What caught my eye way across the intersection was this Corolla’s pink paint job. Given how some here have been lamenting the lack of pink cars, I thought it worth a quick shot, since otherwise Corollas of this vintage aren’t exactly what gets me to pull the camera out of my pocket. But when I got home and took a closer look, it appears I’ve found one of the rather rare 2005-2006 XRS versions and not just a Corolla S, which shared the body kit but has different wheels.
So for those of you who repeatedly leave comments that Corollas are all dish-washer dull appliances and that Toyota didn’t build fun to drive cars, let me introduce you to this pink speed demon, that can whip off 0-60 runs in 7 seconds flat. And redlines at 8200 rpm in the process.
The XRS’ 1796cc 2ZZ four belts out 170 hp at 7600 rpm, a very slightly detuned version as also used in the Celica GT-S, and backed by a six-speed stick. Car and Driver tested one here, and also got a mid-15s 1/4 mile @90 mph, which is right in stock muscle-car territory from the golden days of the genre. And I’d rather be behind the Corolla’s steering wheel at its 130 mph governed top speed than a drum-braked Hemi GTX at that speed. Chassis modifications included a stiffened steering column, lowered ride height, 16″ wheels, and a shock tower bridge, among others. The XRS cost some $2500 more than a boring Corolla LE, which seems rather like a bargain in hindsight. But buyers seemed to not buy into a boy-racer Corolla, and only some 7000 were sold in the US during its two-year run.
Meh. I have a Matrix XRS with the 2ZZ engine and, well, it’s not a great match. Mine’s got an automatic; it might be better with the six-speed stick. But it’s a buzzy, fussy engine that only really gets fun at 6200 RPM when that special cam kicks in like turbo. With the auto, at least, you only ever see that at highway speeds. Around town, acceleration is just okay. My Ford Focus accelerates quicker and smoother — and it does so on regular gas. The XRS takes premium.
Your 2003 Matrix XRS was the only year (and car) the automatic was available. Otherwise it was all six-speed sticks only on other year Matrix XRS and Corolla XRS. I can’t imagine this engine paired to a four-speed automatic; seems all wrong. No wonder you say “meh”. This engine needs a stick, period.
*Is* all wrong.
I am not positive, but I believe the Celica GT-S in those year was available with the four-speed. Watch it be gone after I type this, but there’s a 2001ish Celica GTS with a four-speed auto down the street from me as I speak.
I’m not saying it was a good combination, maybe unless you floored it all the time, but it certainly was one which Toyota freely promoted. And I think that says a lot about the Matrix and Corolla it came packaged in (I think the Celica was more convincing); a cylinder head does not make up for a cynical marketing exercise and roly poly chassis.
Looks like Mary Kay went cheap that year.
Not everyone gets a pink Escalade off the bat. They start small.
I never knew of this, and with only 7000 sold over two years, it’s pretty obvious they didn’t market it properly (or at all?). And I’ll agree that 7 seconds to 60 is plenty fast (the only car I’ve owned that could do it faster, the Marauder @ 6.2, was up 132 horsepower on this pocket rocket) and a mid 15 1/4 is very respectable indeed. I’d like to take one for a spin sometime.
But, exciting drive though it may have been…it still *looks* like a dishwasher. Just one with subtle sill extensions and an unnecessary trunk spoiler. Then, they offered the exact same body on the Corolla S. Which may add a bit of q-ship value but unless you enjoy stoplight drag races, that’s really of no value here. They at least could have gone to 17″ on the wheels…
The pink paint is…interesting. Can’t be factory. And it does look a little like a Mary Kay shade, just without the pearl.
I used to see quite a few of these in Puerto Rico back when newer. At least enough that I didn’t think they were THAT rare. They were likely expensive there too with taxes.
I didn’t know that engine could go to 8200rpm. That’s a screamer and 7 sec 0-60 is quite good.
I’d like to try one out.
So the Celica GT-S is more “powerful”?
I would venture a guess that the pink paint job is an aftermarket paint job. Some cars in the 1970s had pastel options available, but modern autos have only very boring factory colors available compared to cars of 40+ years ago. You could order some 1969 and 1970 Fords in some really wild colors. This 1970 Maverick is an example of that.
I used to see a white vinyl over pink T-Bird in the mid-seventies in front of a local Ford dealer every afternoon on the way home from school. I wonder if they eventually sold it or junked it?
I was just fine with the pink car shortage. Thanks Paul.
I test drove one when they were current. They were surprisingly fun with a good rush of power up top, comparable to a Civic Si (I drove a six-speed version which worked well with the screaming motor). It felt pretty lively – nothing like a standard Corolla I drove years later, which seemed like a wet dishcloth on wheels.
I recall from the brochure I picked up that rear folding seats were not available in the XRS due to a chassis stiffening crossmember across the front of the trunk. So there was some serious work put into making it handle, not just the usual stiff springs and bodykit boy racer.
Funny, I saw a (new) Mini Cooper in that exact shade of pink today. I assumed it was a Mary Kay rep.
That would be a great car to have fun in. Looks like an everyday econo box, but hauls ass. It’s as fast as my Titan. Just not in pink, thank you. The cops would not give it a second look. I wonder if my insurance agent would, however.
It’s rather depressing just how much insurance people DO know.
The issues with these (and the Celica GT-S) were twofold.
