• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

2014 Toyota Corolla ......... Ugly

The trick is they haven't really changed that much from 2007 - they may have made them wider the basics is still from 2007. No more double wishbone suspension that the Civic had in what, 1992-93 - which made them handle better. The new Hondas are designed by committee now (or so it seems).

Yes - your sarcasm is noted and ignored.

From Edmunds review of the 2013 Civic:
The Honda Civic has long been one of the better-driving cars in its class, and the suspension and steering refinements seen in the 2013 model should make it even more appealing. The Civic offers one of the most comfortable and composed rides in the class, while its handling is reassuring.

From Car and Driver:
We’re delighted to report Honda has starched the suspension with thicker anti-roll bars (up 0.9 inch in front and 0.2 inch at the rear), stiffer springs (plus 15 percent front, 18 percent rear), and retuned dampers. The effect is almost transformative. The ride is now controlled without being harsh, imparting a distinctly less-cheap feeling. The company also quickened the steering ratio by 8 percent (from 16.1:1 to 14.9:1), which makes the Civic feel like the small, light car it is.

From Consumer Reports:
Following a hurried revamp, the Honda Civic is again a competitive, if not class-leading, small car. It rides a lot better, is quieter, has improved steering, and the interior looks much nicer. Together with its already spacious cabin, bulletproof reliability, and competitive fuel economy at 29 mpg overall, that makes the Civic a safe if somewhat conservative choice among compact sedans.

Maybe, just maybe, Honda engineers have been doing something other than sitting on their butts for six years. Just a theory.
 
From Edmunds review of the 2013 Civic:
The Honda Civic has long been one of the better-driving cars in its class, and the suspension and steering refinements seen in the 2013 model should make it even more appealing. The Civic offers one of the most comfortable and composed rides in the class, while its handling is reassuring.

From Car and Driver:
We’re delighted to report Honda has starched the suspension with thicker anti-roll bars (up 0.9 inch in front and 0.2 inch at the rear), stiffer springs (plus 15 percent front, 18 percent rear), and retuned dampers. The effect is almost transformative. The ride is now controlled without being harsh, imparting a distinctly less-cheap feeling. The company also quickened the steering ratio by 8 percent (from 16.1:1 to 14.9:1), which makes the Civic feel like the small, light car it is.

From Consumer Reports:
Following a hurried revamp, the Honda Civic is again a competitive, if not class-leading, small car. It rides a lot better, is quieter, has improved steering, and the interior looks much nicer. Together with its already spacious cabin, bulletproof reliability, and competitive fuel economy at 29 mpg overall, that makes the Civic a safe if somewhat conservative choice among compact sedans.

Maybe, just maybe, Honda engineers have been doing something other than sitting on their butts for six years. Just a theory.

Above is true but it required a crash improvement for the Civic from the 2010-2012 models which were basically panned by the automotive press as a step backward in size, fit and finish, quality of materials, and overall design. The Civic got cheapened, no doubt partly due to the recent recession but gave the consumer much less than they were used to getting with a Honda Civic. Since the newest ones, they've righted that ship, but, aside from cost considerations, what possessed them to decontent and cheapen a good car?

Corolla (or Camry) never were in the running for winning any beauty contests.
But as was mentioned before-they run forever.... Don't care much for their look. People buy them for reliability but really nothing else.

Personally, I do understand the relatively bland Toyota styling although they've had their share of interestingly designed and built cars. I like the 1997-2001 Lexus ES300-ES330 models as being nicely built and very agreeably styled sedans, not too big and not too small.

001.jpg
3254083399u_4x424x360f


D04CDC8F-58DC-43BC-8810-02F060D078C9_1.jpg
 
OTOH, here's the new 2012-2013 Lexus ES300h Hybrid, shark mouth / sugar scoop and all: :cry::yikes::screwy::eek: UGLY!

