Consumer Reports Finds Entry Level Corolla Is Simply Too Feature Free

Consumer Reports not liking a Toyota?!? Are pigs flying and is hell freezing over?

In all seriousness, wouldn't the editors at Consumer Reports realize an "entry level" car is usually devoid of features?

I think car enthusiasts have a hard time with CR because their target population are people who see cars more as appliances which is probably most of the drivers out there. VW's reliability is not an obstacle for hard core dubbers who have owned generations of GTI's, or Rally enthusiasts who stomach the insane cost of ownership of an EVO or STI or Europhiles who will spend $80K on an RS4 which to the painfully less informed is mistaken for a plain-jane A4. Non enthusiasts just dont get it.

That aero-kit is HOT, HOT, HOT! It brings out the family connection to the ISF even more. I want it for my Camry sooooo bad. Don't lie, it looks freaking HOT!

A lot of other companies will ad more features to value orient their models. Toyota is just too cheap. Who in their right mind would by a car like this when you have so many models with better value?

Is this article just filler for Autospies or for people to laugh at Toyota because I don't think anyone here would even consider buying a car like this...well maybe "David 969", but then again he's just a troll and what he types is really not what he thinks (just the opposite in fact).

No Crappy, I tell things like they are. Unlike you who fills this site with hate. It's only a matter of time before you get banned again...

OK, I'll try my best....B I G C H E A S Y! That's it, right?

wrong. they only will stop AUTOMATICALLY recommending toyota products. they still recommend them after testing, if they merit it.

When you go to sell it yes.

I sold Toyota cars for about a year(New York). One of the most popular car was the corolla without power. its was the one we advertise in the newspaper for the lowest amount. Most of the buyers were older folks who want to buy a low price reliable car. most of them believed that the more features you have the greater the chance of something breaking down.

and they're right, esp. if their experience has been mostly with cars NOT built by toyota.

the first problems to appear on most cars, are in the areas of Body Hardware and Power Eqpt. so with manual crank windows, you AVOID these problems. (except that on toyotas, you get LESS of these problems than anyone else anyway.)

They reviewed a no air, stick base model and then complained that it didn't have enough features. I don't buy a Big Mac and complain that it doesn't taste like steak. (But I should be able to buy the Big Mac if I want). Like divine said, some people actually don't want power anything.....they don't trust it.

Of course it's reliable, there's nothing in the car. Did you think the stick shifter would break in half or something? That the manual seats would become unhinged? There's just nothing there, so nothing could go wrong...

If the entry-level is so bothersome, then, I don't know... opt for one with more features maybe? I doubt anyone would seriously argue that Toyota does not know what their own customers want.

I wouldn't be caught dead in a Corolla, it just is too whimpy looking.

In any event though, I've been saying for years that cars in this category are great for the simple reason that they ARE simple.

I've been looked at funny for pushing people towards Chevy Cobalts... for the very reason that they are very well priced, purposeful, fuel-efficient and SIMPLE. All the extra gadgets, bells & whistles aren't a necessity.

This segment... best buys are Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt & Hyundai Elantra. Civic is good, but way overpriced compared to the Cobalt and the Corolla is overpriced and its image is... well......

**still waiting for the Cruze... should have been out last fall....**

any cheap chevy is OVERpriced because of its crappiness and constant need for repairs.

why does chevy have to CHANGE the name of its small cars (other than what it imports from korea) so often? so people won't CONNECT it to previous cheap chevy crap cars.

at least ford has retained the focus name for nine years. and the escort before that for even longer.

still no comparison to the civics and corollas which have PROUDLY kept those names for DECADES.

Actually the only beef I have with CR is with cars. The average consumer's ability to rate less complex devices like cameras, ipods, etc is much better than it is to rate something as complex as an automobile.

@ XYZZ,

Your comment about chevy always needing repairs.... basing this on what... oh yea, false perceptions dating back to bad products from the 1970s & 1980s.

As for Chevy changning names of small cars, I agree, it is confusing for the consumer, but it seems as if it is a marketing ploy to make consumers stop associating new products with crap products of the past. Either way, its just a name.

Oh also.. Consumer Reports is a giant Croc, I don't care what they have to say about any automaker. A bird could crap on a car and CR would rate it as "unreliable".

CR sucks

you only display your own prejudice and ignorance by yourself crapping on CR. it is recognized in the Business Press (among others) as THE authority on automotive reliability. same as they would go to C&D or Automobile or MT editor-in-chief for info about cars generally.

i 'spose as a domestic fan, you don't care either when CR says detroit now makes more reliable cars than the germans? otoh, if you are one of the europhiles who infest this place, i suppose that just provides yet ANOTHER reason for you to hate CR!

I honestly do not care what CR rates most detroit vehicles, the fact that their ratings are based on people who read/respond to CR is what has me shook. I don't care what some "informed consumer, armed with information" has to say.

There are a multitude of reasons why I cannot stand CR's ratings, mostly because they are very snooty/arrogant about their ratings. When you rate a car as "un-reliable", I should be seeing that car at the side of the road dead every other day. Such is not the case.

