Undecided between model of Corolla Touring

[Estate lover]

Hi All

I am in the process of choosing my next estate car and have decided on the Corolla Touring Design model but not sure which one to go for – 1.8 or the 2.0 litre. It will be a used 2023 or 2024 model costing around £28K. I am aware of the 0-60mph sprint times plus the smaller boot of the 2.0 litre. Any other feedback will be most welcome, thanks.

[taxidriver50005]

Suggest a test drive of both, 2.0 is a lot more relaxing to drive than figures suggest 

[ThomasL]

2.0 L does I reckon 12% less miles per gallon but comes with more sound deadening like a bonnet liner and double glazed windscreen, and revs lower at motorway speed.

PS you probably already realise but 12V Battery goes in the wheel well on the Touring so you don't lose as much space as you do with the Hatch.

PPS to help decide 2023 v 2024: 24s like to bong whenever it thinks it has exceeded the speed limit (even if it hasn't), can be turned off but re-enables every start.

[trashman1965]

Agreed, focus on how you will use it and how it feels to drive. Lots of motorway, 2.0 may be better but the 5th generation 1.8 is much improved. Town and A/B road you probably won't notice.

Boot loss isn't that big, unless massive items need to be loaded. Simple maths it's 1 less Battery sized package.

[Don Mac]

6 minutes ago, ThomasL said:

PS you probably already realise but 12V battery goes in the wheel well on the Touring so you don't lose as much space as you do with the Hatch.

Oh no it doesn't...

The 12V Battery is under the bonnet in the 1.8 TS and in a compartment on the side of the boot in the 2.0 (which is where you lose a bit of space, the 1.8 has this space available to use), the wheel well is available for storage (or even a spare wheel!) in both.

I have read several reviews that state the Battery is "under the boot", so no disrespect to Thomas for the error.

[Flatcoat]

I would go for the biggest engine. In real world terms the economy difference is probably less than statistically suggested. Dont forget to include the Suzuki badged versions when looking, might give more availability. 

[taxidriver50005]

To be fair the Battery position sits behind the wheel arch and behind the light cluster so unless you have a very unusual shaped package this space wouldn't be used, the plastic shelves where the parcel shelf rests on are a much bigger problem that Battery in the boot. 

[ThomasL]

Sorry, yes you are correct of course! I meant off to the side where the wheel is. Not the spare wheel space but the actual off-side rear wheel. "Well" was not the right word!

I meant that in the 2L Hatch the 12V Battery is where the spare wheel would go if the car had one, and that's useful space to lose!

 

[ThomasL]

wheel arch! That's the word I meant! Thanks taxidriver 😁

[Heidfirst]

8 minutes ago, taxidriver50005 said:

To be fair the battery position sits behind the wheel arch and behind the light cluster so unless you have a very unusual shaped package this space wouldn't be used, 

It is useful for storing things like Battery booster/fire extinguisher/tyre inflator/water/deicer/top-up oil/cleaning materials etc. I currently use both similar areas in my Avensis TS fully so losing one will be a minor irritant.

[Estate lover]

Thanks Thomas L. You said...

2.0 L does I reckon 12% less miles per gallon.

My understanding is that the 2.0 litre does more miles per gallon than the 1.8. Is the 12% related to the older model?

Also, I don't quite understand how the 2.0 litre with 196ps is more efficient than the 1.8 140 ps. Is the 1.8 an older engine? 

[Bozz]

6 minutes ago, Estate lover said:

Thanks Thomas L. You said...

2.0 L does I reckon 12% less miles per gallon.

My understanding is that the 2.0 litre does more miles per gallon than the 1.8. Is the 12% related to the older model?

Also, I don't quite understand how the 2.0 litre with 196ps is more efficient than the 1.8 140 ps. Is the 1.8 an older engine? 

Yes the 2.0 is a more modern engine and more efficient as a result. Lots of information about the Dynamic Force design improvements is available on line. With the latest E-CVT the 2.0 is reported as being more economical than the 1.8. 

[ThomasL]

2.0 definitely does less miles than 1.8 for same amount of gallons of petrol burned. Or in other words burns more gallons of petrol than 1.8 to travel same number of miles. So MPG is lower, like 53 instead of 65.

The 2.0 is more "thermally efficient" = theoretically better, but... it has bigger cubic capacity, and is heavier, and is more "enthusiastic", so in real world isn't as efficient

I also like the comment that 2.0 is more likely to be higher spec so bigger heavier wheels. But you settled on Design so wheel size shouldn't affect your results.

