3 speed automatic corolla should be avoided?

[dkjones96]

Originally Posted by StorminMatt

Is THAT why a Pontiac Iron Duke has SO much more torque than a Honda K24 or a Nissan QR25DE?

Wow, yeah, that's a fair comparison. An engine from the 80s compared with an engine with new technology.

How about comparing the Nissan VQ35 engine with the Pontiac 3.6L engine.

Nissan 3.5L DOHC 24-valve makes 258 ftlbs at 4400 and 270 HP at 6000 Altima is rated at 19/26 FWD with CVT and weighs 3400 lbs

Pontiac 3.6L OHV 12-valve makes 251ftlbs at 3200 and 252 HP at 6300 G6 is rated at 17/26 FWD with 4-speed auto and weighs 3300 lbs

They aren't far off from each other. The -2 MPG in the Pontiac can be easily attributed to the 4-speed vs CVT. The Pontiac has 7 less ftlbs of torque but makes it where someone can actually use it without having to rev the engine up. A lot like the G8(my fav!).

My personal favorite:
Pontiac 3.6L OHV 12-valve makes 248 ftlbs at 2100 and 256 HP at 6300 G8 is rated at 17/25 RWD with 5-speed auto and weighs 3885 lbs

Lets see your DOHC engine make peak(or any) torque that low. That 3.6L G8 engine has a 4200 rpm powerband (the Altima's is 1600 rpm). That's HUGE! Plus, it only gets -2 city and -1 highway and weighs about 500 pounds more than the Altima.

The only reason I didn't use it in the comparison is because the G6 is more apples to apples as far as cars are concerned.

[StorminMatt]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

How about comparing the Nissan VQ35 engine with the Pontiac 3.6L engine.

Nissan 3.5L DOHC 24-valve makes 258 ftlbs at 4400 and 270 HP at 6000 Altima is rated at 19/26 FWD with CVT and weighs 3400 lbs

Pontiac 3.6L OHV 12-valve makes 251ftlbs at 3200 and 252 HP at 6300 G6 is rated at 17/26 FWD with 4-speed auto and weighs 3300 lbs

They aren't far off from each other. The -2 MPG in the Pontiac can be easily attributed to the 4-speed vs CVT. The Pontiac has 7 less ftlbs of torque but makes it where someone can actually use it without having to rev the engine up. A lot like the G8(my fav!).

My personal favorite:
Pontiac 3.6L OHV 12-valve makes 248 ftlbs at 2100 and 256 HP at 6300 G8 is rated at 17/25 RWD with 5-speed auto and weighs 3885 lbs

Lets see your DOHC engine make peak(or any) torque that low. That 3.6L G8 engine has a 4200 rpm powerband (the Altima's is 1600 rpm). That's HUGE! Plus, it only gets -2 city and -1 highway and weighs about 500 pounds more than the Altima.

The only reason I didn't use it in the comparison is because the G6 is more apples to apples as far as cars are concerned.

A couple of things to keep in mind here. First of all, the RPM at which peak torque occurs says NOTHING about what is happening above or below that point. Just because one engine produces 248ft-lb at 2100RPM, and another produces 258ft-lb at 4400RPM, this does not mean that the engine with the higher torque at the higher RPM is producing LESS than 248ft-lb torque at 2100RPM. It could even be producing MORE torque. After all, torque curves tend to be pretty constant on engines these days. So unless you actually see a dyno curve of BOTH motors, you just can't say for sure.

Secondly, I know I may be nitpicking somewhat. But you are comparing a 3.5l motor with a 3.6l motor. This may not seem like alot, and it isn't. But torque is VERY heavily tied into engine displacement. In fact, you will find that most engines produce a peak torque (in ft-lb) that numerically is within plus or minus 20% of the cubic inch displacement (consider a few examles for yourself). So a displacement difference of 100cc (assuming that this is truly the difference in displacement of the motors) will, all other factors being equal, give the larger engine a 6ft-lb advantage. Something to consider.

[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.

