it will generally consume more fuel than one with less power. Transmission and differential gear ratios affect fuel economy and engine performance, as does coefficient of drag and tires. The real answer to the lack of difference is probably a combination of all these factors. -- Ray O correct the return address punctuation to reply
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 4 April 2005 00:40:34 [ permanent link ]
	"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message news:sjnv41hl6kul2mqc686o1dhspppvd26ln0@4ax.com...> On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:00:16 -0400, "Wickeddoll®"> <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote:> "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message>>news:2aL3e.2772$yD.18707@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...>>> Dear All;>>> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo >>> hatchback?>>> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.>>> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.>>> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.>>> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to>>> Industry Canada.>>> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to>>> Industry Canada.>>> Any ideas?>>> Free energy discovered by Toyota?>>> Thank you all in advance, Albin.>>> I have heard that the VVTi engine in Echos hurt its fuel economy, but my>>automatic 2000 Echo gets 38 city, 41 highway. Probably helps that I don't>>drive like a raped ape>> Natalie>> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?> --> Scott in Florida You live in Florida, and you have to ask that question? Go to Colonial (hwy 50) and get back to me Natalie
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 4 April 2005 00:40:49 [ permanent link ]
	"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:MYR3e.9324$Ln.432440@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?> With a monkey on his back.> JP> groan Natalie
		Add comment


Griffin 4 April 2005 01:22:36 [ permanent link ]
	A big factor in fuel economy is how hard the engine has to work to do its> job. You have done quite a bit of homework and calculations, you may want> to calculate engine peak horsepower vs. curb weight and engine peak torque> vs. curb weight. An engine with more power will not have to work as hard accelerate and maintain a cruise than one with less power, although it will> generally consume more fuel than one with less power. Transmission and> differential gear ratios affect fuel economy and engine performance, as does> coefficient of drag and tires. The real answer to the lack of difference> is probably a combination of all these factors.> -- Very true. A good example is shown in Jeep 2.5L vs 4.2L high output. Huge difference in possible consumption but because of the increased power needed to move that block of metal the gas mileage is pretty much equal.
		Add comment


Mark Levitski 4 April 2005 02:36:53 [ permanent link ]
	Yes, driving style is an important factor in fuel efficiency. It tends to be younger and less-educated morons on the roads who accelerate in front of city lights, who dont know th elogic of signal switching, who honk behind you only to discover the speed they gain is converted into useless heat when they brake for th enext liight and it's always amusing on Riverside Drive in New York City so many pass me only to find themselves again next to my body at the next light. Morons Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove non-essential weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i rilled out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which covers all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace free, so... i also get upward 40mpg and my car is heavier than yours and much b etter - 2004 Nissan Sentra .8S with upraded package, though I admit Aluminum Alloy wheels also help save fuel (acceleration/braking takes less unspruing weight to rotate)
		Add comment


Guest 4 April 2005 06:09:42 [ permanent link ]
	griffin wrote:> > A big factor in fuel economy is how hard the engine has to work to do its> > job. You have done quite a bit of homework and calculations, you may want> > to calculate engine peak horsepower vs. curb weight and engine peak torque> > vs. curb weight. An engine with more power will not have to work as hard> to> > accelerate and maintain a cruise than one with less power, although will> > generally consume more fuel than one with less power. Transmission differential gear ratios affect fuel economy and engine performance, as> does> > coefficient of drag and tires. The real answer to the lack of difference> > is probably a combination of all these factors.> > --> Very true. A good example is shown in Jeep 2.5L vs 4.2L high output. Huge> difference in possible consumption but because of the increased power needed> to move that block of metal the gas mileage is pretty much equal.
		Add comment


Guest 4 April 2005 06:20:16 [ permanent link ]
	Corolla is a sulev type engine, while Echo is still ulev type engine. To be certified as sulev type engine has to be 10% more fuel efficient then ulev type engine. Perhapes new 2006 echo/vitz will be sulev type engine, as it's brand new model.
		Add comment


Ma_twain 4 April 2005 08:33:34 [ permanent link ]
	WickeddollВ® wrote: "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message > news:2aL3e.2772$yD.18707@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> Dear All;>> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback?>> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.>>Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.>>Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.>> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to >>Industry Canada.>>Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to >>Industry Canada.>> Any ideas?>> Free energy discovered by Toyota?>> Thank you all in advance, Albin.>> I have heard that the VVTi engine in Echos hurt its fuel economy, but my > automatic 2000 Echo gets 38 city, 41 highway. Probably helps that I don't > drive like a raped ape> Natalie > To quote someone "so on April 1, (This Friday) I'll be off the NGs." We knew you couldn't stay away!!!
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 4 April 2005 08:37:42 [ permanent link ]
	"ma_twain" <ma_twain@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4250C39E.1050801@yahoo.com... To quote someone "so on April 1, (This Friday) I'll be> off the NGs."> We knew you couldn't stay away!!!> Dude, where have you been! I wouldn't be here if I had to pay, but fortunately some friends of mine gave me some good suggestions for servers. Right now I'm using one out of France LOL Natalie, handing Twain a cluepon
		Add comment


