[byebyeGTI]

Man, some people are so butthurt that the GRC isn't coming out on top for these reviews. I like the GRC, but if I got a Core, then there's so many things I'd want to change that it'd make it more expensive than a FL5. If I upgrade to the Circuit to get those extras that would make non changes required IMO, (assuming I can get one) then its more expensive than the FL5 (in Canada). In comparison, there's very little that I would want to do to a FL5 out of the box.

Elantra N sounds like a solid winner as well but the cheap plastics inside are worst than the GRC in my opinion. GRC "looks" cheap, but it atleast looks and feels durable, so at least it'll last. Elantra N plastics inside look cheap and feel cheap, making me believe it'll all fall apart once the warranty is over. I also found the Elantra N seat bolsters to be a little tight around my shoulders and it felt like it was digging into me than holding me.

Golf R... well, its not really on my radar as a european car, and the weird touch buttons on the steering wheel solidify it as a no go.

Overall it feels like most reviewers genuinely come out saying "all these cars are really good and plenty of fun, but for MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE, I'd rank them like this".

I don't think it's a matter of the GR coming out on top, it's a matter of at least trying to be objective. Don't gush over one car and fail to acknowledge its shortcomings while ragging on another but glossing over its positives. I don't doubt that the CTR, as a whole package, is a better car - Honda has also had years to perfect it while Toyota is re-entering the market sector after a long time away.

The amount Savagegeese drone on about the interior in the GRC gets old. Coming from a GTI, the GTI had an objectively better interior. More use of metal, what felt to be sturdier fabric on the seats, and a feeling of things being more "solid" if you will. However, is it something that I actually notice and piss and moan about or regret on a daily basis? Absolutely not.

 

[TimeRacer]

I don't think it's a matter of the GR coming out on top, it's a matter of at least trying to be objective. Don't gush over one car and fail to acknowledge its shortcomings while ragging on another but glossing over its positives. I don't doubt that the CTR, as a whole package, is a better car - Honda has also had years to perfect it while Toyota is re-entering the market sector after a long time away.

The amount Savagegeese drone on about the interior in the GRC gets old. Coming from a GTI, the GTI had an objectively better interior. More use of metal, what felt to be sturdier fabric on the seats, and a feeling of things being more "solid" if you will. However, is it something that I actually notice and piss and moan about or regret on a daily basis? Absolutely not.

Likely part of the reason the interior quality and placement question comes up in Savagegeese's review once per video is because all the other reviewers gloss right over it. How many reviewers in total noted the dash extension under the vent? It's the first thing that happened when I got in the GR Corolla having long torso proportions, knee smacked that corner. Add in the door cards on the core are cloth and the center console and dash isn't the best utilized or designed (fine for a 25k car), it is just what it is. But to ignore it just because of the performance like most reviewers isn't being objective. It is objectively the worst appointed interior of the bunch, build quality is fine, piano black near all the touch points is a big negative as in 2 years these daily driven GrC's are going to be a scratched up mess unless they wrap it not matter how much they're wiping it down a few times a day. None of the other cars have owners looking to the lower trims looking to try to swap center consoles or door cards to see if it'll fit as the XSE hatchback interior looks quite a bit nicer and has better materials than the core. It's simply a cheap(er) interior that has base design flaws.

Performance wise the car is basically on par with the Elantra N in nearly every metric besides standing starts and has none of the tail happiness of the other GR cars. It is the jack of all trades master of none. Generally a fun formula but doesn't win comparisons as in this case the car has some semi significant limitations with the cheapest interior of the bunch and if track focused the rear diff becomes an issue, becomes more of an issue if you modify the car. So it really comes down to the Toyota nameplate, exterior aesthetics and the best out of the box street performance hatch (esp for any conditions) in this price point with a good manual transmission. If that sells it for you, great. But can definitely see how other cars can be chosen before the GR Corolla.

 

[SC23]

Performance wise the car is basically on par with the Elantra N in nearly every metric besides standing starts and has none of the tail happiness of the other GR cars. It is the jack of all trades master of none.

