Toyota 1.6 Vs 1.8 Engine

[katabeachbum]

Taken out of context. Full quote goes like this:

"The engine has apparently been optimised in the low- to mid-ranges, even though it allows the driver to stretch it to the redline without upshifting in manual model. Real action takes place below 5,000rpm.

In fact, maximum power in the 2.0 is achieved at an unusually low 5,600rpm by Toyota standards. That said, don't expect performance to be as spirited as in the Civic."

Civic is also mentioned in another place:

"Since the 2.0 is an all-new block for Toyota cars in Thailand, it naturally shows several strengths. One is refinement which the Mazda 3 lacks and Honda Civic nearly has to match."

Just confirms what I've been saying all along - a car for daily performance, not for racing at near redline. Lack of a few hp at the top end is compensated by better perfomance in low-mid ranges, which is more important for regular drivers, imo.

Interesting to see that Civics 10 year old DOHC engine is almost as refined as Toyotas brand new engine. They have the same tourque giving the same low rev power, but Civic has 10% more high rev power. Hondas new SOHC 2,0 is more refined with same power as DOHC, but yet to be installed in Civic. Only Accord presently.

All 3 engines perform the same in low-mid ranges, but Honda performs 10% better at high end. Thats overtaking power.

Unbelievable Toyota want to sell it with an old 4 speed auto in LOS.

Toyota sales are still going down, 32% down in June in US, while Honda is holding up.

Camry used to be the most reliable car in US for a decade, year by year. 2005 was the last year. In 2006 Accord took over, and has remained.

[Datsun240Z]

Corollas are know for decency to, but Honda is the best.

[Plus]

It's not a ten year old engine in Civic, when it went on sale they advertised all the improvements they've made to it, I remember it very well from the motorshow it was first unveiled.

Toyota advertises new Altis as "dual VVTi" technology, don't know what it is in Honda terms of engine developlment.

Torque numbers alone are not indicative of things like "refinement". I don't know if there are any numbers to put on how fast the engine picks up speed/RPMs, how smooth it is, how responsive to every little tap on gas pedal. So far it seems to be a subjective opinion.

Guys at Bangkok Post have confirmed my prediction that new Altis would produce excellent performance in real life conditions, not on race tracks. It's very easy to get more power from 2l engines, but it would come at the expense of things like fuel efficiency and that elusive "refinement".

I don't think anyone would be disappointed by Altis performance on everyday roads.

[katabeachbum]

It's not a ten year old engine in Civic, when it went on sale they advertised all the improvements they've made to it, I remember it very well from the motorshow it was first unveiled.

Toyota advertises new Altis as "dual VVTi" technology, don't know what it is in Honda terms of engine developlment.

Torque numbers alone are not indicative of things like "refinement". I don't know if there are any numbers to put on how fast the engine picks up speed/RPMs, how smooth it is, how responsive to every little tap on gas pedal. So far it seems to be a subjective opinion.

Guys at Bangkok Post have confirmed my prediction that new Altis would produce excellent performance in real life conditions, not on race tracks. It's very easy to get more power from 2l engines, but it would come at the expense of things like fuel efficiency and that elusive "refinement".

I don't think anyone would be disappointed by Altis performance on everyday roads.

I do not agree with you Plus. IMHO Civics 2,0 is better drive than Corolla Altis 2,0. Just drove them both same day.

Some quotes from BKK Post

"that includes an engine tuned for tourque tractability rather than power thrills. But whatever Toyota had in its mind, the Civics 2,0-litres engine is still the better one in perfomance terms. Its flexible enough low down, yet offers that top end rush not found in the Corolla."

"there is still a good deal of refinement in the Civic. The five speed automatic transmission in the Civic also gives better response in the midrange."

"Civic ones again emerges as the winner here"

4 speed auto and soggy chassis for Corolla. Not to mention the 83 k higher price for the Corolla.

[snowflake]

I think that the New Altis looks a bit more mature than than the very sporty Civic... With that I mean that the Altis is probably not built for the high speed racers but for the little older people out there that are willing to drive maybe 130-150kmph and not much more... I presume that the Civic people that opt for the 2.0L are people who either have to show off or wants something that moves very fast... The Civic looks fast, the Altis looks classy in a different way from the Accord and Camry...

Different cars for different uses...

I find it much easier to live with a Altis than with a Civic... When I bought my Jazz last year I chose that one since getting in and out of the Civic was just to hard (sit in one and you will know what I mean).

The Altis was far better than the Civic for me, but my Jazz was just too CUTE!

[Lopburi99]

I think that the New Altis looks a bit more mature than than the very sporty Civic... With that I mean that the Altis is probably not built for the high speed racers but for the little older people out there that are willing to drive maybe 130-150kmph and not much more... I presume that the Civic people that opt for the 2.0L are people who either have to show off or wants something that moves very fast... The Civic looks fast, the Altis looks classy in a different way from the Accord and Camry...