Scott in Florida 4 April 2005 09:57:19 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:36:53 GMT, "Mark Levitski" <MetalBladeSPAMNOMORE@SPAMNOMOREprodigy.net> wrote: Yes, driving style is an important factor in fuel efficiency. It tends to >be younger and less-educated morons on the roads who accelerate in front of >city lights, who dont know th elogic of signal switching, who honk behind >you only to discover the speed they gain is converted into useless heat when >they brake for th enext liight and it's always amusing on Riverside Drive in >New York City so many pass me only to find themselves again next to my body >at the next light. Morons> Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove non-essential >weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i rilled >out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which covers >all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's >responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace free, ROFL.. Let me see if I understand what you did.... You removed the spare tire and figured the roadside assistance would just happen to have your wheel size spare with them when they came to fix your flat? so... >i also get upward 40mpg and my car is heavier than yours and much b etter - >2004 Nissan Sentra .8S with upraded package, though I admit Aluminum Alloy >wheels also help save fuel (acceleration/braking takes less unspruing weight >to rotate) > -- Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Joseph Oberlander 4 April 2005 19:46:18 [ permanent link ]
	Albin Dzurnak wrote: Dear All;> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback?> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to Industry > Canada.> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to > Industry Canada.> Any ideas? Gearing and compression ratios. The Corolla has a larger engine and they de-tune it to get more efficiency. The Echo, though, is souped up a bit to deliver enough power to not get blown off the road, so it gets a bit worse mileage.
		Add comment


Joseph Oberlander 4 April 2005 19:48:06 [ permanent link ]
	Scott in Florida wrote: I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive? I had a friend named Patrick years ago who used to drive like this... I think my hair just about turned white every time I rode with him. Lol.
		Add comment


Frank 4 April 2005 20:32:56 [ permanent link ]
	In my case, using motorcycles as an example, 1800cc Gold Wing, 800+ pounds, 42mpg. 1100cc Kawasaki, 500 pounds, 40mpg. Huh? There are many more variables than size of engine and weight of the vehicle. On the highway, in particular, aerodynamics is a huge part of the equation. griffin wrote:> Very true. A good example is shown in Jeep 2.5L vs 4.2L high output. Huge> difference in possible consumption but because of the increased power needed> to move that block of metal the gas mileage is pretty much equal.
		Add comment


Frank 4 April 2005 20:36:22 [ permanent link ]
	Help me with this, Mark. When they come to replace your tire for free, won't they expect you to have the spare? ;o) Mark Levitski wrote:> Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove non-essential> weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i rilled> out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which covers> all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's> responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace free, so...
		Add comment


Scott in Florida 4 April 2005 21:06:01 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:48:06 GMT, Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote: Scott in Florida wrote:> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?> I had a friend named Patrick years ago who used to drive>like this... I think my hair just about turned white>every time I rode with him. Lol. I used to travel the far east on business. Nothing scares me anymore after riding taxis in Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Hong Kong etc...LOL -- Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Mark 4 April 2005 23:15:11 [ permanent link ]
	Don't forget, it relieved him from learning how to change it. A spare tire is about the best 15 or 20 pounds you can carry. It's much more effective to lose the spare tire around your waist. Mark Scott in Florida wrote:> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:36:53 GMT, "Mark Levitski"> <MetalBladeSPAMNOMORE@SPAMNOMOREprodigy.net> wrote:> Yes, driving style is an important factor in fuel efficiency. It tends to> >be younger and less-educated morons on the roads who accelerate in front of> >city lights, who dont know th elogic of signal switching, who honk behind> >you only to discover the speed they gain is converted into useless heat when> >they brake for th enext liight and it's always amusing on Riverside Drive in> >New York City so many pass me only to find themselves again next to my body> >at the next light. Morons> > Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove non-essential> >weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i rilled> >out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which covers> >all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace free,> ROFL..> Let me see if I understand what you did....> You removed the spare tire and figured the roadside assistance would> just happen to have your wheel size spare with them when they came to> fix your flat?> so...> >i also get upward 40mpg and my car is heavier than yours and much b etter -> >2004 Nissan Sentra .8S with upraded package, though I admit Aluminum Alloy> >wheels also help save fuel (acceleration/braking takes less unspruing weight > >to rotate) > > --> Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 4 April 2005 23:23:59 [ permanent link ]
	"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message news:gos251tksvnaaroqts9pfou1t5dkjedsuc@4ax.com...> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:48:06 GMT, Joseph Oberlander> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:> Scott in Florida wrote:>> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?>> I had a friend named Patrick years ago who used to drive>>like this... I think my hair just about turned white>>every time I rode with him. Lol.> I absolutely hate riding with either my hubby or my son. Talk about scary! The main thing that both of them have in common is following too closely and approaching stops way too fast.> I used to travel the far east on business. Nothing scares me anymore> after riding taxis in Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Hong Kong> etc...LOL> --> Scott in Florida I heard Germans drive nuttiest of all, but if we go anywhere overseas, I'm not even going to try to drive Natalie
		Add comment