No, it's performance is on par with the FL5 (as the track times indicated). And the GRC smokes the FL5 and manual Elantra N off the line.

 

[TimeRacer]

No, it's performance is on par with the FL5 (as the track times indicated). And the GRC smokes the FL5 and manual Elantra N off the line.

I'm sorry, but you didn't pay attention then. Stock to stock the FL5 is faster by a good margin in every metric besides off the line. Your view is through the narrow lens of SavageGeese's test when you downgrade both the car's tires. Being we're seeing the issue with the GrC that the stickier the tires and more mechanical grip the car gets, the less advantageous the AWD system is. Throw in the Hagerty laps (Morizo) or R&T performance car of the year (Morizo) or C&D lightning lap (Morizo) against FL5 with Cup 2's among other reputable head to head tests (don't think this specific review did track times) the Morizo, not the core, is slower by a margin. The Morizo is assumed to be a decent step up from the Core.

I know you love the car but OBJECTIVELY by MULTIPLE tests the GR Corolla is slower than the FL5 and basically on par with the Elantra N at everything besides the AWD launch. That's fine if you can't be objective, just understand what objective testing indicates.

 

[byebyeGTI]

I'm sorry, but you didn't pay attention then. Stock to stock the FL5 is faster by a good margin in every metric besides off the line. Your view is through the narrow lens of SavageGeese's test when you downgrade both the car's tires. Being we're seeing the issue with the GrC that the stickier the tires and more mechanical grip the car gets, the more problems the AWD system has to deal with. Throw in the Hagerty laps (Morizo) or R&D performance car of the year (Morizo) or C&D lightning lap (Morizo) against FL5 with Cup 2's among other reputable head to head tests (don't think this specific review did track times) the Morizo, not the core, is slower by a margin. The Morizo is assumed to be a decent step up from the Core.

I know you love the car but OBJECTIVELY by MULTIPLE tests the GR Corolla is slower than the FL5 and basically on par with the Elantra N at everything besides the AWD launch. That's fine if you can't be objective, just understand what objective testing indicates.

By that logic, Elantra N should come out on the top bar none. The FL5 is .08 seconds faster than the GR and .1 faster than the Elantra N per Savagegeese. That isn’t “a good margin.” Even in C&D’s lightning lap, the GR was 8 seconds faster than the N and the FL5 was 0.8 seconds faster than the GR. Nothing about that is “a good margin.”

 

[TimeRacer]

By that logic, Elantra N should come out on the top bar none. The FL5 is .08 seconds faster than the GR and .1 faster than the Elantra N per Savagegeese. That isn’t “a good margin.” Even in C&D’s lightning lap, the GR was 8 seconds faster than the N and the FL5 was 0.8 seconds faster than the GR. Nothing about that is “a good margin.”

Sigh... no. The Elantra N is the value proposition. The value proposition, while good value, rarely wins.

If you actually READ the C&D lightning lap article or watched the video the Elantra N came on toasted tires and they couldn't get a new set of tires before the track day. It's a big comedy point they made the Kona N they were using as a camera car was faster than it because the tires were so done. And again the Elantra N would of been on PS4s tires, the Morizo and FL5 were on the factory option Cup 2's. Good try but you both seemingly can't compare anything objectively.

 

[byebyeGTI]

Sigh... no. The Elantra N is the value proposition. The value proposition, while good value, rarely wins.

If you actually READ the C&D lightning lap article or watched the video the Elantra N came on toasted tires and they couldn't get a new set of tires before the track day. It's a big comedy point they made the Kona N they were using as a camera car was faster than it because the tires were so done. And again the Elantra N would of been on PS4s tires, the Morizo and FL5 were on the factory option Cup 2's. Good try but you both seemingly can't compare anything objectively.