JD power is better, but still the fact that someone's AC-fan speed knob falls off and a transmission failure are both rated as "problems" scares me. Also, the simple fact that people will go buy a car based on these publications is ridiculous, for example:

VW - 260 problems per 100 vehicles over 3 years
Buick - 122 problems per 100 vehicles over 3 years

So lets translate this, about 2.6 "problems" in 3 years for VW, and 1.2 "problems" in 3 years for the Buick. Now, chances are that these "prblems" are miniscule and the fact that these numbers are so close to eachother really tells the logical consumer that pretty much all cars are reliable (and the fact that you rarely see cars broken down at the side of the road like in the 70's & 80's). So since there isnt much of a differential between 2.6 & 1.2, they multiply these numbers to reflect "problems per 100 vehicles".

I am still waiting for a consumer guide that isn't based on snooty responses from soccer moms and sociology professors that rates based on a variety of categories, instead of just "we had some people whine about pointless crap so this car is unreliable and we don't recommend it".

neutral and 1995-

again i say, your criticisms are typical of those who have little to NO knowledge of what they criticize. maybe because you just don't read how they test (with automotive engineers) and rate cars (with statisticians).

they DO distinguish bet'n minor and major problems. and they DO weigh the significance of the problems. they even distinguish the two weightiest areas -engine and tranny-- with 'major' and 'minor' repairs.

while true that most vehicles now are fairly well built, there IS STILL a significant difference between brands having a 3 x RATE of problems.

with regard to the number of problems per 100 vehicles, try this analysis.

draw lines on the chart, and see at what age a company's cars reach the 100 problems per 100 vehicles mark.

for most brands, its about 5 years. vw/audi reach it in just 3-4 years. hondas are good for over 10 years. toyotas are off the chart. by extrapolation, it'd be over 17 years!

jd powers does NOT do the statistical studies that would provide this kind of info. afaik, neither does anyone else except CR. (but i could be wrong and am fully open to other studies.)

if you dont like the base corolla, then just dont buy it! is it that hard?

Toyota does their options differently than Honda. Toyota offers the Corolla and Corolla S. Two models, that's all. Inside those are trim levels like Option Package A and B.

Honda on the other hand offers the DX, LX, EX, Si, with L designations on some to show distinction with leather interiors. Also you can get them with the Nav that adds a few more K to the price.

So yes they offer no frills, but hey gues what!? Some people just want a regular small car that gets good mpg for the commute to work. They don't want extra power, and all these little nick-nack options. I know it's rare for a Toyota, but some people don't want a Yaris or Fit. They would like something sorta normal sized for a small car that just gets them to A and B.

I'm not defending CR by any means, but it's a point. Some people like bare bones. The Civic is odd, with it's dual dashboard, very tight interior quarters and little headroom. Toyota does offer stripped down models, and heated mirrors standard is not a bad thing. It's considered more a safety feature than an option.

Pretty stupid article. U can get a manual Corolla w/ power everything, u even get engine choices with the manual. Some ppl will get a Corolla cuz that is all they know.

People who rely on consumer reports for information about their cars are simply stupid. Consumer reports knows nothing about cars. Like some organizations, they want to be the "one source for everything", but it just doesn't work that way. They're great at providing information on which washing machine, toaster or cereal to buy, but certainly not cars. In the morning they test a hair dryer and toliet tissue, and in the afternoon they jump into some sports cars and later tell you which one to buy..come on!!! Use them for the stuff they're good it which typical household products or applicances. Next they'll be testing your speed boats, planes and maybe a Timberjack harvester to tell you which ones work the best.

If an entry level Corolla does not have a lot of features, DHUUH..THAT's WHY ITS ENTRY LEVEL, and THAT"S WHY ITS CHEAPER THAN THE OTHER COROLLA MODELS! If you want more features, pay more and do not get the entry level. I'm pretty sure that the Corolla level that matches the competitors entry level models is competitively priced and this stripped model is cheaper still which is what they should really be talking about. Its not like the cars don't come with a window sticker that details what the cars contains..

I can'help but wonder if there is anyone @ CU that is old enough to remember the Chevy Biscayne , also where does CU get all the money to run that ten acre complex in New England . The cost of the magazine(s) might pay for the printing and distribution of the magazine . They do not take advertising but, they will take grants and never any mention of where the grant money comes from ??

regardless of age of individual testers, CR/CU as an organization has been testing cars comprehensively LONGER than any other publication. going back to the late 1940s if i'm not mistaken. Mechanix Illustrated may go back (almost?) as far, but their tests were superficial by comparison.

they can't be correctly accused of bias toward foreign cars, because back then there WERE no foreign cars in our market! they simply tracked over the years the relative merits of ALL cars tested. that the domestics were overhauled by asian imports is simply the result of thorough and unbiased testing. backed up by owner's reports of problems they experienced. just as they have correctly reported DETROIT surpassing the european brands in reliability recently.