Griffin 4 April 2005 23:31:08 [ permanent link ]
	It's the exact same vehicle just with a different engine ...gas mileage is the same. Point being - the 4.2L may have a potentially higher fuel intake but because of it's power transfer and the required power to move such a heavy and non-aerodynamic vehicle the gas mileage is pretty much the same. "Frank" <frank062547@excite.com> wrote in message news:1112632376.688725.94510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> In my case, using motorcycles as an example, 1800cc Gold Wing, 800+> pounds, 42mpg. 1100cc Kawasaki, 500 pounds, 40mpg. Huh? There are> many more variables than size of engine and weight of the vehicle. On> the highway, in particular, aerodynamics is a huge part of the> equation.
		Add comment


Scott in Florida 4 April 2005 23:53:07 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:23:59 -0400, "WickeddollВ®" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message >news:gos251tksvnaaroqts9pfou1t5dkjedsuc@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:48:06 GMT, Joseph Oberlander>> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:>> Scott in Florida wrote:>>> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?>>> I had a friend named Patrick years ago who used to drive>>>like this... I think my hair just about turned white>>>every time I rode with him. Lol.>> I absolutely hate riding with either my hubby or my son. Talk about scary! >The main thing that both of them have in common is following too closely and >approaching stops way too fast.>> I used to travel the far east on business. Nothing scares me anymore>> after riding taxis in Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Hong Kong>> etc...LOL>> -->> Scott in Florida> I heard Germans drive nuttiest of all, but if we go anywhere overseas, I'm >not even going to try to drive> Natalie > Actually I lived and drove in Europe back in the early 70's and LOVED it. No speed limits. Everyone said how lousy the Italians were, but I found them to be just fine. The bad drivers in Italy are dead. Germany? Hell that was a ball!!!! I lived in Spain and my car was one of the fastest there (BMW). It was a hell of a lot of fun...being young and reckless back then... -- Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Wickeddoll® 4 April 2005 23:56:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message news:7j6351tfgueimi5hj0i9kabgq78fjfo1h8@4ax.com...> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:23:59 -0400, "Wickeddoll®"> <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote:> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message>>news:gos251tksvnaaroqts9pfou1t5dkjedsuc@4ax.com...>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:48:06 GMT, Joseph Oberlander>>> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:>>> Scott in Florida wrote:>>>> I've wondered for years...how does a raped ape drive?>>>> I had a friend named Patrick years ago who used to drive>>>>like this... I think my hair just about turned white>>>>every time I rode with him. Lol.>>> I absolutely hate riding with either my hubby or my son. Talk about >>scary!>>The main thing that both of them have in common is following too closely >>and>>approaching stops way too fast.>>> I used to travel the far east on business. Nothing scares me anymore>>> after riding taxis in Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Korea, Hong Kong>>> etc...LOL>>> -->>> Scott in Florida>> I heard Germans drive nuttiest of all, but if we go anywhere overseas, I'm>>not even going to try to drive>> Natalie>> Actually I lived and drove in Europe back in the early 70's and LOVED> it. No speed limits.> Everyone said how lousy the Italians were, but I found them to be just> fine. The bad drivers in Italy are dead.> Germany? Hell that was a ball!!!!> I lived in Spain and my car was one of the fastest there (BMW). It> was a hell of a lot of fun...being young and reckless back then...> --> Scott in Florida Put..the...crack...pipe...down Natalie
		Add comment


Albin Dzurnak 6 April 2005 01:21:32 [ permanent link ]
	<sharma106@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1112581216.414895.263610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... Corolla is a sulev type engine, while Echo is still ulev type engine. To be certified as sulev type engine has to be 10% more fuel efficient then ulev type engine. Perhapes new 2006 echo/vitz will be sulev type engine, as it's brand new model. ... I cannot seem to find anything confirming this. Would happen to have a link? Incresing engine efficiency by 10% is likely not a trivial matter. Efficiency of internal combustion engines is only some 30%, I believe . Echo and Prius share the same engine. Prius is SULEV and Echo is ULEV. Corolla 2005 is somewhere between, according to this place: http://www.greenercars.com/byclass.html Regards, Albin.
		Add comment


Albin Dzurnak 6 April 2005 01:30:17 [ permanent link ]
	Dear All; Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo hatchback? Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback. Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback. Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback. Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to Industry Canada. Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according to Industry Canada. Any ideas? Free energy discovered by Toyota? Thank you all in advance, Albin. A big factor in fuel economy is how hard the engine has to work to do its job. You have done quite a bit of homework and calculations, you may want to calculate engine peak horsepower vs. curb weight and engine peak torque vs. curb weight. An engine with more power will not have to work as hard to accelerate and maintain a cruise than one with less power, although it will generally consume more fuel than one with less power. Transmission and differential gear ratios affect fuel > economy and engine performance, as does coefficient of drag and tires. The real answer to the lack of difference is probably a combination of all these factors. -- Ray O Peak torque/weight ratio is 0.2% larger for Echo hatchback than for Corolla. Both engines have the peak torque at 4,200rpm. Peak horspower/weight ratio is 0.9% larger for Corolla than for Echo hatchback. Both engines have the peak horspower at 6,000rpm. Compression ratio for Echo is higher that for Corolla, 10.5:1 vs 10:1. This makes less and less sense as the differences are not significant. The only sensible explanation I can think of is that Echo engine has been originally designed for Prius. Without the torque-assist of an electric motor, engine is simply less fuel efficient. Anyone can confirm that this is true? Regards, Albin.
		Add comment


