3 speed automatic corolla should be avoided?

[markweatherill]

I owned a 3-speed 1987 Corolla and it had TC lock-up at around 42mph as I recall. Coupled to the 1300cc engine it was neither fast nor economical. 60mph was indeed something like 3000rpm.

[theholycow]

Yuck. I'm pretty sure the low gearing in my VW is the biggest obstacle I have to further economy, and I bet it would be in a 3 speed Corolla too.

[GasSavers_BIBI]

If you go automatic with a corolla 93-97, go with the 95 with a 1.8L engine. The 4speed automatic only comes with the 1.8L engine, and in 95, they:

For '95, the uplevel 1.8-liter engine is retuned to meet stricter emissions standards, resulting in a drop of 10 horsepower to 105 at 5200 rpm and a small rise in torque to 117 pound-feet at 2800 rpm.

You will get 27/34 MPG (city/highway) instead of 26/33 with the 1.8L with 115hp. But still with 93-94 1.8 will still will get better numbers then the 1.6L with the 3speed automatic.

Thanks Jay 2 The Rescue ...

[FritzR]

At autos.msn.com they show the four speed auto at 26/33 with the five speed manual at 27/33 with the three speed at 26/29 so it sounds like very little loss with the 4 speed auto.

I had the 1990 corolla with the 3 speed auto and it really outperformed the old epa. It would get 35 on trips at 70 mph with the A/C on. It was rated at 26/29

for info
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...olla&trimid=-1

[GasSavers_BIBI]

Originally Posted by FritzR

At autos.msn.com they show the four speed auto at 26/33 with the five speed manual at 27/33 with the three speed at 26/29 so it sounds like very little loss with the 4 speed auto.

I had the 1990 corolla with the 3 speed auto and it really outperformed the old epa. It would get 35 on trips at 70 mph with the A/C on. It was rated at 26/29

for info
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...olla&trimid=-1

Took my information on Consumer Guide, and on your site you dont have the new (tuned...) 95 engines.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...-corolla-6.htm

But is making a good point, he outperformed the old epa...

[swng]

I don't know a lot about the Corolla, but I do have once owned a Nissan Datsun 1200 (yes, 1200cc) with a three-speed auto without TC lock up. It was produced in circa 1970. I got about 34 mpg (Imp), translating to about 27 mpg (US), with about 30/70 city/sub-urban driving (no highway where I lived then). I was FE conscious but did not hypermile. The car must have benefited from its own light weight.

I have had some chances in the 1980s to ride in a Corolla with a TWO*-speed auto transmission . It was driven by my friend. Overall, it was a very practical car for city driving. But sorry, I have never asked to know about its fuel economy. I would intuitively say that it shouldn't have been terribly bad. Otherwise my friend would have complained a lot.

Back to the question of whether a three-speed car is acceptable, I guess you can trade some FE for the Corolla's known reliability. Forgive me for stating the obvious, a reliable car uses up less of your money for repairs so that you can spend a little more money on fuel. It may not be very green, as are other cars produced several years ago, but a 1200 to 1800 cc car will quite likely be greener than a huge SUV any way.

Best of luck!

* Not a typo.

[bowtieguy]

i talked to a guy that has a 3 speed prizm, and he said he REALLY wishes he had another gear!

[StorminMatt]

I don't know anything about Toyotas, especially when it comes to modding them (largely because almost NOBODY does). But when it comes to Civics, having an automatic is a non-issue since it is a relatively easy thing to change. You might want to look into this with the Corolla. Because if automatics are cheap due to lack of interest, it could be cheaper to buy an automatic, and drop in a manual. Also, it could just be MUCH easier to find an automatic car to do this to. This is certainly the case ALOT of the time with Honda CRXs: clean automatic cars are cheaper and easier to find. And the swap is not at all hard.

One more thing. As I always say, going for the lowest possible freeway revs may not be a good idea. I know that the mantra seems to be that lower is ALWAYS better. But sometimes, lower freeway revs can actually DECREASE mileage. I found this to be true when I went from an SI transmission to an HF transmission in a DX Civic (mileage decreased by around 3-4MPG!). So unless you have an engine that was actually made for low RPM cruising, I would not take it as a given that taller gearing will increase mileage.

[GasSavers_BIBI]

the guy need an auto to share the car with is mom...

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I think that's why a lot of DOHC motors have gearing that has them at 3500-4000rpm at 60, no low end torque.