Okay, plop some better tires on there and that’s still not gonna close the gap to less than a second of difference, as was the case with GR vs FL5. Putting some new tires isn’t gonna make a 8 second difference, it’s just not. For everything it’s got going for it, the Elantra N doesn’t have the performance of the GR or the FL5. Saying the FL5 is faster “by a good margin” than the GRC but saying the Elantra N is “on par” with the GRC when the difference between all of them is a tenth of a second is disingenuous.

 

[TimeRacer]

Okay, plop some better tires on there and that’s still not gonna close the gap to less than a second of difference, as was the case with GR vs FL5. Putting some new tires isn’t gonna make a 8 second difference, it’s just not. For everything it’s got going for it, the Elantra N doesn’t have the performance of the GR or the FL5. Saying the FL5 is faster “by a good margin” than the GRC but saying the Elantra N is “on par” with the GRC when the difference between all of them is a tenth of a second is disingenuous.

I see you have no track experience and don't have the detail orientated mind to see not only was the Elantra N on toasted tires, but it's still on PS4S and NOT the Cup2's the Morizo and FL5 were tested on. And unfortunately for your subjective opinion, objectively the FL5 is faster than the Morizo on the factory option Cup 2 tire. The core you're crying about in the tests is SLOWER than the Morizo not only because of power, weight, suspension but tires. I seriously have no idea why being the slightest bit objective is so difficult. What you personally buy, doesn't have to be the objective 'best.' It's simply the best for you for whatever reasons you want to make it.

 

[byebyeGTI]

I see you have no track experience. And unfortunately, for anyone with an objective mind, the FL5 is faster than the Morizo on the factory option tire. The core you're crying about in the tests is SLOWER than the Morizo. I seriously have no idea why being the slightest bit objective is so difficult. What you personally buy, doesn't have to be the objective 'best.' It's simply the best for you for whatever reasons you want to make it.

I’m not saying it’s the best, but your assertions plain don’t make sense. I’m not saying it’s not faster. You’re making it seem like the FL5 is faster than it is and exaggerating the difference between two vehicles while minimizing the difference between others. If you want to play the objective game, apply the same standard. You still haven’t explained how .08 seconds is somehow this magically larger number than .02 seconds. When you’re talking less than a tenth of a second, you’re splitting hairs to begin with. And for the record, Savagegeese was in a Circuit, not a Morizo.

 

[TimeRacer]

I’m not saying it’s the best, but your assertions plain don’t make sense. I’m not saying it’s not faster. You’re making it seem like the FL5 is faster than it is and exaggerating the difference between two vehicles while minimizing the difference between others. If you want to play the objective game, apply the same standard. You still haven’t explained how .08 seconds is somehow this magically larger number than .02 seconds. When you’re talking less than a tenth of a second, you’re splitting hairs to begin with. And for the record, Savagegeese was in a Circuit, not a Morizo.

It's lunacy how many cherry picked data points that you don't bother understanding the background of. For how much you're worried about track times with how little experience you have at setting times is comical.

SavageGeese: Of course you cherry pick this one because it puts it the closest to the FL5. They literally tell you point blank in the video but you can't hear it. Downgrading the tires to a standard tire has consequences in the suspensions deal with it differently. It's also a very unlikely situation you'll ever see in the real world and definitely NOT a track experience you'll see in the real world where everyone is downgrading their tires. This applies to the FL5, GR Corolla and the Elanta N. You'll NEVER see this 'race' again so if this is the one you need to stick your flag into and die on this hill - cool. The simple answer is none of the cars were designed to use the tire used so making this your standard shows to your objectivity and absolute lack of racing experience. Would it really surprise you if we threw every car on Prius tires the cars that are AWD would have the most to gain?

C&D: Sorry but balding chunking dead tires put through a bunch of youtube and other car reviewers? 8+ seconds is easy to come from heat cycled out tires at the end of the life. And again you miss the tire differences on top of everything else.