Masospaghetti 6 April 2005 07:20:57 [ permanent link ]
	Albin Dzurnak wrote:>>>Dear All;> Anyone knows the truth about fuel economy of new Corolla vs Echo> hatchback?> Corolla is 20% heavier than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% more peak horspower than Echo hatchback.> Corolla has 20% larger engine displacement than Echo hatchback.> Yet, Corolla has only 6% higher city fuel consumption, according to> Industry Canada.> Yet, Corolla has only 2% higher highway fuel consumption, according> to Industry Canada.> Any ideas?> Free energy discovered by Toyota?> Thank you all in advance, Albin.> A big factor in fuel economy is how hard the engine has to work to do> its job. You have done quite a bit of homework and calculations, you> may want to calculate engine peak horsepower vs. curb weight and> engine peak torque vs. curb weight. An engine with more power will> not have to work as hard to accelerate and maintain a cruise than one> with less power, although it will generally consume more fuel than one> with less power. Transmission and differential gear ratios affect fuel >>economy and engine performance, as does> coefficient of drag and tires. The real answer to the lack of difference> is probably a combination of all these factors.> --> Ray O> Peak torque/weight ratio is 0.2% larger for Echo hatchback than for Corolla. > Both engines have the peak torque at 4,200rpm.> Peak horspower/weight ratio is 0.9% larger for Corolla than for Echo > hatchback. Both engines have the peak horspower at 6,000rpm.> Compression ratio for Echo is higher that for Corolla, 10.5:1 vs 10:1.> This makes less and less sense as the differences are not significant.> The only sensible explanation I can think of is that Echo engine has been > originally designed for Prius.> Without the torque-assist of an electric motor, engine is simply less fuel > efficient.> Anyone can confirm that this is true?> Regards, Albin.> Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as well ,such as the Civic.
		Add comment


Brian Gordon 8 April 2005 08:56:18 [ permanent link ]
	In article <d2vkio$eav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>, Masospaghetti <gtg803x@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:>[...]>Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar >performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as well >,such as the Civic.>[...] Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has statistics of 75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg -- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net \| + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) + -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
		Add comment


Albin Dzurnak 8 April 2005 09:59:22 [ permanent link ]
	Thank you very much, Brian 35.56 mpg (US ) translates to 6.635 l/100km. This would indicate that Industry Canada numbers for Echo are quite realistic. Industry Canada claims 6.7 l/100km for a 5-speed Echo sedan in the city. Anyone with similar records for Corolla? Regards, Albin. Anyone has "Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message news:d352ti$csu$1@reader1.panix.com...> In article <d2vkio$eav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,> Masospaghetti <gtg803x@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:>> [...]>>Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar>>performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as well>>,such as the Civic.>> [...]> Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has statistics > of> 75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg> -- > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+> \| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox dot > net \|> + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) > +> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
		Add comment


Griffin 8 April 2005 12:19:26 [ permanent link ]
	I get about 460-475km for 40L in Canada. I just did rough calculations and it's somewhere around 28-32MPG I think ...mostly city. If anyone feels like calculating the actual amount, feel free. I'm just lazy. It's an '01 Automatic CE. My '97 SD 5spd Corolla did about 425-450 km/36L in city. "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message news:95p5e.3336$yD.22723@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> Thank you very much, Brian> 35.56 mpg (US ) translates to 6.635 l/100km.> This would indicate that Industry Canada numbers for Echo are quite> realistic.> Industry Canada claims 6.7 l/100km for a 5-speed Echo sedan in the city.> Anyone with similar records for Corolla?> Regards, Albin.> Anyone has> "Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message> news:d352ti$csu$1@reader1.panix.com...> > In article <d2vkio$eav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,> > Masospaghetti <gtg803x@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:> >> [...]> >>Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar> >>performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as well> >>,such as the Civic.> >> [...]> > Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has statistics> > of> > 75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg> > -- > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+> > \| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox net \|> > + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad)> > +> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -+-+->
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 8 April 2005 19:30:36 [ permanent link ]
	"Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote: Thank you very much, Brian> 35.56 mpg (US ) translates to 6.635 l/100km.>This would indicate that Industry Canada numbers for Echo are quite >realistic.>Industry Canada claims 6.7 l/100km for a 5-speed Echo sedan in the city.> Anyone with similar records for Corolla?> Regards, Albin.> Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per 100 kilometer" thing?...we've for years and years used "miles per gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, then we changed to metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel economy in 'kilometers per litre'?... What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100 kilometers'? it's ridiculous... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". ...and In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION. -Burnore.
		Add comment


Joseph Oberlander 8 April 2005 21:28:49 [ permanent link ]
	What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100> kilometers'? it's ridiculous... No worse than, say, "gallons per hundred miles".
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 8 April 2005 21:36:46 [ permanent link ]
	Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote: What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...> No worse than, say, "gallons per hundred miles". That's right...what's yer point then?... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". ...and In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION. -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gary L . Burnore 8 April 2005 21:46:19 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:30:36 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote: Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own>here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per>100 kilometer" thing? Even measurment. ...we've for years and years used "miles per>gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, Now you're sounding more amerikkkan than KKKanadian, Gourd. then we changed to>metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in>kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel>economy in 'kilometers per litre'?... You really are that dense, aren't you? 6.7 vs .67 doesn't make a little bell go off in your head, does it Gourd? What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>kilometers'? it's ridiculous... What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate? -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві DataBasix \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›Ві 3 4 1 4 2 ГќВіГћВі 6 9 0 6 9 ГќГ›Ві Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division \| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com ===========================================================================
		Add comment


