Waitasecond. You mean to tell me that if Toyota made a Corolla that was good-looking, handled well, AND was comfortable…then they would start losing customers? That makes no sense at all. The fact that they don’t make one now exactly like that shows (to me at least) that they are starting to rest on their laurels.

The article disses the Corolla’s delayed intro while flagging ToMoCo’s quality issues (the reason for the delay).I thought that the purpose of the delay was because they saw how the Civic (Euro and NA) had such daring styling, they were worried that the new one would be too boring, and went back to the drawing board. Looks like they could use another session there, too.

1995 283,745
.
.
.
2006 268,786

Toyota’s US sales over the same period increased from a little over a million to over 2.4 million units. Corolla by itself sells 1.3x as many vehicles per year in the US as the entire Mazda lineup does. Toyota would be idiots to try and trade places.

The Corolla is just about perfect for it’s intended market. I’m not about to buy one, but 350,000 or more of my fellow citizens, er residents, will be pleased with theirs.

If you deliberately make a small economy car slightly more rakish in design for looks at the expense of utility and make a trade off by making more acceleration while giving up a little fuel mileage you might please this website’s and the Mazada 3’s fanbase but that would drastically decrease the Corolla sales.

The average economy car buyer cares little about at-the-limit steering feel or IRS, advantages that the Mazda3 has to go along with its rock-hard interior plastics and higher price.

We have an ‘03, a manual, and it’s a lot of fun. Maybe ‘a lot’ is a stretch. But as long as the AC is off, I enjoy it. I’ll admit the interior has issues – the interior has lots of cheap bits with lots of hard plastic. Sure the armrests (doors and center) look inviting, but don’t drop your elbow eagerly or you’ll bruise.

We looked at the Corolla at the time, but with the better drive and more space it was a no-brainer. As for quality, I know our first-year ‘03 predates Toyota’s recent quality concerns as we’ve had 75,000 miles of problem-free driving. Bottom line is I’d buy it again (and just may, at 200k miles).

The Honda Civic proves that you can have basic and reliable transporation that doesn’t have to feel like a Grandpa-mobile.

With this, Toyota can still charge a premium for the Corolla, cut corners in features and performance and people will still love it.

In answer to your question…a while back. At least, I’m not really sure if its sporty or not, or if its just the drift junkies wanting to make it seem cool.

Maybe its just me, but you don’t slap an S badge on the back of a car, and then say “well, its not really meant to be sporty.”

Toyota’s formula is spot on for their market. A semi-luxurious, easy to drive Corolla that can get 35+ MPG and 200,000+ miles. So long as they can offer six airbags and hold down the price a bit, I don’t see them losing any sleep.

The real issue may be whether they can make the Matrix a competitive vehicle given the pedestrian nature of the Corolla. Somehow I think that model will be more orientated towards the soccer mom’s than the tuners.

With the minor exclusion of the S models, when haven’t they? Exciting is NOT the Corolla’s market. That is NOT it’s job. It’s job is for people who want basic, reliable, inert transportation. Not a sports sedan.

I couldn’t get any Nissan dealers to get down in price on the 350Zs, and I wanted something a bit more dynamic than a coupe. Mazdaspeed3 it was, and I ain’t looking back at all.