MY 2023 1.8 and 2.0 mpg figures

[mpm235]

Hello All, 

I've just been looking at the MY 2023 Corolla Brochure (I will be trading my Auris in for a Corolla Touring at some point). I've noticed it says that the 2.0 Touring actually has better fuel consumption than the 1.8 Touring  [1.8 is 57.6-62.7 and the 2.0 is 58.8-64.1 ]. Is this a misprint and the figures should be the other way around? Or has Mr Toyota somehow done some spooky hybrid voodoo to make the 2.0 burn less petrol than the 1.8 ....that would be very impressive and I want one!. Thanks very much for any info, Cheers,  Mark

[AndrueC]

That seems unlikely. Historically at least the 1.8 is some 5% to 10% better depending on the tyre/trim option.

[TonyHSD]

Hi Mark, 

I thought so too that Toyota has made a mistake publishing the figures but it seems actually these are the real numbers. I believe that this is more of a trick and the 1.8 in real world conditions will be the more efficient variant of both as is slightly lighter. In some conditions like sensible motorway speeds the 2.0 will match or even exceed the 1.8 efficiency, but I believe it’s the case even with the previous generations 2019-2022., but not officially. The 1.8 engine it’s an older type although very modernised where the 2.0 engine is the latest technology and has some advantages. Either one you pick will be good enough. ,the 1.8 will be better for town driving where the 2.0 better choice for high speed motorway cruises and especially on TS cars if they will be driven often loaded with passenger and luggage. 👍

[Popama]

If I were to guess I would say that the increased horsepower output of the 1.8L engine allows it to perform better accelerations during the measured MPG test and therefore burns more gas. If the updated engine were run alongside or behind the old one in the test I would expect closer MPG figures.

[tfc]

On my first tank I got 39.6 mpg over 300 miles and this tank looks like it might be a bit better but have knocked up some 160 miles of mway mileage in the 70's and 80's so not holding my breath. 

[Don Mac]

I don't know where the figures can be found, but in the post above the 2l engine is said to have 41% efficiency, whilst the 1.8l has 39.8%. (both being the newest versions I think)

I would guess that those are maximum figures and, as with any ICE, driving style could have a huge impact. I would not be surprised to hear that some people don't find the 2l to be more economical than the 1.8l (in the unlikely event that they drive otherwise identical cars in an identical manner in identical conditions...). The figures are so close that you might struggle to see a clear difference.

[RabButler]

9 hours ago, Popama said:

If I were to guess I would say that the increased horsepower output of the 1.8L engine allows it to perform better accelerations during the measured MPG test and therefore burns more gas. If the updated engine were run alongside or behind the old one in the test I would expect closer MPG figures.

The increased HP on the 1.8 is all in the electric motor. It uses less fuel than the 122HP version. It is much quicker off the mark.

[mpm235]

Hello all,

Some great comments here. I was so intrigued and baffled  by the concept of a 190 hp 2.0 using less petrol than a 140 hp 1.8, that I messaged Toyota UK to ask about it. The brochure figures are correct, the 2.0 officially burns a little bit less juice than the 1.8. This is what they said: "Hi Mark, thanks for your patience. Our Technical Team have advised that the 2 litre has a more powerful electric motor and petrol combustion engine, resulting in the car being able to perform with less effort required than the 1.8 litre. This will result in better fuel economy and CO2 emissions. Hope this makes sense. Thanks. So there it is from Mr Toyota himself. Although, I reckon I agree with what TonyHSD has said, that the 1.8 would be better in Town and the 2.0 best on the Motorway. As I do a good few miles on the M1 (work commute), when the time comes to trade my Auris in, I will go for a 2.0 Design TS. cheers everyone, Mark

[Cyker]

That seems like a slam dunk then, why would you get the 1.8?? That said, what's the difference in weight, and does the 2.0 HB still have the jokes rear boot space?

If the 2.0 is heavier than the 1.8, that could make it worse in stop-start traffic, and if it has the same compromised boot then it will be a lot less practical than the 1.8...

If the length is not a problem tho', the estate version of the Corolla is the best model IMHO - The rear passengers have a lot more space as they actually bothered to move the rear bench further back (To where it should have been in the first place IMHO) and you don't have to worry about the boot being too small!