Griffin 8 April 2005 23:12:21 [ permanent link ]
	Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own> here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per> 100 kilometer" thing?...we've for years and years used "miles per> gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, then we changed to> metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in> kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel> economy in 'kilometers per litre'?...> What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100> kilometers'? it's ridiculous... It's completely arbitrary how you decide to measure it but metric is very consistent in measurement (base-10 system). I find it a lot more convenient to calc litres/100km then mpg. I set my odo, record how many k's i've driven when i fill with gas and then look at the pump to see how many litres i bought. Then do some simple math and voila! Doing MPG in Canada or anywhere that uses metric (i.e.: most other places) is annoying.
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 8 April 2005 23:25:19 [ permanent link ]
	Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate? Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". ...and In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION. -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 8 April 2005 23:38:04 [ permanent link ]
	"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote: Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own>> here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per>> 100 kilometer" thing?...we've for years and years used "miles per>> gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, then we changed to>> metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in>> kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel>> economy in 'kilometers per litre'?...>> What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...> It's completely arbitrary how you decide to measure it but metric is very>consistent in measurement (base-10 system). I find it a lot more convenient>to calc litres/100km then mpg. I set my odo, record how many k's i've driven>when i fill with gas and then look at the pump to see how many litres i>bought. Then do some simple math and voila! Doing MPG in Canada or anywhere>that uses metric (i.e.: most other places) is annoying.> Why?...it's still a straight calculation...we used to say 20 miles per gallon, everyone understood, simple. why not say 10 kilometers per litre?...makes no sense to further complicate it with the 'per 100 km' (and before some dim bulb (like bursnore) argues that my figures are wrong I'll agree) -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". ...and In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION. -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gary L . Burnore 9 April 2005 02:17:02 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:19 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote: Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:> What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate?> Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day... Poor little goard. You simply can't admit you're wrong. You lose yet again. -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві DataBasix \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›Ві 3 4 1 4 2 ГќВіГћВі 6 9 0 6 9 ГќГ›Ві Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division \| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com ===========================================================================
		Add comment


Gary L . Burnore 9 April 2005 02:17:54 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:38:04 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote: "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote:> Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own>>> here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per>>> 100 kilometer" thing?...we've for years and years used "miles per>>> gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, then we changed to>>> metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in>>> kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel>>> economy in 'kilometers per litre'?...>>> What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>>> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...>> It's completely arbitrary how you decide to measure it but metric is very>>consistent in measurement (base-10 system). I find it a lot more convenient>>to calc litres/100km then mpg. I set my odo, record how many k's i've driven>>when i fill with gas and then look at the pump to see how many litres i>>bought. Then do some simple math and voila! Doing MPG in Canada or anywhere>>that uses metric (i.e.: most other places) is annoying.>> Why?...it's still a straight calculation...we used to say 20>miles per gallon, everyone understood, simple. why not say 10>kilometers per litre?...makes no sense to further complicate it>with the 'per 100 km' (and before some dim bulb (like bursnore)>argues that my figures are wrong I'll agree) You failed math, didn't you Goard? -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві DataBasix \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›Ві 3 4 1 4 2 ГќВіГћВі 6 9 0 6 9 ГќГ›Ві Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division \| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com ===========================================================================
		Add comment


Albin Dzurnak 9 April 2005 03:34:53 [ permanent link ]
	Thank you very much , gryffy. 460-475km per 40 l is 8.42-8.7 per 100km. Industry Canada says 7.2 l/100km for an auotomatic 2005 Corolla in the city. That is a 17%-21% difference between real-life and Industry Canada numbers. This is beginning to make sense; 20% more weight translates to 20% higher consumption. It looks like Industry Canada numbers are simply not accurate for Corolla. Does 2001 Corolla have essentially the same engine as 2005? 2001 has the same displacement and VVT-i but 2005 specifies 5 more horses (125 vs. 130) Regards, Albin. "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message news:i8r5e.925551$8l.365253@pd7tw1no...>I get about 460-475km for 40L in Canada. I just did rough calculations and> it's somewhere around 28-32MPG I think ...mostly city. If anyone feels > like> calculating the actual amount, feel free. I'm just lazy. It's an '01> Automatic CE.> My '97 SD 5spd Corolla did about 425-450 km/36L in city.> "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message> news:95p5e.3336$yD.22723@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...>> Thank you very much, Brian>> 35.56 mpg (US ) translates to 6.635 l/100km.>> This would indicate that Industry Canada numbers for Echo are quite>> realistic.>> Industry Canada claims 6.7 l/100km for a 5-speed Echo sedan in the city.>> Anyone with similar records for Corolla?>> Regards, Albin.>> Anyone has>> "Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message>> news:d352ti$csu$1@reader1.panix.com...>> > In article <d2vkio$eav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,>> > Masospaghetti <gtg803x@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:>> >> [...]>> >>Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar>> >>performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as >> >>well>> >>,such as the Civic.>> >> [...]>> > Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has> statistics>> > of>> > 75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg>> > -- >> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-> +-+>> > \| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox> dot>> > net \|>> > + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad)>> > +>> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+> -+-+->>
		Add comment


