Talk:Toyota Corolla/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use in terrorism

I introduced information regarding the Corolla's use in car bombings to the article. It has been widely reported in the media and thus should be included in this article. I have found half a dozen sources that support my point, could an experienced user decide the best ones to keep. As I probably have included a few too many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.181.144 (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section, only one source mentions that the Corolla is favored by suicide bombers and just in passing without any kind of explanation. The others just mention that the vehicle in question was a Corolla. Unless someone has given this subject some attention in a third party source, there is no reason to mention it as it is more or less original research. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

US Chassis vs VIN codes

US AE85

I believe that the US only got the AE86 (which always had the 1600cc 4A engine) and never got the AE85 (which always had the 1500cc 3A engine). But the SR5 (with 4A-C) had AE85 in its VIN (a US regulatory id) while still having AE86 in it's model code on the build plate in the engine bay. Which is to say, Toyota thought of them as an AE86 but called it an AE85 for US government purposes. A similar thing happened to the TE71 coupe. The US VIN said TE71 for the 1800cc coupe (which was said TE72 in the engine bay) A factory TE71 was a 1600cc coupe/liftback/sedan but a 1600cc 7# wasn't offered in the US. The big question is: do we name it in Wiki according to the build plate or the VIN? Americans are more used to the VIN but the rest of the world goes by the build plate. Stepho-wrs 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

E7x

In regard to the changes made by Philip Trueman for the E7# US market chassis. He lists the E71 and W75, neither of which were sold in the US. In fact the E75 doesn't exist anywhere. TE71 *always* means 7# chassis with 1600 2T engine - in sedan, coupe and liftback forms. TE72 *always* means 7# chassis with 1800 3T engine - in sedan, coupe and liftback forms. But this didn't fit the pattern of the US VIN system, so Toyota choose to put TE71 in the VIN for the TE72 coupe and TE72 in the VIN for the TE72 liftback. You can see the pattern here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/crllaprd.htm#corolla4pr So once again I ask, do we list the US models available by the Toyota chassis code as listed on the manufacturer's build plate in the engine bay or by the government VIN code? I will wait a week or so for replies, If there is no answer then I will change them back to the manufacturer's chassis codes. Stepho-wrs 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

On 24th January, someone from 60.51.89.246 removed all text under Japan (1974-1981) and included some garbage text. As I do not know how to restore a previous version partially, can I request you to restore that? A4980 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of 10th generation

The picture of 10th generation was deleted on 14th December. Can someone please restore that back? A4980 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Engines

How come the first generation Corolla's 1.1 liter engine has 60 hp=56 kW power. It is supposed to be 1 kW=1.34 hp or so. I don't know which unit is correct (maybe both wrong, because 1.2 liter engine is said to be 55 hp) but it has to be fixed. Also what is the difference between OHV and SOHC engines. Does OHV mean a pushrod mechanism? In fourth generation American engines why does 1.8 liter engine generates less power than 1.6 . Is this a mistake or an engine characteristic? Thanks. Kerem Ozgur 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds me changing the format of this section a little to better reflect the questions asked by Kerem. No words were changed, just indentation changed and subheadings added Stepho-wrs 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

60HP = 56kW?

Power output differences are likely due to emissions reasons and possibly testing method differences. 3sgte 10:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
How about 60 HP being equal to 56 kW?Kerem Ozgur 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
About the conversion, I cannot say. I personally won't correct it, as I don't have the original source data, and I don't know which it the correct value. 3sgte 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Factory brochures of the 1100cc KE10 show 60PS. Japan used the German PS (about 98.6% of the HP value) but this was typically measured liberally (ie fan, alternator, water pump disconnnected, measured at the flywheel). Brochures for the US spec 1200cc KE11 show 65HP (not net, possibly BHP and probably with the same liberal measuring system of disconnecting anything that causes drag). I have never seen any factory documentation for kW figures for the early engines (Japan always used PS, never kW). Possibly a French brochure might have kW but I don't have a French brochure. I would trust the HP figure and mistrust the kW figure. 60PS = 59.1HP = 43.5kW Stepho-wrs 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
1 DIN kW equals 1.359 621 617, or roughly 1.36 DIN PS. Also, 1 (US) net hp or net bhp equals 1.014 DIN PS. The Japanese used to use JIS (Japan Industry Standard) hp, which, I am told, roughly equal US gross SAE hp ratings, as Stepho-wrs correctly states. As for the early Corolla 1100, Xavier Chauvin in his book "Voitures Japonaises 1960-1975" [Japanese Cars 1960-1975] cites 60 SAE [gross] hp. This should translate to about 50 DIN PS and to about 37 kW. As the first-generation Corolla was not sold in my home country market (Germany), there are no official DIN ratings. --- 60 PS = 56 kW must be wrong.

--328cia 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OHV?

OHV refers to any overhead valve engine, no matter if it is an OHC or a pushrod design. Calling something a pushrod engine, a OHC engine or a DOHC engine is more specific, but OHV is true for all of them. The Toyota T Engine article claims it's a pushrod engine, so I'll update this article to reflect that. Lack Thereof 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1.8 weaker than 1.6?