 

[TonyHSD]

16 minutes ago, Cyker said:

That seems like a slam dunk then, why would you get the 1.8?? That said, what's the difference in weight, and does the 2.0 HB still have the jokes rear boot space?

If the 2.0 is heavier than the 1.8, that could make it worse in stop-start traffic, and if it has the same compromised boot then it will be a lot less practical than the 1.8...

If the length is not a problem tho', the estate version of the Corolla is the best model IMHO - The rear passengers have a lot more space as they actually bothered to move the rear bench further back (To where it should have been in the first place IMHO) and you don't have to worry about the boot being too small!

 

I think differently here. 
The 1.8 hatchback without spare  wheel does have indeed deeper boot design but this makes it less practical instead. Because  you have no option to rise the floor and there will be always a huge 12 cm gap when seats are folded, horrible design, where the 2.0 hatch and 1.8 with spare tyre will have less overall boot capacity but completely flat floor when seats are folded which gives you the best practicality., like a small estate. 
The 2.0 variant are 60-80kg heavier I believe, not much but still, and they have larger electric motor, larger front brake discs and callipers , likely heavier drive shafts, plus extra power will push drivers to have more fun while driving and all that will take its tool against efficiency in real world scenarios. Have you seen a golf R driven sensibly? , I haven’t 🏁😂

For the estate variant I will likely prefer to have 2.0 hybrid over the 1.8 become larger car will likely be loaded more and the extra power will come handy, and especially in GR or Excel trims with those huge heavy alloy wheels. 

[Cyker]

Yeah I know what you mean about it hard to resist the extra power on tap  

If you can drive the 2.0 like the 1.8 it probably would get similar mpg but I feel very few people have that level of self control  

I can't even resist it and mine's only a 1.5!  (But I'm 140 miles in on this tank and at 81.2mpg on this tank so far  Yay for warm weather!  Car's in for servicing as we speak, and since they normally leave it on the whole time I suspect that will have dropped a bit by the time I get it back...!)

 

 

[Yugguy1970]

It's often the way in straight ice cars too.  The more powerful engine has to do less work.

Ive had several diesels down the years and after a remap they all had better cruising mpg.

[Roy124]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:39 PM, tfc said:

On my first tank I got 39.6 mpg over 300 miles and this tank looks like it might be a bit better but have knocked up some 160 miles of mway mileage in the 70's and 80's so not holding my breath. 

You must have tried really hard to get that figure.  Once, MY19, driving really hard in sh1te conditions, torrential rain and surface water I failed to better 50mpg.  Driving more sedately, comfortably, and hardly lower trip mph, I could better 60.

[Cyker]

Repeated hard accelerations tank mpg, as does low tyre pressures. They can coast on the leecy motor for ages below 60mph.

I tend to accelerate up to speed fairly briskly, then try and coast as long as I can, anticipating and reducing speed top time lights and traffic ahead so I minimize the number of times I actually have to stop. If I know I'm going to stop soon anyway, I try not to accelerate past the Eco bar.

If you can always keep acceleration in the Eco bar you can get some very high mpg but you'll probably get honked at a lot  Even dipping into the Eco+ part isn't too bad, and you'll usually need to if there's an incline.

I find keeping a coast going as long as possible is the key tho' - Part of the reason I got up to 80mpg on this tank was cruising round the M25 yesterday; Was hammering along at 70mph then ran slap bang into the heathrow traffic, but hardly had to stop and, even let a few people in, while people ahead and behind were right up the exhaust of the person in front determined not to let anyone push in, accelerating and braking the whole way. I tended to do that sort of thing in all my cars, but the hybrid system makes that sort of thing especially effortless!

When you get past 60mpg, small things like weight and tyre pressures start to make a bigger difference. I found it tricky to get the higher mpgs in my older cars at stock pressures, and would usually boost them up by a few psi, which also helped things like braking and cornering stability slightly.

[TonyHSD]

Very good information and true. 
In any car ice, hybrid or even bev the model for efficient driving it’s as Cyker says, medium power for acceleration not too fast and not too slow followed by as long as possible coasting and smooth long slow down.
Here I had tried to make a quick graphic, the longer you stay in the green and yellow the higher efficiency you can achieve. 👍