New-York-Auto-Show-2012-2013-Lexus-ES-300h.jpg
 
Above is true but it required a crash improvement for the Civic from the 2010-2012 models which were basically panned by the automotive press as a step backward in size, fit and finish, quality of materials, and overall design. The Civic got cheapened, no doubt partly due to the recent recession but gave the consumer much less than they were used to getting with a Honda Civic. Since the newest ones, they've righted that ship, but, aside from cost considerations, what possessed them to decontent and cheapen a good car?

Wow -- quite the tap dancing there, but even so, you're stepping on your own feet.

First you said the current Civic -- that would be 2013 -- is no different than the 2007 model you drove, then you give us an inaccurate review of the changes Honda made prior to the current model. The model that "took a step backward" was the 2012 model, NOT the 2010 and 2011 models, which were part of the eighth generation.

What possessed Honda to cheapen out the 2012 model? Probably the same thing that made Volkswagen cheapen out its Jetta in 2011 -- something called the global financial crisis. But Honda did a virtually unprecedented reversal of its design, even though the 2012 model was selling well.

Get the facts straight before you tell us how wrong we all are, okay?
 
Above is true but it required a crash improvement for the Civic from the 2010-2012 models which were basically panned by the automotive press as a step backward in size, fit and finish, quality of materials, and overall design. The Civic got cheapened, no doubt partly due to the recent recession but gave the consumer much less than they were used to getting with a Honda Civic. Since the newest ones, they've righted that ship, but, aside from cost considerations, what possessed them to decontent and cheapen a good car?

Wow -- quite the tap dancing there, but even so, you're stepping on your own feet.

First you said the current Civic -- that would be 2013 -- is no different than the 2007 model you drove, then you give us an inaccurate review of the changes Honda made prior to the current model. The model that "took a step backward" was the 2012 model, NOT the 2010 and 2011 models, which were part of the eighth generation.

What possessed Honda to cheapen out the 2012 model? Probably the same thing that made Volkswagen cheapen out its Jetta in 2011 -- something called the global financial crisis. But Honda did a virtually unprecedented reversal of its design, even though the 2012 model was selling well.

Get the facts straight before you tell us how wrong we all are, okay?

I stand corrected, the model year that was panned was the introductory year of 2012 of the ninth generation Civic's although they did go on sale in April 2011 after their unveiling at the NY Auto Show.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110420/NEWYORK/110429997

That Honda had to redesign the model in time for the 2013 model year was a real acknowledgement that its 2012 model was big step backwards in what the US buying public wanted.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111031/CARNEWS/111039993

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120206/CARNEWS/120209930

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/23/honda-warns-dealers-to-clear-out-2012-civic-stock-2013-emergenc/
"The Japanese automaker has been stung by widespread criticism for the 2012 Civic range's lackluster dynamics, lessened interior quality, noise levels, low feature count and uninspiring design – perceived shortcomings exacerbated by the industry's hyper-competitive compact car segment. Among the critics, the Civic was given poor marks in a review by this site as well as influential institute Consumer Reports, which went so far as to remove the Civic from its coveted Recommended list. In fact, CR editors labeled the 2012 Civic a "car to avoid" in August."

Most automotive and consumer reviews in the US just didn't much like the car and what Honda did with it. When Consumer Reviews took it off their recommended list, I suspect plenty of folks at Honda were concerned.

From the same Edmunds.com website you cited:
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/

"Current Honda Civic
Although only redesigned a year ago, the Honda Civic was significantly refreshed again this year to address many of the new car's shortcomings and missteps. Chiefly, Honda has improved interior quality and design and added more standard features. It has also spruced up the car's exterior styling and retuned the suspension and steering for better handling. The Civic's crash-worthiness is also improved. The result is a car once again among the class leaders."