Bottom line is throw the GR Corolla core/circuit onto PS4, to PS4S to Cup 2 tires, it's slower than the FL5 by a not insignificant margin. The Morizo times aren't a direct substitute, your core IS slower than the Morizo. Truthfully, folks like yourself don't really know what they're looking at, and what you do look at, is filtered heavily. Funny thing is these reviews and ratings AREN'T just about lap times. If that's the ONLY thing you have, damn right your car isn't going to be the #1 choice.

 

[SC23]

I'm sorry, but you didn't pay attention then. Stock to stock the FL5 is faster by a good margin in every metric besides off the line. Your view is through the narrow lens of SavageGeese's test when you downgrade both the car's tires. Being we're seeing the issue with the GrC that the stickier the tires and more mechanical grip the car gets, the less advantageous the AWD system is. Throw in the Hagerty laps (Morizo) or R&T performance car of the year (Morizo) or C&D lightning lap (Morizo) against FL5 with Cup 2's among other reputable head to head tests (don't think this specific review did track times) the Morizo, not the core, is slower by a margin. The Morizo is assumed to be a decent step up from the Core.

I know you love the car but OBJECTIVELY by MULTIPLE tests the GR Corolla is slower than the FL5 and basically on par with the Elantra N at everything besides the AWD launch. That's fine if you can't be objective, just understand what objective testing indicates.

You are incorrect. You are also CLEARLY a honda fanboy lol. Why don't you buy one?

In the SG test the FL5 had an advantage by running a WIDER TIRE.

The GRC would be even faster on FL5 width tires while the FL5 would be slower if it had been running the GRC width tire.

Stock mechanicals with the same tires and the cars are pretty much identical? Type R only bests the GRC by a fraction of a second? SG comparison FOCUSED the lens. This is the only test we have where conditions were controlled better than any other test. Pretty sure none of the other tests have revealed details of the time between tests and track temps etc. Throttle House said the GRC would be even better on the FL5 tires. It does indeed appear that the GRC and FL5 are on par (unless the definition of the term "on par" has been revised in recent years to mean the opposite of what it used to mean).

Objectively the GRC destroys the FL5 off the line. Objectively.

 

[SC23]

By that logic, Elantra N should come out on the top bar none. The FL5 is .08 seconds faster than the GR and .1 faster than the Elantra N per Savagegeese. That isn’t “a good margin.” Even in C&D’s lightning lap, the GR was 8 seconds faster than the N and the FL5 was 0.8 seconds faster than the GR. Nothing about that is “a good margin.”

Exactly. Weird seeing people in this forum trash the very car the forum is about....

 

[SC23]

I’m not saying it’s the best, but your assertions plain don’t make sense. I’m not saying it’s not faster. You’re making it seem like the FL5 is faster than it is and exaggerating the difference between two vehicles while minimizing the difference between others. If you want to play the objective game, apply the same standard. You still haven’t explained how .08 seconds is somehow this magically larger number than .02 seconds. When you’re talking less than a tenth of a second, you’re splitting hairs to begin with. And for the record, Savagegeese was in a Circuit, not a Morizo.

He can't explain it lol. Even fanboys like him still can't believe the GRC is that close to the "majestic track masterpiece best car ever" FL5.

 

[driftingintowalls]

the fact that SC23 is from australia means you literally can't argue with him. you HAVE to be wrong and i'm not being sarcastic. he can drive both the yaris and the corolla

 

[TimeRacer]

You are incorrect. You are also CLEARLY a honda fanboy lol. Why don't you buy one?

Always a good start. Throwing logic out the window with the first sentences. Starting only with summary dismissal, labeling and issuing "why don't you..." commands.

In the SG test the FL5 had an advantage by running a WIDER TIRE.

The GRC would be even faster on FL5 width tires while the FL5 would be slower if it had been running the GRC width tire.

It comes with a wider tire from Honda doesn't it? Or if we were to say compare a Porsche to a Prius, must we slap on 195 Prius tires on the Porsche to compare? Essentially showing you don't care about how Porsche in this case designed the car and MUST modify the factory settings in order to compare anything? Why can't you simply compare the way they're designed? And again the Morizo is slower than the similarly tired FL5... If we're saying you need to modify the GR Corolla Core to be "on par"... sure? I'm not talking about modified cars, never have been.