 

[Corolly Poly]

If you are going for a TS the boot is pretty big especially with the seats down and the slight loss to the Battery in the 2.0 is not really significant - although you do lose a useful little cubby hole.

Toyota's own figures suggest there is almost no difference in mpg between the latest 1.8 and 2.0 for equivalent spec - but it will obviously depend on the way it is driven and the types of journeys undertaken.

[ThomasL]

Anyone with a MY24 2.0 let's hear your economy figures so far please. I think a few MY24.5 have already been delivered too?

[taxidriver50005]

Yes 2.0 is more efficient in the latest 23/24 modles than the uprated 1.8.

Latest 1.8 now makes 140hp instead of 120 and as a result loses some mpg's over it's earlier version. 

Early 2.0 isn't much behind 1.8 and in some circumstances can be more efficient. 

My current average is 64mpg (2.0) while in my old prius (which is more Aerodynamic and lighter) I averaged 62mpg, also if your a spirited driver 2.0 is way more efficient for the same performance 

[JasonM]

I average around 53-54 mpg in my 73 2.0 TS but probably 60-70% on motorways and dual carriageways.  If driving across town can get 65-70mpg.  I would recommend test driving a 1.8L and 2.0L and see what you think.  For me I wanted similar real world performance as previous 150hp diesel.  My understanding is 2.0L is a more advanced engine.  Google Car Care Nut  Corolla cross review and he explains all the pros.

[Corolly Poly]

1 hour ago, ThomasL said:

Anyone with a MY24 2.0 let's hear your economy figures so far please. I think a few MY24.5 have already been delivered too?

Averaging 56 on Motorway/ Dual Carriageway / Fast A roads. 60+ minor/country roads. 70+ in the city

[Cyker]

It basically boils down to: Do you want Fuel Economy or Power more?

The 1.8 is also a tried and tested engine so you know it will be bullet-proof, while the 2.0 is relatively new and there are already some known gripes with it (Although Toyota will likely have fixed those on the newer ones).

The 2.0 technically has a higher peak efficiency than the 1.8, but unless you are extremely disciplined you will never get more mpg out of it than the 1.8, as the 1.8 is efficient all the time while the 2.0 is only efficient when you're not 'giving it the beans', and because it's very addictive you will likely be 'giving it the beans' whether you meant to or not!  

I've managed to get 83.something mpg in my Mk4 Yaris when I was trying to see how high I could get the mpg, and I reckon there's still room for improvement, but I'm never going to see it because I just can't stop myself overtaking slow people, and when the engine switches to power mode it's just as inefficient as a normal petrol engine!  

[forkingabout]

If you want to get really technical then the link below will help, download, extract then digest the official data.

Download data : Directgov - Downloads - latest data (vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk)

[TonyHSD]

The smaller engine is more efficient in real world. Especially during winters the 2.0 is more thirsty by 10mpg or even more 

[Willss]

 

 

Real world reported mpg figures for estate and HB. Both show approximately a 10mpg / 20% difference in favour of 1.8 being more efficient. But will depend on driver and type of driving.  

[Heidfirst]

but as before the 2.0s are more likely to be higher spec so heavier & with larger wheels (less efficient) .

There also appears to be no differentiation between 122bhp 1.8 & 138bhp 1.8 results on that page - they are both lumped in together but potentially might differ in results.

The official figures have virtually nothing between the current 1.8 & 2.0 for the same trim. Driving style is probably likely to have more impact imo (so again potentially those most likely to use the 2.0's performance are those that are most likely to get one & hence affect the average).

Unless somebody does a back to back test of 2 cars where the only difference is the powertrain I doubt that we will get a true answer - too many variables otherwise.

[TonyHSD]

1.8 has always been the more efficient of the two. Two cars both Icon specs the difference it’s not just the engine but a lot more. Transmission, driveshafts, brake disc, all bigger and heavier in the 2.0 variant. The car itself is heavier like 70kg more in comparison to the 1.8, so it’s like one more person in.
Then we have physics that can be bend, the larger volume in cylinders will require more fuel to burn . The higher thermal efficiency will get bigger penalties during winter cold weather too. Although between both engines thermal efficiency gap it’s not so big as many might think of, 41% vs 39.8% on the 2ZR-FXE . 
The 2.0 will be more pleasant to drive when you drive fast and progressive, but when driving normally ans relaxed you won’t find any difference in between. Only when you push them to go faster then the difference comes obvious. 

[Cyker]

Does the 2.0 still use a NiMH Battery or did they switch to Lithium in the refresh?

I always found it weird they used Lithium with the 1.8 but the more powerful 2.0 stuck with NiMH!