3 speed automatic corolla should be avoided?
 

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?

I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pedicle, but that's just me. I'd hold out for a 5 speed.

A 3 speed shouldn't be bad on the highway as long as it has a locking torque converter. My Buick has a 4 speed overdrive automatic in it, but the mileage is down right now because the TC isn't locking.

-Jay

Depends a whole lot on the actual gearing, Marvin for instance turns at 2600 at 60mph with the TC locked up with a 3 speed auto. Many close ratio 5 speeds have higher revs at 60.

does anyone know how fast is the engine turning at 60/65/70 mph on the 3 speed base corolla (93-97)?

im looking at the classifieds, this one costs 2,000, so are the other ones with the 4 speed auto. but this one comes with 4 new tires so im guessing if the lack of a 4 th gear is worth it

no can test drive?

Here is the EPA

5-speed manual: 31/35
3-speed automatic: 26/30

its telling us a lot of things.... 5mpg is quit a lot

But I thought the question was 3 speed auto vs 4 speed auto. The manual will almost always trump the auto.

-Jay

yea it was 3 spd auto vs 4 speed. i just sold my 5 speed manual civic to get an auto, so i can share the car with my mom.

Usually the 3 speed autos don't rev disgustingly higher on the freeway because they put a different final drive gear in it to make up for the lack of overdrive(but they can only do so much so it still revs a bit higher). Where you lose the economy is mainly in town because you end up with 3 wide gears starting with a tall first gear. 3 speed auto cars are usually the ones that leave first gear at 50-60 floored.

The opposite of that is why I want to go with a 5-speed auto in my car. I change out the rear from 4.62 to 4.10, keep the first gear ratio from crank to wheels but when I'm in 5th gear on the freeway i turn 500-600 rpm slower.

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.

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.

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 ...:)

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
https://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.

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

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

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:p . 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.

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

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.

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

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.

4 valve misconceptions
 

Word
For an engine with 2 camshafts, yes, there is a reduction in available output of torque
In theory, the 4 valve combustion chamber lends itself to high rpm gains and a lack of low rpm drivability. However, recent production 4 valve combustion chamber designs for cars & trucks do not utilize (unlike motocycle--sportbikes) 4 valve combustion chamber benefits. I think the general prevalence/preference of the 4 valve combustion chamber equipped engine is Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH).

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

I had that engine in my AMC Spirit paired up with a Pontiac 4 speed manual and that car got ~800 miles on a tank of gas.

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.

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.

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.

Do Not Buy That Car, They Are Hsit
 

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 !!!

Blackhawk is a 3 speed auto. but it's a 97 tercel. but i have a scanguage. it's revving between 3000-3400 between 55-65mph. But i've notice i get super mpg's at 35-45 mph. on a flat road doing 45 i was getting 49.4 mpg. but driving 45 on the highway here is way too dangerest. plus KY gives a tickets for doing more then 8 mph below the posted speed limit.

Sounds like that gearing is ideal for city driving...

-Jay

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.

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.

TheHolycow! It is a always a pleasure to read replies by rational and insightful people like you and the many other members of this great forum.
What you said above cures my continuous craving for an additional gear to a great extent, as there is practically no hope of getting a taller ratio at the top gear anyway, short of modifying the car or switching to another car, if I understand you correctly. That is relief for my gravely bad feeling of having a 4-speed only transmission. I have to thank you for that:thumbup: . If the same is also true about the difference between the 3 and 4-speed Corolla, then the thread starter will have less to worry about getting a car with only 3 speeds:) .
However, curious as I am, I still look forward to seeing someone comment on whether, agility and smoothness aside, a car with less gear ratios will necessarily has its engine work harder on the road, as far as average rpm/FE is concerned:D . In other words, my question is: Will a 3-speed car's engine revolve the same number of times as that of a 4/5-speed car for an identical trip, all other things being equal? My intuition is a car with more speeds will still have an advantage. Yet that is of course another story.
Thanks again!