Albin Dzurnak 9 April 2005 03:40:23 [ permanent link ]
	I stand corrected. ... make it 7.8l/100km for an automatic 2005 Corolla in the city from Industry Canada. That is a 8%-12% difference between real-life and Industry Canada numbers. Appologies, Albin. "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message news:ByE5e.33$_G2.31@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...> Thank you very much , gryffy.> 460-475km per 40 l is 8.42-8.7 per 100km.> Industry Canada says 7.2 l/100km for an auotomatic 2005 Corolla in the > city.> > This is beginning to make sense; 20% more weight translates to 20% higher > consumption.> It looks like Industry Canada numbers are simply not accurate for Corolla.> Does 2001 Corolla have essentially the same engine as 2005?> 2001 has the same displacement and VVT-i but 2005 specifies 5 more horses > (125 vs. 130)> Regards, Albin.> "griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message > news:i8r5e.925551$8l.365253@pd7tw1no...>>I get about 460-475km for 40L in Canada. I just did rough calculations and>> it's somewhere around 28-32MPG I think ...mostly city. If anyone feels >> like>> calculating the actual amount, feel free. I'm just lazy. It's an '01>> Automatic CE.>> My '97 SD 5spd Corolla did about 425-450 km/36L in city.>> "Albin Dzurnak" <albind@trytel.dot.com> wrote in message>> news:95p5e.3336$yD.22723@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...>>> Thank you very much, Brian>>> 35.56 mpg (US ) translates to 6.635 l/100km.>>> This would indicate that Industry Canada numbers for Echo are quite>>> realistic.>>> Industry Canada claims 6.7 l/100km for a 5-speed Echo sedan in the city.>>> Anyone with similar records for Corolla?>>> Regards, Albin.>>> Anyone has>>> "Brian Gordon" <briang@panix.com> wrote in message>>> news:d352ti$csu$1@reader1.panix.com...>>> > In article <d2vkio$eav$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,>>> > Masospaghetti <gtg803x@mail.gatech.edu> wrote:>>> >> [...]>>> >>Keep in mind the Echo was designed for a low price point, not stellar>>> >>performance. The Corolla has to compete with a lot of other cars as >>> >>well>>> >>,such as the Civic.>>> >> [...]>>> > Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has>> statistics>>> > of>>> > 75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg>>> > -- >>> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+->> +-+>>> > \| Brian Gordon -->briang@panix.com<-- brian.gordon at cox>> dot>>> > net \|>>> > + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad)>>> > +>>> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+>> -+-+->>>
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 9 April 2005 05:04:12 [ permanent link ]
	Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:19 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>>wrote:> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:>> What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate?>> Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day...> Poor little goard. You simply can't admit you're wrong. You lose yet>again. Whatever you say bursnore... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 9 April 2005 05:05:36 [ permanent link ]
	Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: You failed math, didn't you Goard? Whatever you say bursnore... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gary L . Burnore 9 April 2005 06:22:48 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:04:12 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote: Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:19 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>>>wrote:>> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:>>> What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate?>>> Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day...>> Poor little goard. You simply can't admit you're wrong. You lose yet>>again.> Whatever you say bursnore... I say you're a fool, Goard. That's what I say. -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві DataBasix \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›Ві 3 4 1 4 2 ГќВіГћВі 6 9 0 6 9 ГќГ›Ві Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division \| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com ===========================================================================
		Add comment


Gary L . Burnore 9 April 2005 06:23:28 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:05:36 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote: Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:> You failed math, didn't you Goard?> Whatever you say bursnore... That really is the best you can do, isn't it, Goard? -- gburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві DataBasix \| ГќГ›ВіВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіВіГќГ›ВєГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќВіГћВіВєГќВіГќГќГ›Ві \| ГќГ›Ві 3 4 1 4 2 ГќВіГћВі 6 9 0 6 9 ГќГ›Ві Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division \| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com ===========================================================================
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 9 April 2005 06:43:51 [ permanent link ]
	Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:04:12 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>>wrote:> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:25:19 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>>>>wrote:>>> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:>>>> What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate?>>>> Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day...>>> Poor little goard. You simply can't admit you're wrong. You lose yet>>>again.>> Whatever you say bursnore...> I say you're a fool, Goard. That's what I say. ...ok... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore.
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 9 April 2005 06:45:40 [ permanent link ]
	Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:05:36 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>>wrote:> Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:>> You failed math, didn't you Goard?>> Whatever you say bursnore...> That really is the best you can do, isn't it, Goard? If you insist bursnore... -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore.
		Add comment


Mark 9 April 2005 20:29:05 [ permanent link ]
	LOL, excellent point.... But don't forget, they also replace all the batteries he will wear out in three years. Sounds like a deal to me
		Add comment