Different cars for different uses...

I find it much easier to live with a Altis than with a Civic... When I bought my Jazz last year I chose that one since getting in and out of the Civic was just to hard (sit in one and you will know what I mean).

The Altis was far better than the Civic for me, but my Jazz was just too CUTE!

I've had my new Altis for almost a year now. I think the styling is fairly decent, somewhat classy front and side styling, but the rear looks a bit too macho to me. I think I prefer the Civic's rear stying. The Altis interior styling is great, and that is important because that is what I see most of the time, although it takes effort for me to lift my oversize body up from the seat to exit the car. <groan>

Mechanically the car is excellent, no problems of any kind.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Lopburi99

[Plus]

Some quotes from BKK Post

Oh, the famous Bangkok post "face off".

I've been reading them for a decade and not once Toyota came close to Honda there.

Even when Vios was outselling City 3 to 1, Bangkok Post insisted Honda was the better, sportier car.

Then, out of the blue, they admitted that it was Vios that sets standards for sportiness. I thought they finally came to their senses. Alas, it was only an introduction paragraph to yet another "Honda is the best ever" article dedicated to the glories of some City upgrade that was meant to finally destroy its competition. It was two or three "upgrades" ago, nothing happened.

Honda fans are like Apple devotees, absolutely convinced theirs is the best brand and will never let you forget about it.

>>>

Incidentally, I think Civic's rear end is the ugliest around, now that City finally got a nice one. I thought after a few years Civic's rear would grow on me, but it hasn't. I still think the lights are disproporionally large and the shape is rather strange. Maybe new, octagonal lights look better, don't remember seeing them yet.

I also hate new Toyota rear lights on both Altis and Vios.

[katabeachbum]

Some quotes from BKK Post

Oh, the famous Bangkok post "face off".

I've been reading them for a decade and not once Toyota came close to Honda there.

Even when Vios was outselling City 3 to 1, Bangkok Post insisted Honda was the better, sportier car.

Then, out of the blue, they admitted that it was Vios that sets standards for sportiness. I thought they finally came to their senses. Alas, it was only an introduction paragraph to yet another "Honda is the best ever" article dedicated to the glories of some City upgrade that was meant to finally destroy its competition. It was two or three "upgrades" ago, nothing happened.

Honda fans are like Apple devotees, absolutely convinced theirs is the best brand and will never let you forget about it.

>>>

Incidentally, I think Civic's rear end is the ugliest around, now that City finally got a nice one. I thought after a few years Civic's rear would grow on me, but it hasn't. I still think the lights are disproporionally large and the shape is rather strange. Maybe new, octagonal lights look better, don't remember seeing them yet.

I also hate new Toyota rear lights on both Altis and Vios.

I m neither a Honda fan or Apple devotee, but i find it easy to see Hondas higher spec, sportyness and style over Toyota gives better sale.

The best looking Honda/Toyota is IMHO still Camry in white Pearl. However its handling, steering, gearbox and engine is not up to date compared with Accord.

Civics new octagonal lights (8 months now?) look exactly like before until they light up. Only the pattern of the diodes have changed, not the shape of the light. IMHO the second best looking Honda/Toyota in LOS.

[Plus]

Hondas higher spec, sportyness and style over Toyota gives better sale.

"Higher spec" includes not only gearbox and horsepower but also things like start button, key fob with RF, GPS and all other electronic goodies, and in those areas Toyota has an advantage, I think.

"Better sale" is not the best criterion to judge which car is better. I just read an article about what drives sales (in Europe), and they basically said the main point is emotional attachment and brand image, not technology per se. The differences between, say rear wheel and front wheel drive, don't matter for customers anymore, there's little difference in real life.

In that sense Honda has a "sportiness" image (in Thailand). Whether it's really any sportier is a matter of debate, but for those who bought into this idea, debates don't matter. With enough effort you can "win" any debate if you want to validate your opinion, with enough faith you will always be a winner, at least in your own mind.

That's why I don't give any credit to Bangkok post face-offs and concentrate on what they said about each vehicle and what it means in practical terms, reading "between the lines", so to speak.

[katabeachbum]

Hondas higher spec, sportyness and style over Toyota gives better sale.

"Higher spec" includes not only gearbox and horsepower but also things like start button, key fob with RF, GPS and all other electronic goodies, and in those areas Toyota has an advantage, I think.

"Better sale" is not the best criterion to judge which car is better. I just read an article about what drives sales (in Europe), and they basically said the main point is emotional attachment and brand image, not technology per se. The differences between, say rear wheel and front wheel drive, don't matter for customers anymore, there's little difference in real life.