I'm very interested in gears and gear ratios, so pardon me while I go on forever about this...

If my car was a 3 speed with the same 1st and 3rd was the same as my 5th, then it really wouldn't lose much efficiency. In fact, when it was new I experimented with different skip-shifting patterns, after reading about GM's CAGS system that disallowed drivers from using some gears during light acceleration in order to raise their sportscars' EPA ratings. Anyway, driving it as a 3 speed and even as a 2 speed gave me improvements, though I eventually decided to use all the gears -- I chose the manual transmission largely because I wanted to shift.

For a given trip, in my car, a 3 speed's engine would revolve the same number of times, since my 5th is so low anyway -- I can use it at 25mph, or if I'm looking for more acceleration I wait until I'm up to 30 before I shift into 5th. When do I ever drive slower than 25mph? Now, if there was lots of stop-and-go, then the engine would revolve more times given fewer ratios but the same low and high gears, because with the closer ratios I can keep it in lower RPMs during acceleration.

For cars with more widely spaced gears or less power, it could be possible that a 5 speed tranny would have a more appropriate ratio at a given speed (say, 35mph) than a 3 speed, which may have a gear slightly too high and a gear somewhat too low.

Again using the example of the VW Rabbit 5 speed vs. the VW GTI 6 speed, the engine revolves the same amount of times over the same distance in my 5th or the GTI's 6th. They both run 3000rpm at 70mph.

The transmission isn't the only place you can adjust gear ratios, though it's the only place with multiple ratios in most vehicles (exceptions include but are not limited to the VW GTI which has a two speed differential, and 4wd vehicles with a "Low" range option). The gear in the differential can be replaced, or you could change your tire diameter.

More gears = more fun to drive. :D

-Jay

As an owner of a '96 3 speed, the car does OK at high speeds.

I have driven it from NC to Florida 3 times and it gets around 28-30 round trip at 65-70 mph.

Now, I have just got a 2005 Corolla with a 4 speed auto and its getting 36-38 hwy mpg at 65-70 mph.

Around town, my wife is getting 24 mpg city, 5 miles to work.

I get around 30 mpg city driving 12 miles to work.

The 3 speed is something that I personally would avoid, just in principle of better mileage.

If fact, I didn't bother with looking at any 3 speed Toyota Corollas, while looking for a newer vehicle.

Can't argue with this;) . To The Moderatemiler, thanks for sharing your insight, again:)!.

Weren't people skipping shifts in Honda Insights to get better gas mileage? I agree as long as the final gear ratio is not too much higher in a 3 speed compared to a 4 or 5 speed your mileage won't very much, particularly if you are doing a lot of highway driving. I remember being disappointed and confused that a 6 speed Celica got worse mpg than the similar 5 speed Celica. Maybe the 6 speed had more horsepower, but I believe they were both naturally aspirated and had the same engine displacement. Also, I imagine a 6 speed transmission weighs more than a 5 speed. A 3 speed should weigh less than a 5 speed.

I may be way off base with this but it seems like I remember them calling 4 speeds, 3 speed with overdrive.

I know my truck had a 5 speed and the 4th gear was 1:1 where as the 5th was 0.73:1 which meant that the motor shaft was spinning faster than the shaft to the differential.

I would think that the 3 speed wouldn't have the same spread as the 4 speed just because of the power (or lack there of) and the upgraded 3 speed with overdrive had the extra highway gear in it for better top end MPG.

I am assuming a lot here so I really don't know and without more information, that is what we all are doing. if you knew the gear ratios or trans numbers you could find out more.

it is my understanding that the 3 speeds didn't have an overdrive and if they did, it was actually a 4 speed.

just throwing it out there.

Many of the later 3 speeds had a locking torque converter and when it locked up it "felt" like a 4th gear.

I think overdrive means that the drive shaft/intermediate shaft is turning faster than the crankshaft.