Mark Levitski 11 April 2005 02:59:58 [ permanent link ]
	My 2004 Nissan Sentra is even better: PZEV (partially-zero emissions vehicle), with weights unloaded incl spare tire, rear seat, both sun visors, hood metal support rod, etc, etc. I can make 50+ mpg
		Add comment


Comboverfish 11 April 2005 07:11:57 [ permanent link ]
	Scott in Florida wrote:> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:36:53 GMT, "Mark Levitski"> <MetalBladeSPAMNOMORE@SPAMNOMOREprodigy.net> wrote:> Yes, driving style is an important factor in fuel efficiency. It tends to> >be younger and less-educated morons on the roads who accelerate in front of> >city lights, who dont know th elogic of signal switching, who honk behind> >you only to discover the speed they gain is converted into useless heat when> >they brake for th enext liight and it's always amusing on Riverside Drive in> >New York City so many pass me only to find themselves again next to my body> >at the next light. Morons> > Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove non-essential> >weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i rilled> >out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which covers> >all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace free,> ROFL..> Let me see if I understand what you did....> You removed the spare tire and figured the roadside assistance would> just happen to have your wheel size spare with them when they came to> fix your flat? Scott in Florida That's exactly what I was thinking! <LOL> This guy is a complete tool. He loves to brag about his fantastic new PZEV Nissan and how light it is without the spare. Oh, and he likes to send out empty threats of violence after being called on his BS. If it were feasible, I would delight in teaching him a lesson in both netiquette and "asspoundiquette". Toyota MDT in MO
		Add comment


Scott in Florida 11 April 2005 17:46:36 [ permanent link ]
	On 10 Apr 2005 20:11:57 -0700, "Comboverfish" <comboverfish@yahoo.com> wrote: Scott in Florida wrote:>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:36:53 GMT, "Mark Levitski">> <MetalBladeSPAMNOMORE@SPAMNOMOREprodigy.net> wrote:>> Yes, driving style is an important factor in fuel efficiency. It>tends to>> >be younger and less-educated morons on the roads who accelerate in>front of>> >city lights, who dont know th elogic of signal switching, who honk>behind>> >you only to discover the speed they gain is converted into useless>heat when>> >they brake for th enext liight and it's always amusing on Riverside>Drive in>> >New York City so many pass me only to find themselves again next to>my body>> >at the next light. Morons>> > Also, like myself you probably made every effort to remove>non-essential>> >weight. I am went to extreme and removed spare tire from the day i>rilled>> >out of dealer's lot due to 3-year Roadside assistance (FREE) which>covers>> >all even batteries and flat tires that one would think is customer's> responsibility, they said if I get a flat they come and replace>free,>> ROFL..>> Let me see if I understand what you did....>> You removed the spare tire and figured the roadside assistance would>> just happen to have your wheel size spare with them when they came to>> fix your flat?> Scott in Florida> That's exactly what I was thinking! <LOL>> This guy is a complete tool. He loves to brag about his fantastic new>PZEV Nissan and how light it is without the spare. Oh, and he likes to>send out empty threats of violence after being called on his BS. If it>were feasible, I would delight in teaching him a lesson in both>netiquette and "asspoundiquette".> Toyota MDT in MO I guess it takes all kinds... LOL btw I was born in Columbia -- Scott in Florida
		Add comment


Comboverfish 12 April 2005 00:00:07 [ permanent link ]
	Scott in Florida wrote: Toyota MDT in MO> I guess it takes all kinds... LOL> btw I was born in Columbia> --> Scott in Florida South America or Missouri? Oh, right. Gotcha....
		Add comment


C. E. White 12 April 2005 20:56:40 [ permanent link ]
	Gord Beaman wrote: What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100> kilometers'? it's ridiculous... I can see one way litres per 100 km is better. For litres/100 km a lower number indicates lower fuel usage, which seems more logical to me that miles per gallon, where a higher number indicates lower fuel usage. I guess the 100 km part seems weird, since you'd think the metric system would have a prefix for ten to the fifth powr, but they don't. After k (kilo-) the next approved prefix is M (Mega-) for 10 to the sixth power, which is too big for this application. Ed
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 13 April 2005 00:27:41 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote: Gord Beaman wrote:> What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...> I can see one way litres per 100 km is better. For>litres/100 km a lower number indicates lower fuel usage,>which seems more logical to me that miles per gallon, where>a higher number indicates lower fuel usage. I guess the 100>km part seems weird, since you'd think the metric system>would have a prefix for ten to the fifth powr, but they>don't. After k (kilo-) the next approved prefix is M (Mega-)>for 10 to the sixth power, which is too big for this>application. > Ed Yes, I suppose (lower=better) but it's been the other way for a helluva long time, so now, we not only need to 'get our mind around' the 'good number range' (from 'here' to 'here' is pretty good mileage), but we gotta remember 'how to do it'. Before, we just had to remember how many 'miles we went for each gallon we used...simple. Seems to me it'd be easier to remember 'how many kilometers we went for each litre we used', then get used to 'the good range' using those parameters. I don't see the sense in complicating it further by that additional twist of 'litres per hundred kilometers' where you need to reverse the 'components' ALSO. Hell, everyone knew what MPG meant so now we need to get used to KPL. I object to LPOHK or even LPHK!...it's senseless. -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore.
		Add comment