As for the 1.8 being a weaker engine than the 1.6, it's simply because the T series engines were an older design than the A series (1970 vs 1978 are their respective introduction years), I would suspect that most likely with a less efficient cylinder head design (the A's have aluminum heads), possibly lower compression or with a bad valve angle or too small of ports for the upped displacement. Toyota never had the kind of success with pushrod designs that GM and Ford did, so it's not out of the ordinary for their pushrod engines to have sub-par performance. Lack Thereof 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, just added the 2T-GEU to the fourth-generation engines list, as the TE71 GT/Trueno/Levin were the last platform for the 2T-G in the Corolla. --Carcenomy 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is too large

I've trimmed it up a bit, getting rid of redundant information and streamlining it. I've also gotten rid of extra subjective comments, and updated the information box.

Mr krisp 08:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned as much as I could, but I am a bit tired. The page is looking alot better than the mess it was before. It still needs more cleaning...and better pictures!

Mr krisp 09:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning it up, I've organized the parts of the article into the three main markets, the Japanese, American and European markets and moved relavent material to them

Mr krisp 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it being large? It doesn't seem to be rambling or repetitive. I would rather have more information than less.

Difference in Middle Eastern/Japanese Corollas

Why is it that only the American Corolla version is mentioned in this article, while the Japanese versions of the corollas are left out? The japanese corolla's are probably the most selling corollas out there. Just my two thoughts. --64.86.18.3 13:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably because the contributors to this page are mostly from the US. Feel free to add information about all other Corollas. It will be appreciated. --Boivie 08:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Market differences

It seems a bit silly to have changed all the launch years of the Corolla. Restored today. It also seems foolhardy to write such sweeping statements for the Corolla that are applicable to the US market only, e.g. 'Only a sedan was available' when there were six other bodystyles on sale in other countries. Stombs 12:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I based those sections on the information available. I am pleased to have the errors corrected! --SFoskett 14:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
SFoskett, didn't know it was you otherwise I wouldn't have been as firm! I thought it was a newbie going in. Anyway, always great to see your edits and thanks for taking my message in such a pleasant way. Of course, I expect to be corrected when I goof on US stuff. Stombs 23:36, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Toyota Sprinter Trueno AE86 series

I have moved the Sprinter Trueno "see also" comment to the bottom. Since it refers to only one generation of Corolla, it didn't seem right to have it apply to the whole page. I'm also a bit concerned it doesn't follow Wiki's make–model convention, with a series number in between.

To recognize the author of that article, I have linked and referred to it inside the discussion of fourth-generation Corollas. Stombs 22:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

5th Generation Pictures

Does anyone have any nice pictures of the normal 4-door AE82 Corolla (preferably the Japanese model, though the European one is barely different)? The two Sprinter Truenos there barely resemble any of the normal Corollas of the time, and I think they should be kept to the dedicated AE86 page once an appropriate picture is found.

I've added a picture of the AE86 Levin model instead because of the EU models featuring this chassis. The look of this model is, as you already stated, "more" like the other models.

As an auto transport truck driver, I know that Toyota made the three door Corolla FX hatchback in the NUMMI plant in Freemont. When visiting the NUMMI section I found that it wasn't listed in the "Past Products" section. From hauling Toyotas out of the plant, I do remember that it was the first product that came out under the Toyota name. Can anyone who worked at the plant fill in any details on its' years of production please feel free do so. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.141 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Designations

Could any info/light on the SE/DX/XL(i) labels be added?


The best idea I think is to go through the available brochures, which I have done for the most part, although for some, I just pulled it out of my head.

Mr krisp 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Query as to best locaion for information

Hi, I recently had to search high and low for the maximum legal carrying capacity for my 2001 Toyota Corolla, and ended up having to call the dealership for the information. This information is required in my state's application for a certificate of title, which I was filling out. Since I've gone to the trouble of getting this info, I thought it would be benificial to put it on Wikipedia. Is there an appropraite place for this information? I'm new, so if this is in the wrong place I apologize (and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction?) Tsunomon 00:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Tsunomon

I, valve

Am I missing something? The engines are I4s; aren't they all 8v? Or does this mean 4v/16v, as oppo std 2v/8v? I'm N nuf a Toy guy to know, but that's what I'd guess. Can somebody clarify? Trekphiler 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

16V was introduced in the E80 4A-FE/GE series as "standard"...but they still had 8V carbed versions. they didnt swtich over to 16V for all until the E90.

