Toyota Corolla 10th Generation Altis Owners [continued]

**jut703** · May 8th, 2012 10:24 AM

I wouldn't say that the gearing of the 4AT was awful. It's just that with only 4 gears to play with, you don't have much flexibility. Put the ratios too close like a city car, and your highway performance and economy will suffer.

Definitely, the facelift made the Altis so much better, across all of its variants. A part of me has always regretted getting a 2.0V over a 2.0S-L FD, but if it was the 2.0V with the fuel-efficient CVT and more useful features (1.1M and no AUX on the old 2.0V!), I wouldn't feel so bad.

On your 10 km/L city run, is that a 1.5E? I have a friend who's got a 1.3S AT that also gets just 10 km/L on her city runs.

**vinj** · May 8th, 2012 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by jut703

On your 10 km/L city run, is that a 1.5E? I have a friend who's got a 1.3S AT that also gets just 10 km/L on her city runs.

Sorry as it wasnt too clear. the 10km/L city run is what i get with the Altis 1.6E m/t right now. My 1.6 J m/t also get similar figures 9-10km/L in the city. If the 1.6 6-speed can improve to 11-12km/L in city driving over time, i'd be fine.

I swapped tires last weekend though so FC may change a bit (overall diameter is slightly larger).

Lousy pic as i did not want to bring the car out of the garage anymore. But the 215/50R17s fit the rims and wheel wells better than the usual 215/45R17s a lot of guys use.

**renzo_d10** · May 8th, 2012 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by vinj

Take note though that the 13km/L i got is mixed city and highway; and in this case, the city driving traffic i encountered when i used the car last week was not the usual salbahe bad traffic. 10km/L would probably still be the norm if i was driving in pure city traffic.

The City is a good car if you're getting the 1.3 m/t. Easy to drive, nimble and my only gripe was the clunky suspension (when it hits bad potholes) and the power door locks having no switch.

Yup, 1.3S MT naman talaga. I never liked ATs. And you're right about the suspension, when I drove the 1.5E last year and hit a hump.. the whole body frame literally slammed on the peak of the hump which was relatively low.

**jut703** · May 8th, 2012 11:53 AM

A litte bit OT, but sir renzo, kamusta yung performance ng 1.3S MT? I've only driven the AT version, and I can say that it doesn't feel like it's got 100 hp at lower revs. In fact, I feel that it behaves similarly to a 1.3L Vios below 4,500 rpm, despite the 15 hp difference.

**renzo_d10** · May 8th, 2012 11:58 AM

Wala pa sakin, jut. 1.5L AT pa rin naddrive ko, when I drive it hard mabilis naman yung response niya. Sipa agad to 4000rpm then yung speedometer patuloy umaakyat. Can't really compare sa Vios since I haven't drove one, yet.

**supermak** · May 11th, 2012 12:48 AM

Hi Guys, if you'd choose between a 2008 Honda City 1.3 idsi AT and a 2007 Altis 1.6G AT what would you choose?

What's the FC of 2007 altis 1.6g AT? Im still a bit undecided which one to buy. I manage to borrow money from my mom, my budget is around 400K.

**jut703** · May 11th, 2012 07:22 PM

Definitely the Altis 1.6G. The i-DSI City looks ugly to me, and I liken its body to a cockroach. The Altis is more spacious, larger, has more features, is faster, and looks a lot better. The only advantage that the City 1.3 has is that it's more fuel efficient. In AT form, it gets around 10 km/L in city driving, while the Altis gets about 9 km/L in the same conditions.

**vinj** · May 14th, 2012 09:16 AM

I'd agree. Except if you really want your car to be very fuel efficient, i'd go with the Altis as well or a Honda Jazz 1.3 instead of the City.

Update on FC again. 10.9km/L using Shell Super Premium. Mostly regular city traffic with a Manila to Pampanga Highway drive on a semi heavy foot, engine braking and speeds between 110-155kph. I'm switching back to Shell Regular Unleaded where i feel i got the best FC. I'm also verifying if the rim/tire change did any significant changes to FC.

Using GPS, the new tires (slightly larger diameter than stock) gave me a 2.5kph difference from actual speedo readings. Closer to actual speed as compared to the 4.5kph difference on the stock 15 inch rims.

**renzo_d10** · May 14th, 2012 12:28 PM

^ Vinj, what do you mean 2.5kph difference? Yung speedo mo sobra sa actual or less sa actual speed?

**vinj** · May 14th, 2012 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by renzo_d10

^ Vinj, what do you mean 2.5kph difference? Yung speedo mo sobra sa actual or less sa actual speed?

On stock tires, at 100kph on the speedo, i was doing around 95 to 96kph per the GPS. With the new tires, i'm doing 97.5kph to 98kph per GPS while my speedo reads 100kph flat.

Speedos usually read more than the actual speed.