C. E. White 13 April 2005 14:45:01 [ permanent link ]
	Gord Beaman wrote:> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:> Gord Beaman wrote:> > What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100> >> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...> > I can see one way litres per 100 km is better. For> >litres/100 km a lower number indicates lower fuel usage,> >which seems more logical to me that miles per gallon, where> >a higher number indicates lower fuel usage. I guess the 100> >km part seems weird, since you'd think the metric system> >would have a prefix for ten to the fifth powr, but they> >don't. After k (kilo-) the next approved prefix is M (Mega-)> >for 10 to the sixth power, which is too big for this> >application.> > Yes, I suppose (lower=better) but it's been the other way for a> helluva long time, so now, we not only need to 'get our mind> around' the 'good number range' (from 'here' to 'here' is pretty> good mileage), but we gotta remember 'how to do it'.> Before, we just had to remember how many 'miles we went for each> gallon we used...simple. Seems to me it'd be easier to remember> 'how many kilometers we went for each litre we used', then get> used to 'the good range' using those parameters.> I don't see the sense in complicating it further by that> additional twist of 'litres per hundred kilometers' where you> need to reverse the 'components' ALSO.> Hell, everyone knew what MPG meant so now we need to get used to> KPL.> I object to LPOHK or even LPHK!...it's senseless. Well, I am not a metric system fan in general, but I can live with it. I am less confused by litres per 100 km that miles per imperial gallon. Ed
		Add comment


Gord Beaman 13 April 2005 22:34:58 [ permanent link ]
	"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote: Gord Beaman wrote:>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:>> Gord Beaman wrote:>> > What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100>> >> kilometers'? it's ridiculous...>> > I can see one way litres per 100 km is better. For>> >litres/100 km a lower number indicates lower fuel usage,>> >which seems more logical to me that miles per gallon, where>> >a higher number indicates lower fuel usage. I guess the 100>> >km part seems weird, since you'd think the metric system>> >would have a prefix for ten to the fifth powr, but they>> >don't. After k (kilo-) the next approved prefix is M (Mega-)>> >for 10 to the sixth power, which is too big for this>> >application.>> > Yes, I suppose (lower=better) but it's been the other way for a>> helluva long time, so now, we not only need to 'get our mind>> around' the 'good number range' (from 'here' to 'here' is pretty>> good mileage), but we gotta remember 'how to do it'.>> Before, we just had to remember how many 'miles we went for each>> gallon we used...simple. Seems to me it'd be easier to remember>> 'how many kilometers we went for each litre we used', then get>> used to 'the good range' using those parameters.>> I don't see the sense in complicating it further by that>> additional twist of 'litres per hundred kilometers' where you>> need to reverse the 'components' ALSO.>> Hell, everyone knew what MPG meant so now we need to get used to>> KPL.>> I object to LPOHK or even LPHK!...it's senseless.> Well, I am not a metric system fan in general, but I can>live with it. I am less confused by litres per 100 km that>miles per imperial gallon.> Ed Well...I actually like metric in one measure, temperature, much easier. Wider graduations, 0 is freezing, 100 boiling, Standard Day is +15, normal body temp is 37...these are more easily remembered than on the 'F' scale -- --Gord (use gordon in email) "Without detonation, your car won't move. That's what makes engines go". "In my car, the high octane fuel detonates better than the lower octane grades. Fortunately for me, it doesn't PREVENT DETONATION". -Burnore. Yes, Detonation is a normal condition and >it occurs every time you have ignition, >you really need to get over that! -Josh
		Add comment


C. E. White 13 April 2005 22:54:49 [ permanent link ]
	Gord Beaman wrote: Well...I actually like metric in one measure, temperature, much> easier.> Wider graduations, 0 is freezing, 100 boiling, Standard Day is> +15, normal body temp is 37...these are more easily remembered> than on the 'F' scale I actually think the other way. The Fahrenheit scale is sort of a human scale. 100 degrees is really hot, 0 degrees is really cold and you have a lot finer graduations in between. Here in NC, I mostly live between 0 and 100 F. In Celsius I'd live between -17.8 and 37.8 C. 12.8 C is uncomfortable to me. 23.8 C is near perfect. This is only a 11 degree C swing. 55 to 75 "seems like" a better representation of how I feel as the temperature changes. I suppose this is just what I got used to growing up. Both scales are arbitrary. Mr Fahrenheit picked body temperature for 100 (apparently he was hot blooded or sick) and as cold as he could get water for 0. The metric folks chose water's boiling and freezing at standard pressures for their end points. Of course there is alway Rankine and Kelvin...... If you are working in the big picture world, the larger divisions of the C and K scales are nice. Ed
		Add comment

CarGuru > Technology > Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth? 13 April 2005 22:54:49

	see also: F1: Japanese GP: Sauber Friday practice… GRANDAM: VIR: Lexus preview GRANDAM: DP drivers comment on Long…		pass tests:		see also: Help me soon!!!!!!!!!!!! honda civic ecm Head Light Change on 99 Explorer

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?

Add new comment