Miserable Engine Of The Day

". ." (xllx) 12/09/2013 at 12:53 • Filed to: meotd

2

17

This is a Toyota Auris. To be more exact, this is a facelifted version of the first generation Auris. It's a very typical compact car, essentially a hatchback version of the Corolla. If you were to guess what is the base engine for it, what would be your guess? 1.6l? 1.8l? Nope. It's a 1.33l 1NR-FE. Blimey.

To the untrained eye the specs don't look all that terrible though. About 100 hp? Hey. That's passable. The problem is, since the output is so high from a naturally aspirated, small displacement motor, the thing needs to be revved all the time. I'm not joking, a friend of mine drives one of those and he always tries to not let it fall below 4000 revs. Now that's relaxing! Maximum power is achieved at 6000 revs, while the pathetic 132 nm (97 lb-ft) of torque is available at 4000. All that in a car that weighs over 1300 kg (2860 lbs).

And you know what else? That 1.33 was supposed to be an upgraded powerplant. The pre-facelift Auris came with a 95hp @ 6000, 130 nm (96 lb-ft) @ 4400 1.4 liter 4ZZ-FE engine that was even worse. God help anyone who bought that thing.

The 1.33 engine remained the base option for the 2nd generation Auris. Luckily, the car had been made considerably lighter. Still, this is a terrible, terrible choice.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > . . 12/09/2013 at 12:54

2

Sounds like a good go-kart motor.

duurtlang > . . 12/09/2013 at 12:55

1

Miserable car of the day, if you were to ask me. Luckily very few bought them here. And if they did buy them they were 55+ years old and they bought the hybrid version (same drive train as a Prius).

. . > duurtlang 12/09/2013 at 13:00

0

Quite a few people bought them here. That makes me sad. Fortunately, the hybrid version didn't do well at all.

duurtlang > . . 12/09/2013 at 13:01

1

These cars are just so... I just don't really get the people who buy them. Almost every competitor out there is better in almost every single way.

KirkyV > . . 12/09/2013 at 13:09

0

It's certainly miserable, but hardly atypically miserable. Virtually every hatch has a similarly-sized base engine. They're not that bad, really, as long as you know what to expect of them. The 1.6 or above is generally the performance - or at the very least, 'warm' - option.

That said, if I were going to buy a smaller-engined hatch, it wouldn't be the Auris. Bleh.

. . > KirkyV 12/09/2013 at 13:14

0

I may still be living in the olden days, but 'back in my day' 1.6 was the base while 2.0 was the correct version.

There were 1.4 engines available for some of teh compacts (for example the mk1 Focus), but literally nobody bought them and they got discontinued quickly. Try finding a used 1.4 Focus. They're just not around.

Now, with all the turbocharging magic going on everything has changed.

GhostZ > . . 12/09/2013 at 13:23

0

This has to be some displacement-based tax evading engine. There's no way they would make an engine that requires you to rev it hard all of the time and potentially wear down significantly faster, yet produce so little power that its so inadequate to propel the car to any reasonable speed... unless there's some major tax incentive for keeping the displacement at or below 1.33l.

. . > GhostZ 12/09/2013 at 13:32

0

As far as I can tell there is no such direct incentive. At least not in Europe. This really seems to just be a supermini engine that they put in a much larger car.

Of course, I could be wrong.

KirkyV > . . 12/09/2013 at 13:40

0

Ah, I think I'm mistaking the Auris' class. The second picture down made me think, 'supermini' - where the vast majority of cars sold still have 1.1s and 1.2s - when it's actually a family hatch. Still, while 1.33 is on the small side for a car of that size, it isn't that unreasonable, really. I just had a quick look on Autotrader, and there are still quite a few 1.4 Focii floating around.

Pretty much every engine looks kinda massive to me, anyway. I've got 1.1l of pure French power propelling me around.

. . > KirkyV 12/09/2013 at 13:46

0

Just had a look at my local equivalent of Autotrader. 1.4s make for 3,6% of all mk 1s for sale.

KirkyV > . . 12/09/2013 at 13:48

0

I'd work out something similar, but AutoTrader - rather irritatingly - lumps the 1.4s in with the 1.6s. I will say, though, that the 1.4s are certainly outnumbered.

Union of Smog Techs of CA > . . 12/09/2013 at 14:37

0

I want to secretly switch Yaris badges with Auris while customer's aren't looking.

m2m, apex detective > duurtlang 12/09/2013 at 14:54

0

I never really warmed up to the Auris ... that said, the 177 hp Diesel made for some Autobahn capability.

duurtlang > . . 12/09/2013 at 15:09

0

The segment the Auris fits in (similar to the Golf) has always had 1.3-1.4L base engines. Take my old 1.3L mk2 Golf for example. Only around the turn of the century did they get completely out of fashion.

. . > duurtlang 12/09/2013 at 15:17

0

Well, to be fair, back then compact cars were a lot smaller and lighter.

duurtlang > . . 12/09/2013 at 15:39

0

True. But displacement produced less power. My 1.3 only had 54 hp and 97 Nm, versus the 100 hp and 132 Nm in the Auris. Sure, the Auris weighs almost 50% more, but still.

. . > duurtlang 12/09/2013 at 16:04

0

The Auris may have a high power output, but lack of torque and the need for incessant revving to get anywhere make for a lousy driving experience. It also means the car feels very slow. The friend mentioned in my original post had a Fabia 1.4 MPI (60hp) before the Auris, and according to both him and his father the Fabia felt quicker.