In that sense Honda has a "sportiness" image (in Thailand). Whether it's really any sportier is a matter of debate, but for those who bought into this idea, debates don't matter. With enough effort you can "win" any debate if you want to validate your opinion, with enough faith you will always be a winner, at least in your own mind.

That's why I don't give any credit to Bangkok post face-offs and concentrate on what they said about each vehicle and what it means in practical terms, reading "between the lines", so to speak.

Car buyers are different. Fortunately. If not there wouldnt be several brands.

Honda and Toyota have very different approach to the Thai market. Its exiciting to see who succeedes. Actually they are both extremely successfull in this market.

The BKK post journalists are, like me, car enthusiasts, and as such its easy to see Hondas focus on performance over Toyota.

Some buyers want Hondas performance and image, others want Toyotas comfort and gissmos. None of them are better cars. Just different.

Edited July 22, 2009 by katabeachbum

[Plus]

Honda and Toyota have very different approach to the Thai market

I disagree. Most of the time you can't see any difference between their advertising.

Civic, for example, even in 2l form, was never presented for sportiness or speed. It was "luxury" and gismos, just a bit less than in Accord. Even BP admitted it was geared towards comfort, not racing, when they weren't comparing it to Toyota.

I also don't see any difference between Jazz and Yaris ad campaigns either - both focus on fun, sportiness and youthfulness.

[Lopburi99]

Update after having my 1.6G for more than three years now: The 1.6 is only slightly under-powered, and if we use benzine instead of gasahol the extra bump gives it more strength and it accelerates perfectly smoothly. Occasionally we get a poor quality tank of 91 which will even cause it to slightly bog now and then. 95 gasahol seems to make it run with a bit more strength but the jury is still out on that.

Overall, since I had to be careful with my budget, I conclude the choice of the 1.6 was best for me. Had I less a reason to watch my baht though, I would have selected the1.8.

[PattayaParent]

A timely update as I'm just starting to consider a new car and was looking at the Altis having been a former Corrolla owner.

It looks like the price difference between the 1.6G and 1.8E is now only 30,000 Baht not the 85k when you started the thread 3 years ago. I guess with the lower price differential you'd have gone for the 1.8?

But you don't mention the transmission, the 1.6 is 4 speed auto compared to the 1.8 Super CVT i7 (whatever that means). I'm considering the 1.8 pruely because of that as my wife currently has a 4 speed auto Yaris and the fuel economy is not as good as my same engined 5 speed manual Vios. I have been putting that down to the number of gears, rightly or wrongly?

Also what's the difference between an E and a G, it doesn't say on the Toyota website.

Edited March 21, 2012 by PattayaParent

[CGW]

We have a 1.8, as PP notes above it has 7 speed CVT gearbox, this is excellent and makes a big difference in putting down power!

(A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is a transmission that can change steplessly through an infinite number of effective gear ratios between maximum and minimum values. This contrasts with other mechanical transmissions that offer a fixed number of gear ratios. The flexibility of a CVT allows the driving shaft to maintain a constant angular velocity over a range of output velocities. This can provide better fuel economy than other transmissions by enabling the engine to run at its most efficient revolutions per minute (RPM) for a range of vehicle speeds. Alternatively it can be used to maximize the performance of a vehicle by allowing the engine to turn at the RPM at which it produces peak power. This is typically higher than the RPM that achieves peak efficiency. Finally, a CVT does not strictly require the presence of a clutch, allowing the dismissal thereof. In some vehicles though (i.e. motorcycles), a centrifugal clutch is nevertheless added,^[1] however this is only to provide a "neutral" stance on a motorcycle (useful when idling).)

Edited March 21, 2012 by CGW

[devilish]

I think the Corolla Altis is one of the best looking cars on the Thai market (with the TRD sportivo body kit).

Yes, the taxi's in Bangkok are always flooring the throttle to get places quickly; still, 1.6 liters is very small displacement.

I like Toyota's larger displacement 4-cylinders a lot (2.0-2.5 liter).

[PattayaParent]

OP considering cost was a factor in your decision to go with the 1.6 engine would you have gone for the Fiesta instead if it had been available then? It's around 180,000 Baht cheaper.

[Lopburi99]

OP considering cost was a factor in your decision to go with the 1.6 engine would you have gone for the Fiesta instead if it had been available then? It's around 180,000 Baht cheaper.

Probably not only because my gf (now wife) strongly prefered Toyota or Honda over anything else. If I had to make a different choice due to price I would have bought the Vios. Even though I seriously dislike the instrument cluster being in the center, I probably would have gotten used to it. A dressed up Vios in black or white looks pretty good. We wanted an Altis size car for more driving comfort.

[welbymd]

Bigger is always better, You never need the power more than when you don't have it available. In most cases, if you're driving alone or with little in the way of extra baggage, the 1.6 Lt engine is good. If you take fairly regular trips loaded up, you'll wish you had the bigger engine.