Mr krisp 09:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all the 1.3 litre E90s sold in Europe were only 12 valve engines - these may have been carried over from the previous generation. --Zilog Jones 10:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I4 stands for In-line 4 cylinder. You are right though with your thinking dude, an engine could be described as a 4 valve per cylinder. Craigjs

For sale

I don't see a date, so let me ask: when did Corolla surpass the Type 1 as #1-selling nameplate ever? (Or, we could argue, since the Type 1 changed so little & the Corolla so much, it still hasn't & probably never will, if we want a VW-Toy edit war...) Trekphiler 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Volkswagen Type 1 is the #1-selling car model ever, and Corolla the #1-selling nameplate ever. Didn't Type 1, by the way, have different nameplates? Like Volkswagen 1300, 1302 etc. --Boivie 09:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No. What the "Beetle" never had was an actual standard model name. Models such as the 1300, 1302 and 1303 would exist at the same time and describe different engines and trim levels. --Pc13 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll buy Corolla #1-selling nameplate; what year did it pass the Type 1's sales #? Trekphiler 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chassis code generations

I think the current use of things like "xE-2x" for the generations is very messy-looking, and propose instead using the same format as on the Japanese page, i.e. "E10 series", "E20 series", etc. I don't think the hyphen before the number is as commonly used. --Zilog Jones 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it looks better that way. I suppose the xE-7x is used, because the different models were codenamed KE70, CE70, TE71, TE72, where the first letter refers to the name of the engine used. So it's only the E and the 7 that is common for all cars of that generation. I could live with naming the generation the "E70 series". I wonder what the generations are called among Toyota entusiasts around the world... --Boivie 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I know why the current system was used, it's just it doesn't look very nice and some people may not realise that the x's are supposed to be wildcards. Upon some not particularly in-depth Googling, I found a lot of results with E80, E90, etc., but unfortunately with some numbers I got a lot of results of pages refering to Corollas and subsequently BMWs that use these chassis codes (e.g E30 is a generation of 3-series). This naming convention also appears to be used with other Toyotas on the Japanese Wikipedia, i.e. they use "T10 series", "T20 series", etc. for Coronas and A10, A20, etc. for Carinas, however with the Starlet they use "KP4# series" and so on - but the last number is the only one that changes within a Starlet generation as they only use different sizes of the same engines. --Zilog Jones 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the x doesn't look good, and I also believe I more often have seen the codes without the hyphen. If we need a wildcard maybe * is better than x, but "E30 series" is aslo fine with me. I believe I somewhere (Germany?) have seen the generation-names without the last number as well: E3, E7, E8 etc. See de:Toyota Starlet --Boivie 16:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Toyota's own manuals refer to model ranges as E2# (KE20, TE20, TE21, etc) or E3#/4# (KE30, TE30, KE35, TE47, etc). Most web sites follow this convention. Some refer to them as E2 but this get confusing on things like the Corona ST200 (there was a much earlier model called the ST20). Some people use an asterix to refer to multiple engine (eg *E20 for KE20 and TE20) but it's simpler in most cases to simply drop the engine letter. Stepho-wrs 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Urgh...

Seriously, those boxes have to go... They are hard to read and serve no other purpose than being annoying to the eyes. /Grillo 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

the info box is too large

It is no longer an "info box". its a breakdown of all the Corollas with pictures of different markets, and isn't really representitive. It needs to be changed back.

That's because somebody put all the generational infoboxes directly under each other. They should have been placed at the beginning of each section. I have to be going now and don't have time to rearrange that, but if somebody could, it would be great. Bravada, talk - 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


bad pictures

certain pictures on this page are horrible, we need images of the cars in good condition.the current pictures give people a bad impression of the cars, and are not good examples of what the cars look like.

Agreed totally. The sidepanel image of AE80 was just too horrible. I changed it to the better looking 1987model, which is more representitive of the line of quality that model offered. Great car 84.202.126.172 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

new pictures

I agree, I noticed that when I saw the article for the first time. The second and fourth generation car pictures, for example, were suited for a junkyard... changed them to the new ones, think it looks better now. Added the first generation car picture. Asked the owner for permission. Should the second generation picture be changed to a "regular" model instead of the rallye version? It's pretty recognizable though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realinho (talk • contribs)

Please try to get some free pictures to upload to Commons. In the "fair use" criteria it says: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material to illustrate the work or product in question in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose on the English-language Wikipedia.". So I suppose the recently added pictures of the 2nd and the 4th generations will be deleted, since free images are avaliable. --Boivie 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

images that need changing the most

the images that need changing the most are: Third generation (most 70's cars dont look good in black & white, having seen the car in color, i must say the b&w photo is terrible),Fourth generation (do i really need to explain this? :-) ),Fifth generation (bad angle, my mum drives a toyota corolla made around this time and it is a very nice looking car).this is not the only page with this problem, many pages on wikipedia have this exact same problem, and nobody seems to be doing anything.it might be fans of the newer models trying to make thier cars look nicer.--Yet-another-user 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


i see that this page is finaly being improved, and i would like to thank the people who are improving this page.--Yet-another-user 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than complain, you could just be bold and do something yourself - here are some ideas:
Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