The GRC would be even faster on FL5 width tires while the FL5 would be slower if it had been running the GRC width tire.

Stock mechanicals with the same tires and the cars are pretty much identical? Type R only bests the GRC by a fraction of a second? SG comparison FOCUSED the lens. This is the only test we have where conditions were controlled better than any other test. Pretty sure none of the other tests have revealed details of the time between tests and track temps etc. Throttle House said the GRC would be even better on the FL5 tires. It does indeed appear that the GRC and FL5 are on par (unless the definition of the term "on par" has been revised in recent years to mean the opposite of what it used to mean).

I love how your entire view is based upon a never happened (GRC is equal or wins with only wider tires), TH speculation it would 'be better' (Does better relate to lap times? How much better?) with wider tires and a never will happen real world setting (everyone downgrades and runs a spec tire). And again, are we comparing stock cars or how to modify the GR Corolla? The cars, as delivered from Toyota, Honda and Hyundai show the performance is FL5 -> GR Corolla -> Elantra N. With the Elantra N being essentially on par with the GR Corolla due to the better PS4S tire as delivered from the factory over the GR Corolla PS4. If you need another data point... Throttle House GR Corolla test. Same time of day, same driver on as designed cars.

1:14.60 Elantra N
1:14.66 GR Corolla Circuit

Or even your preferred SavageGeese test, even though you very much dislike his videos because he doesn't like the GR Corolla - but you'll use his lap times because it's the most cherry picked toward your view.

1:38.35 GR Corolla Circuit [Bridgestone Potenza Sport]
1:38.37 Elantra N [Bridgestone Potenza Sport]

This is what "on par" means. I'm sorry you can't see it and why "on par" doesn't describe how the Morizo is at least a half second slower per lap slower than the FL5 and never makes up that gap. Core/Circuit even further away as shown by TH times. We can run down any other track tests on factory spec and the results will be the same. Weird thing is the GrC isn't a track car, why must it keep up with the FL5 at all and instead be the all rounder? But anyway, if we must go by your self proclamation method for racing and not actual real world... sure! 'The GR Corolla Core will beat or equal everything in its class (and beyond!) on the track and acceleration tests and win every comparison if it only got a wider tire!' Shame Toyota didn't think of it.

Objectively the GRC destroys the FL5 off the line. Objectively.

About the only accurate thing you've said regarding factory stock cars. Still, the Golf R wrecks it there too. Objectively.


But I love the comedy here in with you two just absolutely losing it this badly over the simple idea of... in no track test is the GR Corolla faster or equal to the FL5. None - not the Core, not the circuit not the Morizo. The performance of a Toyota specced Core is more similar to a factory Elantra N than it is the FL5 on the track. I'm sorry but literally every test that uses factory setup cars agrees. But if you have to use SavageGeese's standardized downgraded tire test (and even further calling for modification of the tire size)... it still doesn't win or equal and ultimately just shows you're going to think what whatever you want. The car you want to be tested isn't what Toyota released. It shouldn't be this personal, but you have to defend your purchase it appears.

Unfortunately still doesn't change the basic fact that the GR Corolla isn't winning these comparisons. You can point fingers and blame where ever you want. But thankfully most are those who are actually objective have an idea as to why and can accept when the car they subjectively like the most doesn't win. The hilarious thing is I literally called the GR Corolla, "best out of the box street performance hatch (esp for any conditions) in this price point with a good manual transmission." and all this nonsense, name calling and such must ensue...

 

[Kyofu]

No no no, you guys don't understand. If we matched the SAME tire, with the same tire WIDTH and the same K20C1 or G16E-GTS engine, then the GR Corolla would absolutely decimate the FL5 Type R

The GR Corolla is a great and fun car. Stock for stock its objectively not beating the FL5 on a dry race track. Put it in literally any other situation? Probably the GRC.

