Auris Mk2 Vs Corolla 1.6 Cc

[oldcodger]

Hi,

I know the Mk1 Auris came in for a lot of critisism from the old Corolla guard, but would be interested to know how the new 2012 - on mk2 model compares to the typical 1.4 /1.6 petrol corollas.

Also interesting to see the base model has a 100hp 1.33 engine whereas all other variants have the 1.2. Any comment on how they both perform ?

As well as reliablity, driving /ride comfort is probably my most important factor as my old body work

cannot handle the boneshaking rides of some of the modern stiffer suspensions.

[FROSTYBALLS]

The 1.33 engine was introduced with the first generation Auris in November 2008, and was a direct replacement for the 1.4 used in the Auris up until then and the Corolla before it.

[TomdeGuerre]

I've owned three 1.6's, a 2004 Corolla 1.6 auto, a 2009 1.6 SR Multi Mode and my present one, the 1.6 CVT Icon.

The Corolla was a dream, one of the best small automatics I've ever owned, the "slush" auto box seemed to mate up with the engine torque characteristics perfectly. Never had a moments trouble with it and quite comfy seats, suspension etc.

The 2009 Auris SR was a bit of a disaster, engine was OK but the transmission was nothing but trouble. Being an SR it had hard suspension which, along with the short seat squabs, made for an uncomfortable ride.

My present car is much improved. You notice the increased power (believe it has the VVTi on both camshafts instead of inlet only) and surprisingly it's better on fuel. Seats are much improved but the rear multi-link suspension doesn't stand up too well to wellying it round corners, the SR torsion box was actually better. The only thing about the CVT box is that it's a bit of a screamer.