everytime i try to do something it turns out to be a disaster, so im a bit afraid of doing it myself. .also i dont know how to change a page.im only 15 so i dont know these things.also im confused about what images i can use. also there are no good pictures in commons.my mum owns a toyota corolla from 1986 so i will try to send up a picture of it.the Third generation picture is the worst, and i dont know how to change it. --Yet-another-user 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for a belated answer. I don't really believe what I'm reading, some of the most active and bold WP editors are younger than you (are you really serious?). Just do whatever you feel like, in case that's not the right thing somebody will correct that and hopefully explain why it was wrong and how should you deal with such things - that's how you learn the ropes here. Do also check your usertalk page for a welcome message - you'll find some useful links there!
As concerns photos that you can use, you can basically use any self-made photos of cars in original condition (not modded or damaged), preferably clean, and without people or personal details (license plate numbers, house numbers and such) in the photo (the license plate numbers obviously have to be simply removed from some photos, I recommend GIMP in case you don't use any photoediting software at the moment). A front 3/4s shot is recommended - like the red one in the 4th generation infobox (it's not free and should actually be removed, but that's another thing). You can also ask other people for permission to release their photos of their Corollas into public domain by uploading them to Wikipedia - a really great number of people are helpful with that! Bravada, talk - 23:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, great improvement with the pictures, especially the first two - thank God those cars don't rust to bits in Australia like they do here! --Zilog Jones 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


sadly i did not put those pictures on this page.and the page hardly seems changed --Yet-another-user 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

im having huge trouble getting my corolla images scanned, so it may be some time before i can scan them.the Third generation picture is the worst, a color image would be better(most cars look good in b&w, but some (including the 1970's toyota corolla) dont).the Fifth generation picture is also very bad, however my mum owns a 1986 toyota corolla that i hope to scan pictures of.i hate it when people assume that all teenages are great internet users.some (like me), have trouble using the internet. it may be some time before im able to scan my corolla images(probably months).--Yet-another-user 10:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: i have just sent several images to wikipedia commons, and i hope they are good.it took me a while, and i needed help from my sister, but i have submitted them.i dont know how to change images, so i hope someone else can do it.just one question, why do you have to re-register again when you submit content to wikipedia commons? im sure theres a good reason.Yet-another-user 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

right now the pic that needs updating would be the one in the main infobox(the top one). The tenth generation is now unveiled in the US, Europe, China, and South-East Asian, which would make it an "official model" right now and not the just-outdated Ninth Generation model. I believe a reason for any non-updates would be that the model is still in large numbers, but the model will exist forever, so, the pic can't just remain at 9th generation right?ADouBTor (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for the head image to be the newest model. The top infobox provides information for the entire vehicle line, and can be illustrated with a photo of the car from any of its generations. IFCAR (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Also called" confusion

The early '80s Daihatsu Charmants I've seen look significantly different to the Corollas - I didn't even know they were related till I read this. So they should probably be in the "related" section of the boxes. Ditto with the Geo Prizm, though I don't know exactly how different it was (the early 90s ones looked more like Sprinters if anything). I think the "Also called" section should only really be used if they only differ in name or maybe slight trim differences (grille, bumpers, etc.), e.g. modern Opels vs. Vauxhalls and Holdens. --Zilog Jones 10:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


I do not know about the Holden or Daihatsu models, but the Chevy Nova/Geo Prizm/Chevy Prizm in the US is a Toyota Corolla with Sprinter trim, Chevy/Geo badges, and a Delco stereo.Lack Thereof 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposal on splitting the article

This article gives me a headache when I try to read it, it's much too long. I say we split this up into three articles, one for the USDM Corolla, one for the EDM Corolla and another for the JDM Corolla. What do you guys think? --ApolloBoy 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Corolla is a car that's been on sale for the last forty years and has been one of the most popular cars sold during much of that time. It's going to be long no matter what, and splitting it up threatens redundancy. IFCAR 22:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have subarticles for particular generations carved out of the article rather than divided by markets - a good example is the Mercedes-Benz E-Class - the main article gives a good overview of the model line, history and development, and the "generation" articles provide the reader with all technical details and peculiarities. Although Corollas sold in different markets differ more than Mercs, the Corollas of a given generation sold in different markets have much more in common than Corollas of different generations sold in a given market. Articles created along the latter division lines would have to essentially repeat the same development story. Bravada, talk - 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bravada, the article could be split in generation. One question: the E10, E20 etc. generation names... are officially (I mean internally) used by Toyota? If so, they could be used like this: Toyota Corolla (E10), Toyota Corolla (E20), Toyota Corolla (E30)... -- NaBUru38 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the Honda Civic might be a better template to aim for. The model revisions are tables, but most of the article is made of readable paragraphs. The car has been an amazing seller, but the scrolling distance from the top to the current models is perhaps a bit long. --Chrispounds 12:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not the best example, as Honda Civic is just an underdeveloped (and quite bad on all accounts) article at the moment, this is why it appears so short. Bravada, talk - 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's long enough to be separated yet, and ApolloBoy's proposal would lead to a lot of duplicated material - the Corolla stayed quite similar in all markets up until the E110 when they started using region-specific body panels though the European and Japanese ones are pretty much the same again with the E120, and even then the car was still mechanically similar.
With regards to whether E10, E20, etc. are officially used, it seems it varies between documentation (see Chassis code generations). From my experience (e.g. [1]), I often see stuff like "KE30", "AE90", etc. used to refer to generations, though as several generations use many different engine series (the letters before the "E") this wouldn't be a good idea. However, the Japanese WP page for this does it in the same way as here, the Finnish page lists each variation (though with errors), and the Russian page also does the same as here. The Toyota Corona page and possibly other Toyota pages have also listed chassis codes in similar fashion. --Zilog Jones 01:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that the article be split into 2 articles - RWD (ie models up to ealry 80's) and FWD (ie models from mid 80's to current).