"Used Honda Civic Models
The current, ninth-generation Honda Civic was technically introduced for 2012, but a significant overhaul for 2013 means the first model year is substantially different and less desirable. The main problem was essentially that it seemed like barely an upgrade over the car it replaced (or worse), while other cars in the segment were making giant leaps forward. The biggest difference can be seen in the generic styling and subpar cabin quality. In the used market, we would avoid the 2012 Civic.

Prior to the current generation, Honda sold the eighth-generation Civic from 2006 through 2011. It'll be the most common used Civic you'll probably come across, and overall it should be a great pick for a used small car."

Every car company has made mistakes and suffered missteps. Honda is no different although its general track record is very good.

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/?ps=used
"Today, Honda's lineup runs the gamut. Included are fuel-sipping hybrids, a spacious minivan, reliable family sedans, practical SUVs and even a pickup. Although the latest Civic and Accord aren't quite the benchmarks they once were for their respective classes, Honda's brand as a whole continues to be one of the most well respected in the industry, with millions of loyal and satisfied customers."

As for sales, yes, the 2012 Civic did eventually sell well, especially after Jan 2012 as the economy picked up a bit. But everyone must remember that sales, like the domestics did in the lean years, were being pushed by incentives that made pricing more the catalyst for sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-honda-idUSTRE82100M20120302
"John Mendel, Honda's U.S. sales chief, has argued fallout from Consumer Reports' poor review has been minimal, pointing to the Civic's segment-leading sales in recent months. For the first two months of 2012, Civic's U.S. sales were up 45 percent.

But industry research firm TrueCar.com says incentives on the Civic have more than quintupled since its debut last April to almost $1,900 per car in January, suggesting sales are being driven by attractive deals."

Interestingly, the above article provides some rather candid discussion on Honda's part about how they lost track and focus Engineering vs. Bean Counter-wise and how and why the 2012 Civic came to be - some bad decisions all the way up to the CEO. (see previously mentioned Autoweek article) "Honda was in the midst of redesigning the Civic when the global economy imploded in 2009. Honda Motor Co. CEO Takanobu Ito stopped the redesign in its tracks, approved shortening the wheelbase and reducing content to appeal to budget-conscious consumers."

By the way, you have confused my post with botrytis' comments on the mid 2000's Civics. I made no such comments.
 
Whats with the Mitsubishi front end styling?
Regards,
Jim
 
I like the new Corolla. I'd buy one, but our next vehicle will be replacing our 15 year old RAV-4 when it finally gives up the ghost. We'll probably buy another RAV-4 or a CRV. Got 15 years of mostly trouble free fun driving out of the RAV4. The only comment I have about the Corolla is that I like the 2001 body style better. It was sleeker and lower to the ground for better handling.
images
 
"iconic dynamism" - gotta love that.

I will say that there is a brand new Avalon Hybrid that I see most every morning on my slog... umm... I mean commute to work. It is a very handsome automobile.
At a quick glance, the new Corolla looks quite nice to me - a far cry from the stodgy Corolla design of (it seems like!) the last couple of decades. The new one does remind me a bit, though, of recent versions of the Honda Civic. Not a bad thing, but the Japanese companies still seem to have this tight feedback loop in terms of copying each other's innovations and aesthetic contrivances in essentially real-time.

And, yes, I remember the F-10 well... wasn't there sort of a micro-pick-up version of it, too (sort of like the Subaru "BRAT" of the same era)? As I recall, all of the Datsun/Nissan cars of the late 1970s were sort of... Rococo in their design aesthetic. Well... it wasthe Disco Era, so we'll cut 'em a little slack.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I do understand the relatively bland Toyota styling although they've had their share of interestingly designed and built cars. I like the 1997-2001 Lexus ES300-ES330 models as being nicely built and very agreeably styled sedans, not too big and not too small.

Those are very nice cars. A coworker of mine has a 2000 that she bought new, 223k on the clock with no rattles and no major issues outsite of routine maintenance.
 
IMO, I consider Toyota to make pretty boring, un-inspiring cars. And the Lexus models look just like Toyota -

I think Dodge and some of the european companies are making some stylish wheels -

Never owned a Toyota, hope I never do ....