[StorminMatt]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's not really the issue. Contrary to popular belief, the cause of poor low end torque is low engine displacement for the weight of the vehicle, not the DOHC valvetrain. For instance, a B18C5 is considered 'torqueless' in an Integra Type-R. But if you put that same 1.8 liter motor into a 2000 pound CRX, it suddenly becomes MUCH more torquey. Of course, there are other reasons why automakers go with a short fifth gear. First of all, most people don't like a car that can't accelerate in fifth gear. To MANY, it is a sign that the car is just plain 'weak'. Also, if the top gear is really tall, then, unless the automaker is willing to build a six speed, you end up with a transmission with gears 1-4 that are overly tall and widely spaced for everyday driving.

[markweatherill]

Hi swng, that two-speed Toyota transmission was probably the 'Toyoglide'. I owned a 1978 Civic with a similar two-speed and it was OK round town but at speeds more than 50mph it really became a buzz-box.

[swng]

Originally Posted by markweatherill

Hi swng, that two-speed Toyota transmission was probably the 'Toyoglide'. I owned a 1978 Civic with a similar two-speed and it was OK round town but at speeds more than 50mph it really became a buzz-box.

Very true, especially about the buzzing which may indirectly mean relatively higher engine rpm, which could hurt FE ! But simplicity hopefully gives rise to reliability . That is of course only my wishful thinking. No matter what, talking about the 3-speed Corolla in question, a test drive plus a thorough inspection before buying are always good, especially considering that at least one post at above contains some not so favorable remarks about the reliability of a car belonging to that (or a similar) model.

I was thinking that if a 2-speed car could do reasonably well (in city, with not many chances to go over 50 mph), then probably a 3-speed one would do well enough to get by, perhaps even on highways. Of course, I was talking about cars made long long ago. Nowadays, we have every right to expect to drive more sophisticated cars.

Anyhow, the Corolla Matrix that I currently drive has only 4 speeds and I always long to have a 5th gear so that I can enjoy better FE and a quieter ride. You know, every time when I gently step on the throttle and the car responses strongly (relatively speaking), I would yell in my mind and say something like "Come on! I don't need such strong acceleration, but please give me a 5th gear with a taller ratio so that I can save some fuel!!!".

NB: Edited once for spelling.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by swng

Anyhow, the Corolla Matrix that I currently drive has only 4 speeds and I always long to have a 5th gear so that I can enjoy better FE and a quieter ride. You know, every time when I gently step on the throttle and the car responses strongly (relatively speaking), I would yell in my mind and say something like "Common, I don't need such strong acceleration, but please give me a 5th gear with a taller ratio so that I can save some fuel!!!".

It seems to me that when they add another gear, they just make the gears closer together because people want close ratios. The 6 speed manual transmission available on a more expensive version of my 5 speed manual car doesn't have a taller 6th than my 5th, and I feel the same way about my 5th as you feel about your 4th.

[SCoupe]

Originally Posted by civic94

im looking into the classifieds, and a 93+ corolla with the 3 speed auto (Base) are about 2,000 bucks, but should they be avioded just because it only has 3 forward gears?


isnt the engine buzzing at 3000 rpm at 60mph?

Your going to have to weight this reply heavily as it comes from a former owner of one. I sold the piece of crap a few months ago for $975, dead tranny.

We were the original owner of this 1994 3-speed automatic Corrola base model. Very poor drivetrains,underpowered and overworked. Its wanted a fourth gear so bady it screamed out of the engine bay to 'please shift me!" but there was nothing there. There was a different engine and tranny in the other model for that year that had more torque and more horsepower and got better mileage because it could relax the engine at highway speeds.

The model you are looking at is horribly unreliable and breakdown prone. The kind of crap that you'd expect from a 70's era USA car maker. Shocks were totally gone at 80k miles, Alternator, starter, constant leaks, ate oil, transmission fried at 130k. Buzzes and rattles throughout the interior. The car was maintained on the maintenance schedule and it literaly shakes itself apart.

DO NOT BUY THIS PIECE OF CRAP !!!