People interested in early models seem less interested in later models and vice versa. The only issue with this is how to deal with the AE80/82 (FWD) and the AE85/86 (RWD). --Stepho-wrs 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Time for the 10th Generation

This is it, guys. Something to lengthen the article length even further. The 10th generation of Corolla has been unveiled, but owing to temporary time constraints, I am unable to update the page with the information until Wednesday. Till then, would anyone be keen to do the research and add it in? Oh yes, and don't forget to list the future models under 10th generation. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Model year vs production year

I understand that in USA, cars for a certain model year usually released in the previous year. However, in the Corolla article, in the box of each generation the row says "production" not US model year. For example, for eight generation, production started in 1995 (mentioned in title line), but you are using 1996 for the production in the box. So please either change 'production' in the box to US model year or please use 1995 as production start year.

There are three such differences in the article now. This is for 7th, 8th and 10th generations. These are to be corrected as 7th production from 1991 (instead of 1992, which is a US model year), 8th production from 1995 and 10th production from 2006. Comments welcome. A4980 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Detail??

Is this article too technically detailed?? I think some of it could be transwiki'd to Wikicars, per GFDL requirements. What do people think? I might start removing parts of the article if there is consensus for it. --SunStar Nettalk 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can remove (re locate into sub page) only too technical details. However, removing too much may degrade its quality; afterall, this is one of the best car pages in Wiki. A4980 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to propose what you want remove before removing it. If there is no comment then just do it. Daniel.Cardenas 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at wikicars.org . It is unsuitable for shifting this page to it because it is owned by a different organisation (not wikipedia) and it is explicitly US only (which sucks for Australians like me, sucks for most other countries and leaves out interesting Japanese only models). Seems like splitting the page up is still the best idea. Stepho-wrs 05:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

translation needed

What does corolla mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.192.164.149 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

"Corolla" means the crown (petals) of a flower. It matches with Crown, Corona (crown of the sun) and Camry (KaMuRi is Japanese for Crown). Stepho-wrs 04:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I'm going to try and remove the technical details from this page and make it simpler to read, so it is more encyclopedic. If you support this proposal please reply here! Thanks! --sunstar nettalk 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I always hate removing information but I agree that this page is too big and complicated. Many enthusiasts refer to their Corollas by the model code (eg KE35 rather then as a '76 hardtop), so I'd really hate to remove the model number lists. Perhaps we could make this into an overview page, with each generation having a couple of paragraphs of introductory/background text (eg major changes and it's place in the larger world) and a link to a detail page (one detailed page per generation; containing model codes, engine details, country details, etc). Stepho-wrs 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find the model codes and some of the technical details very interesting, so please don't remove it. --Boivie (former owner of several KE70s, a KE30, a TE72 and a KE20) 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatchback vs liftback

Hatchback and liftback are interchangeable terms. Hatchback is used 50 times. Liftback is used 32 times. I'd like to change to a single term for consistency. I prefer "liftback" because Toyota use that term. Any comments? Stepho-wrs 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the hatchback and the liftback are different bodies. The hatchback is a standard two-body design, the liftback is a longer model, with the length of a saloon and a boot opening similar to that of a fastback coupé. --Pc13 11:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I forgot that the E8# hatchback (aka FX16) had an almost vertical rear door while the E8# liftback had a heavily slanted fastback shape. Stepho-wrs 22:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

North American Corolla Leak?

Just wanted to make sure that the pictures are legit? -> http://sarawananravindran.com/2007/10/2009-toyota-corolla-north-america-leak/

99.243.182.145 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Biggest selling car?

