Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?

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.

Reply to
Albin Dzurnak
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
The Real Tom

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.

Reply to
Ray O

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.

Reply to
griffin

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)
Reply to
Mark Levitski

performance, as

Reply to
sharma106

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.

Reply to
sharma106

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

Reply to
Wickeddoll®

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.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

*sigh* Yeah, I have to admit that my Echo is the wind's bitch

Natalie, having her pregnant roller-skate painted within the next month or so

Reply to
Wickeddoll®

Go for the day-glo flourescent lime green like the highway worker's vests to make it more visible/safer!

Reply to
Ray O

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.

griff>

Reply to
Frank

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:

non-essential

Reply to
Frank

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.

Reply to
griffin

... 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:

formatting link
Albin.

Reply to
Albin Dzurnak

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.

Reply to
Albin Dzurnak

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.

Reply to
Masospaghetti

Not to confuse anyone with focts, but my 2000 Echo (2-door) has statistics of

75742.0 mi / 2129.7 gal = 35.56 mpg
Reply to
Brian Gordon

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.

Reply to
Albin Dzurnak

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.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+
Reply to
griffin

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.