At first glance I thought it reminded me of the new Dart.
 
It amazes me how mediocre the fuel mileage is on many current cars. I am - barely - happy with my Fiesta (sitting at 38.4 mpg long-term average as I type this; used to get 40.0 with my old - and better - commute); any thing less than mid-30s average (real-world) seems like a travesty given the metastability of gasoline prices and the fact that every mL of gasoline burned produces a fixed amount of carbon dioxide (as well as variable amounts of other crud) for the environment to deal with.

My real-world experience with the Prius (mostly in mixed driving in the Baltimore/DC metro area; I almost always rent one when I go down thataways) is 50 to 55 mpg, and the performance overall is good (i.e., it's not terrifying to drive in DC Beltway traffic!). I'd buy one in a second... but Susan says that "everyone says they're no good in snow" :-) I really cannot imagine that a Prius is any worse than my Fiesta in New England winter conditions... although I must disclose that one did get stuck last winter on the (unpaved) road on which our NH house is located (and had to be towed out). That said, I really wouldn't try that road at certain times of the year in the Fiesta!


(the road was in pretty good shape the October day last year this photo was taken - can you see the hill looming ahead?!)
 
Last edited:
Yup, Susan's Escape Hybrid came factory equipped with low rolling resistance (Continental Eco-something-or-other) tires. They were OK in snow, though (although her Escape is also 4WD)... and they lasted 110,000 miles! They were very noisy tires on the road, however. By the time they wore out, they were no longer being made! We put Michelins on it next (which was, by that time, what Ford was putting on their Escape Hybrids). They were much quieter and the mileage didn't drop by much at all (maybe a couple of tenths of mpg) - but the Escape isn't capable of the kindof hyper-miling that the Prius is (it's sitting at 33.6 mpg running average as of this morning).
 
I'd probably be right behind you.... Especially if they did it with the Matrix! I have a Vibe, and love the hatchback.

sent from the 2nd galaxy with tapatalk



I own a '03 Vibe that basically is a Corolla in Pontiac clothing. I love the utility of the vehicle, the economy and the reliability. Just enough acceleration to get into traffic and 35 mpg on the highway if I keep it around the speed limit. Not sure about this new style Corolla. I prefer the styling of the Dodge Dart, but question the reliability over time. I have no doubt I'll hit 200k miles in my Vibe without major issues.

Like Sandy stated, the Corolla is a 'white appliance' vehicle. Nothing exciting either positive or negative. And for me, just what I want in a vehicle as a daily driver.
 
The only comment I have about the Corolla is that I like the 2001 body style better. It was sleeker and lower to the ground for better handling.
images

I agree. I like the looks of the 2001 Corolla. In the past I owned a Mustang, Toyota truck and a Civic, but for low maintenance costs, ease of repair my 2001 Corolla with close to 200,000 miles wins hands down. If this one dies, I might search for another one.

It does not win in the looks department, but for reliable transportation with good gas mileage, it's hard to beat.
 
I own a '03 Vibe that basically is a Corolla in Pontiac clothing. I love the utility of the vehicle, the economy and the reliability. Just enough acceleration to get into traffic and 35 mpg on the highway if I keep it around the speed limit. Not sure about this new style Corolla. I prefer the styling of the Dodge Dart, but question the reliability over time. I have no doubt I'll hit 200k miles in my Vibe without major issues.

Like Sandy stated, the Corolla is a 'white appliance' vehicle. Nothing exciting either positive or negative. And for me, just what I want in a vehicle as a daily driver.

The Vibe is a Toyota Matrix, not a Corrola. Might be the same engine.
 
I've never liked the looks of Corollas, but beat many surprised car drivers [up to 90 mph] with my '85 GTS.

I got it to 127 once, but it took a while to get there. :boring:


Steve
 
Back
Top Bottom