Biggest-selling nameplate perhaps. But the original Corolla was a rear-wheel drive vehicle - somewhere over the years it became front-wheel-drive. Surely it can't still be the same car, despite the link to Toyota's site saying it is? Perhaps this needs clarification in the text. Paul Fisher 11:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the corolla wasn't initially rear wheel drive just for driving dynamics. FR cars today tend to be sportier, but back then it was just because front wheel drive wasn't very easy to do. It takes a major change in how you put together the drivetrain, but in a car designed for everyday conservative driving doesn't really change how the car feels. The corolla always fitted into the same area of the market and drove the same (relative to competitors). 212.2.182.207 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
>It takes a major change in how you put together the drivetrain,
That's my point exactly. The entire drivetrain is different. It's not a matter of evolution, but a completely new vehicle. The VW Beetle evolved over the years but was still recognisably the same car, whereas the Corolla of today has absolutely nothing in common with that of the 1960s. Paul Fisher 09:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Toyota already knew how to do FWD with the little known 1938 Toyota EA prototype (actually a copy of the DKW F-7). But Toyota knew that FWD on Japan's rough and hilly roads in the 50's and 60's would have been a complete disaster. The swapped to FWD in the 80's because Japan's highway system had improved and FWD allows more passenger space (critical in small cars like the Corolla). Each Corolla model was very close to the model before it. The last RWD Corolla used many of the same components as the first FWD Corolla. Just compare the AE70 (RWD), the AE86 (RWD using basically an AE70 chassis and AE80 like panels) and the AE80 (FWD). Anyway, most cars that have been sold over 40 years will differ markedly from first to last. How many components can be shared among the first and last Mustangs. Even the first and last Beetles shared almost no parts inspite of looking similar. If the criteria is stated as "the most number of cars sold under a single name", then the Corolla must certainly be the most sold car on Earth, even if each individual model differed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Corolla means flower part or car to you?

Does anybody else think its ridiculous that it takes two links after a search to get to the best selling car ever, and none at all to find out what corolla actually means? All ten lines of it?! At the VERY least corolla should re-direct to a disambiguation page, so millions can choose this article and a few botanists can decide to read the other one. There is a discussionTalk:Corolla about a merge for that article into some other one, and only one other person has even thought of this issue. Hence I am posting here where someone might care. 78.16.99.207 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The current scheme is the logical way to do it. Cars are supposed to be listed as <manufacturer> <model> (e.g. Toyota Corolla), so this is correct. And the topic name "corolla" is quite correct for the flower. Remember that the car is named after the flower, not the other way around. If it really bothers you, add a line to the top of the flower page pointing to the car page.Stepho-wrs 11:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Geo Prizm redirect

I think Geo Prizm should be merged into the Toyota Corolla article, they share the same parts and engines.

User:Pam1855 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pam1855, I disagree with you talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.117.194 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But they are different cars with distinct histories. I do not feel a merge is needed. the_undertow talk 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree also, they are different cars. 70.225.139.228 07:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we also merge Mercury Sable into Ford Taurus? Plymouth Breeze and Chrylser Cirrus into Dodge Stratus? And so on? Merging the Prizm (and all the other rebadged Geos) would be inconsistent with existing articles. IFCAR 13:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If anything, the evidence, for me, points the other way. The article is already long and some might think it a little unwieldy. The more normal wiki solution would be to disaggregate the bits - have a much shorter high level article and then a separate suitably 'gruendlich' article for each generation of Corolla. Given the way different models are differently branded in different places, however, the disaggregation could quickly become controversial in terms of what went with what. So ... no easy solutions. But please don't try and squish in something else which sort of belongs but sort of doesn't: that'll just confuse the poor casual reader further. Charles01 13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Geo Prizm should be merged with the Toyota Corolla. The Prizm is a seperate car in its own right. It was the best selling car made by Geo. I support user IFCAR's argument, if we allow the Prizm to be merged with the Corolla, you might as well merge every rebadged car ever made. The article, or the Prizm itself isn't hurting anybody. Like the old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Mcbridelr 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting up "Toyota Corolla"

I believe that the Toyota Corolla page should be split up into variants to make the information more useable and manageable - i.e Toyota Corolla Sedan/Wagon/Fielder (JP), Corolla Levin/Sprinter Trueno, Corolla Ceres/Sprinter Marino, merging Toyota Corolla II with Toyota Tercel/Corsa, Corolla Spacio/Verso, Corolla FX/Corolla Runx/Allex/Auris/Blade, Corolla Rumion/Scion xB, Sprinter Sedan/Wagon/Carib, Sprinter Cielo/Corolla (EU late 80s fastback), Corolla USA

Well, that would be how I would split it - by model. This is due to the current Toyota Corolla page being too confusing and therefore overwhelming to someone looking for a specific model or piece of information. Anywhere possible, information could be taken and translated from the japanese wikipedia page for the same model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joescotchman (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the best way to split this overly long article is by generation (ie by model). I have created a number of pages for each generation:

Currently they just redirect back to the main Corolla page. I would like to shift the information from the generation sections of the main page to each of the above new pages. Only a short summary and a link would be left in each generation section on the main page. If there is no major objection then I will start the shifting on 16 May 2008. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of splitting this article in general, that's an awful lot of articles. Maybe we can find something else by which to group them? IFCAR (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. While I commend you on all the work you've done, Stepho-wrs, I believe the original page was much easier to navigate than all of these new articles and wish to go back to the original version and find another alternative.--Flash176 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not the number of articles - there is an awful lot of articles because there was an awful lot of Corollas (and yes, I'd support the split of E85/86 from the E80). The problem is the lack of summaries that are usually left in the main page. We need a summary for every generation under each section head! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that's a better way of putting it.--Flash176 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn I left a comment on this discussion page asking someone else to do the summaries but somehow it got lost (possibly I forgot to save it). Anyway, I've added summaries for up to the E90 generation. I have lots of information up to the E80 generation but very little after that, so hopefully someone else will do the other summaries. If not, then I will have to read the articles for the later generations and then write my own summary. I only like older cars, so I hope someone else does the newer generations for me :) We should put one or two representative pictures for each generation here as well. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There has been no discussion about the proposed merging of the E10,20,...140 articles back into a single Corolla article so I assume nobody else wants them merged. If nothing substantial changes then I will remove the merge tags on Saturday, 13 Dec 2008. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's too much information to merge them back. A lot of other car articles have gone this way too (e.g. VW Golf, Holden Commodore, etc.) so I don't see what the problem is with the current layout. --Zilog Jones (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Versions - Using the Corolla name

"The Tercel was a front wheel drive spin-off of the rear wheel drive Corolla introduced in 1980, called the Corolla Tercel which later became its own model in 1984.

The Tercel chassis was used again for the Corolla II hatchback."

If my understanding is correct, what the writer is trying to say is: Corolla Tercel used Corolla's name only. It had no mechanical lineage from Corolla. But the sentence "spin-off of RWD Corolla" may give readers an impression of otherwise. North wiki (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Info box: Successor Auris (except Australia)

I think Toyota only replaced Corolla with Auris in the European market only.

Should it be more specific to reflect this in the info box? Otherwise, it may be viewed as to mean the world market. North wiki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE REGARDING THE TIMELINE

Until Toyota releases a press release regarding the 2009 Corolla and whatever happens to the Matrix, DO NOT UPDATE THE TIMELINE BASED ON A RUMOR. User:buterfly0fdoom Sunday, 2007-02-25 T 22:35 UTC


Toyota reports resumption of USA production at its new Blue Springs, MS plant in October 2011. http://detnews.com/article/20111117/AUTO01/111170439/Toyota-starts-Corolla-production-at-new-Mississippi-plant 03:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)~~D.Galbraith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.174.67 (talk)

Pathetic...

There is virtually NO data for these cars. I don't own one, but my girlfriend has a 2007 and I do all the maintenance/repairs on it. I'm just disappointed that there is no information about these cars on Wikipedia. It just goes to show that most Toyota owners don't know anything about cars except how to drive them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.255.110 (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, 2007 in US speak translates into an Oct 2006 onwards E140 or E150. So we look in the article in the 'Tenth generation (E140, E150)' section and find a prominent link to the detailed Toyota Corolla (E140) article which has a heap of information about the E140 and E150. Remember that Wikipedia is not a maintenance manual or a how-to guide on fixing cars. It simply tells you the major points about the car (engine type, production period, special features, etc). Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Article split?

I think the article should be split into different articles, because the term "corolla" is merely a name used on different cars worldwide. No, we shouldn't split them up by country, but by different models. Wikimann1234 11/8/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimann1234 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on how to split them? What would the proposed new article names be?  Stepho  talk  06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

This article seems to have been written from a mostly North American perspective: why, for example include figure for NA production alone, when several million Corollas have been produced outside of the USA?

The N.American market gets a few more comments than other markets but given that the US is the single biggest market for the Corolla, I'd say it is remarkably balanced - and I say that as an Australian who has a history of redressing overly US-centric articles. Other markets such as Australia, Europe and Asia get mentions as appropriate. The sales section was originally titled 'US sales' but I changed it to just 'Sales numbers' and shifted the 'US' to be just that column. This allows other editors such as yourself to add more columns for other markets. If you have such data then please feel free to add it.  Stepho  (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the European Corollas from the seventh generation onward? It's as if they don't exist or were never made. Can't find anything about them on any page re: Toyota Europe - and yet the European Corolla is a significant vehicle here.

I think it's a numbers thing. This is English language wikipedia. Most of the contributors and readers have mother-tongue English. Plenty of people across Europe use English as a second language, but most Europeans with English as a mother tongue live in England or at least Britain and Ireland. In the British Isles, since about 2000, Toyota noticed that they could make much more money selling four-wheel drive quasi-trucks than small cars that have to compete on price with a plethora of Korean, Japanese and European automakers. The range of models Toyota offer in the UK is these days very restricted. If you want a Corolla sized car they will offer you an Auris (reliable, but smaller than a Corolla and much more cramped than a Golf) or they'll want to push you a class up. These days, as far as I remember, the Corolla is not even listed for sale in the UK. Maybe they still list them for Ireland, but there are fewer people in Ireland, so presumably also fewer wikipedia contributors. So if a Brit is still keen to get hold of a Corolla then it must be imported privately - eg from Belgium (where they drive one the "wrong" side of the road). Frankly, you'd need to be very determined to buy a new Corolla if you lived in Britain. So .... if you want to see more on the more recent Corollas in English-language wikipedia then (1) I agree with you but anglophone enthusiasts in Europe are hard to find so (2) please, if you will be able to find the time, feel free to contribute what you know and (especially) can source. Success. Charles01 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


post code

Toyota website did not accept 2582 as a NSW postcode oh dear - what country are they in ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.255.227 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maryland Pride

decent photo
Low quality - washed out, obstacles, exaggerated angle, tons of glare, not showing the shape of the car.