Some of y'all are really getting your knickers in a twist.

 

[KanmuriDavid]

Can't we all be friends? 😀

 

[Dan]

Can't we all be friends? 😀

 

[jsj1717]

No no no, you guys don't understand. If we matched the SAME tire, with the same tire WIDTH and the same K20C1 or G16E-GTS engine, then the GR Corolla would absolutely decimate the FL5 Type R

The GR Corolla is a great and fun car. Stock for stock its objectively not beating the FL5 on a dry race track. Put it in literally any other situation? Probably the GRC.

Some of y'all are really getting your knickers in a twist.

I don't get why people are getting upset by this conclusion. If the FL5 couldn't beat a GRC on dry a track, it might as well not exist.

It's purpose built to do that for people who have some FWD fetish.

I would never consider paying $7k extra for two less driven wheels to get less than a tenth back on a smaller track. I don't think most rational people would.

Back when I drove a FWD car, I told myself it was good for me because it would limit the amount of trouble I could get myself in in low traction situations.

I now realize that's really stupid similar to logic to dating someone ugly because it's safer.

Toyota clearly picked all-condition driveability as a goal over pure track driving. It's not as track honed, and guess what, it's a formula that's probably more sought after in a daily. The numbers would probably show that too if production weren't limited for both.

It's a better, more fun car for more people more of the time.

Toyota generally does a much better job knowing the consumer and making what they want. It's why they crush everyone in sales outside trucks where brand loyalty is huge even though they don't win that many comparisons. It's a very interesting deviation between automotive reviewers and the real world.

Automotive reviewers are remarkably bad at knowing what people want. Toyota is remarkably good.

Honda has a great PR team. Sending everyone FL5s with cup 2s and artificially suppressing FL5 sales numbers are solid decisions for a very niche market.

But in the wide open market before COVID, their performance cars did pretty poorly compared to the competition. Si numbers are difficult to come by, but conservatively 20-25% worse than the WRX, and probably 1/3rd of how many GTis are sold.

The base Corolla and Civic are neck in neck for sales, which kind of blows my mind. I think most people here would pick a base Civic over a Corolla.

I think the thing that confuses me the most out of these comparisons thought is how people go nuts calling an Elantra N a great deal and "the best performance bargain." It's 4k less base with 2 less driven wheels and no ACC. A base core is a much better deal imo.

 

[juanmasubbie]

I have issues with this review:

1. Why, when the Circuit Edition is now available, are they still reviewing the Core and telling us the interior is cheap? The Core was designed for affordability, if they want an upscale interior they should be reviewing a Circuit. The cheap interior is an outdated argument at this point.
2. Far too little concern has been voiced by reviewers about the spine crunching suspension of the type r in regular daily driving.
3. Far too little concern has been voiced about how little traction the type r has in the wet
4. Little is ever said about the fact that the type r rear seats are plain black cloth and don’t match the front seats, when cloth seats are one of the reasons the Core is sited for having a “low budget” interior
5. Little is ever said about the fact that the functionality of the rear seats in the type r is completely reduced because they stuck cupholders right in the middle seat area.
6. Little is ever said about the fact that the type r is now as big as the previous generation accord - at what point will it no longer qualify as a compact car, comparable to the Corolla?

• The type r is sited as a better daily driver despite the fact that it loses all traction in the rain, chatters your teeth out even in comfort mode, carries only 4 passengers.
• The type r is sited as the most premium interior despite having plain black cloth rear seats that don’t match the front seats with a set of cupholders plopped directly in the center and no rear vents/ac controls.
• type r is sited as having the most trunk room in the group, but so would my 2014 accord coupe - because it’s a much larger car and NOT a compact.

To address Point #3: The traction in the wet has a lot more to do with the OEM PS4S than the car itself. I installed Bridgestone Blizzaks LM32s and the car is a hoot in the wet, I do 65-75 mph in the highway without breaking a sweat and car is rock stable.