While I appreciate Maryland Pride's photographic contributions, their photos are not always improvements and I don't agree with their changes to most pages. Please take a second to read WP:CARPIX.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Using years that encompass all markets or use original market years (i.e. Japanese)

RE: this edit, I think this article is better served using Japanese market years as opposed to taking an all-encompassing approach. That is, the production years in section titles should not accommodate models that remained in production after production in Japan ceased. For example, the E120 was phased out in Japan during late 2006, but remained in production until October 2008 in North America. The E100 (1991–1995) continued until 1999 in Australia, etc. If we use complete years of production over mainstream years, then the year ranges become less useful in a way—losing their meaning with multiple overlapping generations. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Lukeno94, I have edited the years to reflect mainstream Japanese market sale dates. Models sometimes remained in production for other markets (including in Japan for export). OSX (talk • contributions) 02:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
My preference is the all-encompassing approach. Otherwise you have to make judgment calls over which countries get to be called primary and which countries get to be called 2-bit secondary. Although I remember we had this discussion a while back and I was on the losing side :(  Stepho  talk  08:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The situation is further complicated where manufacturers cheerfully stop producing slow selling models in Japan and then ship them halfway round the world and sell them two years later as current-year models. In the present case, we all approach the question with preconceptions based on the market situation where we grew up. We defend with passion preconceptions concerning years of manufacture (and model years which of course are different) that we find self evident, and we expect to encounter equal passion from others to whom different year ranges are equally self evident. The situation is by definition complicated, and if you simplify in pursuit of a "tidy mind" presentation of it, you will in the process distort, to the point where other people will find what results is plain wrong. Wiki guidelines provide "one size fits all" recommendations which, inevitably, don't fit all at all. In this case, maybe the answer is to provide two sets of year ranges - and therefore two section headings for each affected section. Clunky and inelegant? Yes, but that's how reality is. Not a perfect solution, but maybe a least bad solution which is the best we can aspire to. And hmmmm Charles01 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your changes, User:OSX, to the point where I question whether you looked at what was going on. The values I changed to with my second edit were practically all Japanese ones; perhaps I made a mistake or two, but you've gone and essentially reverted all of them, and in the process, inserted dates that I would consider to be clearly inaccurate. For example, as you alluded to in one of your edit summaries, "but the KE26 wagon and van were still marketed in Japan alongside the new 30-series, until production finally ended in May 1978." - and yet you changed the date back to 1974. That makes no sense whatsoever, because saying that the E20 was axed in 1974 misrepresents the entire history of that line - and not only that, you've reinstated a conflict with the individual article, which clearly states 1970-1978 with a reference (albeit not a fantastic one). Even if we must stick to Japanese-only dates (which to me makes little sense; as I've said before, that's a terrible representation of the history, particularly if internationally a version remained in production for a while, and it was only axed in Japan), the changes you've made are, in my opinion, quite clearly wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry I looked at what was going on. You were using the dates of total Japanese manufacture (i.e. including minor body variants like wagons and continued production for export), not the dates of mainstream Japanese market production. When we have the following:
  • Fourth generation (1979–1987);
  • Fifth generation (1983–1990);
  • Sixth generation (1987–1994),
The actual years become meaningless as it is difficult to decipher when each generation stopped mainstream production. E20 models were produced between 1970 and 1974 as sedans, replaced by the E30 in 1974. The continued production of the E20 wagon and van (after 1974 until 1978) were not significant in the scheme of things. Significant events are what matters for a summary article like Toyota Corolla. Precise dates can go into the infoboxes, in the case of the Corolla, relegated to the generational pages—see Toyota Corolla (E20) or Toyota Corolla (E120). I consider the section headings to not be the place to include the all-encompassing dates. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Side air bags

Any historical info on when side airbags became standard? optional? Year or generation? 99.127.226.225 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In year 2009 side and curtain airbags became standard equipment. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Auto driving

Is there more info on automatic braking and automatic steering? Suppose to be out now? These are on the Tesla and the Google car, but some things are out now on prius I think as an option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

E170/E180

The newest model in Europe is E180 atleast according to ToyoDIY http://www.toyodiy.com/parts/q?vin=NMTBE3JE70R102638 Frame ZRE181 NearCry (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ce95

Where can I get a roof spoiler for a ce95 Corolla4x4 (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The talk page is not a forum for talking about the car. It is for talking about improvements to the article.  Stepho  talk  11:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Corolla/Archive_1&oldid=1137263363"