– The VVTL-i variable valve timing and lift was similar to Honda’s VTEC system in that the variable lift from multiple can profiles have a much greater effect than variable valve timing alone via cam phasing. That gives engines with the technology that very obvious increase in power as well as a big change in the engine note. Honda set up their gear ratios so that if you shifted relatively close to redline, the engine would still be above the changeover point and would stay in the power and after an upshift. Toyota did not, which hampered the performance of this car somewhat. But I don’t think it was an oversight, because…
– Toyota dropped the redline on this engine a few years after its introduction in the Celica GT-S. Apparently people were downshifting into second when they meant to grab fourth, and were grenading the engine. I don’t really see how dropping the redline would help; dropping two extra gears more than you intended is going to nuke an engine in a lot of cases. Shaving a few hundred RPM probably didn’t help much. But because the engine was now limited to about 7,600 RPM, shifting at the new lower redline out you below the cam changeover point on an upshift.
To the owner who wasn’t impressed with this engine when paired to an automatic… I’m puzzled why Toyota even offered this high winder with an auto. Honda usually reserved its truly high RPM DOHC VTEC engines for manual transmissions only. The Civic Si is still only available with a manual transmission.
I suspect that many buyers of short stature are forced to buy automatics because of the danger posed by sitting less than 8″ from the steering-wheel airbag. Therefore, I wish more manufacturers would provide adjustable clutch pedals so short folks aren’t denied some driving fun. I think the Porsche 911 & Ford Ranger have these.
I’m 5’4″, with a 29″ inseam. I don’t let it stop me from driving stick. I suspect most people don’t even realize the extra danger being that close to the airbag. I’ve literally never heard anyone bring that up as a reason to buy an automatic.
I don’t worry about it.
Rubbish adjustable seats are fitted to cars for exactly this reason, if you dont crash the airbag is no danger.
Exactly, Bryce. I use the Italian “short-leg, long-arm” seating position, with the seatback rake keeping me from sitting too close to the wheel while keeping my legs where I can put the clutch to the floor without difficulty.
All this is very reassuring, I’ll pass it on to the person I know who’s shorter than 5’4″ & knows how to adjust seats.
In the Japanese market, a lot of stuff was available with automatic, even engines that were only available with manual shift here. There were a few exceptions — the Integra and Civic Type R, to name two — but not that many. Other than the Type R cars, I think most of Honda’s high-strung VTEC models could be ordered with automatic at home.
Right, Toyota offered its JDM auto/cam-switching combos in the US; Honda kept them at home.
Toyota previously learned how to make their cars handle for the NZ market, sick of being criticised for their cars poor dynamic abilities they told their most vocal critic ‘you do better’ and he did.
Ex Gran prix driver Chris Amon modified the suspensions of NZ market Coronas for better turn in and flat cornering using the then worlds best the Peugeot 405 as his yard stick, he got close but having owned both an Amon Corona and a 406 the Peugeot will still out pace the Toyota in the.
I guess this would make for a good sleeper, if you want to be completely invisible. The appeal of a sedan that’s quick is lost on me, of course. Id rather have a Celica GT-S. Looks like a proper speedy car and would arguable be faster/better handling due to lighter weight and a stiffer/lower body. Its unforgivable that Toyota never took a crack at making the last Celicas a true firebreather. With a high pressure turbo, VVT, manual trans and awd it would run rings around STI’s and Evo’s and not be a family taxi with a pulse.
Having test driven a 6 spd GT-s, I can tell you that its claimed 6.5 sec 0-60 time is probably dead on. It was NOT a slow car, but I couldn’t get used to the VW-patterned shift gates, with reverse to the left of 1st. It just wasn’t properly executed, since my PT Cruiser GT had the same pattern (Getrag 288 trans on those, same as Euro spec diesels) and if you managed to hit reverse in normal driving then you have no business driving at all!
With the final Celica, Toyota was responding to the general complaint that the previous Celicas had gotten too big and too gimmicky — they figured by not trying to make provision for all the extra hardware, the whole car would be trimmer and tighter. The other consideration was that they switched to other models for rally competition, so there was less incentive to offer all the extra hardware. It was too expensive for a lot of people, especially when the yen got to be like 100 to the dollar.
I hear V-TEC and hear of Toyotas VVTL-i . You might want to read about Nissans SR20VE. Redline was set at 7800 and 8800 if you got the N1 cam for the 2 liter. I find this engine superior to either Toyota’s or the Honda version. It has torque just like the SR20DE but a lot more a spread out over the powerband. It is a two stage system where the exhaust and and intake operate at different RPM’s. I have this engine in my G20 with H/E/I with the exhaust set at 4200 and intake at 4600 rpm. 0-60 comes in at 5.2 seconds and the quarter mile dispatches at 14.2 seconds at 100 mph. Not bad for a 2800 pound car. The same set up in a b-13 SE-R will be approximately a second faster. Years ago a guy shows up in a SR20VE powered Sentra at an illegal drag race meet up in South Cal and wipes the floor clean of the Civics, Preludes, Integras, etc. The Honda guys swear he was running a fully built set up of course which was not the case. There is also a SR16VE, a 1.6 liter version, with the N1 cam with 200 horses, whuch is equal to the F20 in the the S2000, as far as hp per liter goes. A great motors but the Sr20VE has the torque advantage. Unfortunately it was never sold outside of Japan therefore it is seldom talked about.
Was that the engine from the Sunny/Pulsar/Serie VZ-R? I saw a listing for that in an old issue of Driver and was surprised to see it had 15 more horsepower and 17 lb-ft more torque than the Civic Type R of about the same displacement.
Yes, that sounds like an awesome engine. And it was offered with a turbo as well–hot stuff!
I wonder why they never bothered bringing it out of Japan; their emissions standards are similar. Is the NeoVVL in the current 3.7 a similar system or just the same name?
when this package for the Matrix was available I thought it was kinda cool, however you get all of the maintenance and none of the performance of a high output four. I would never put premium gasoline an any Toyota. I actually like the color. It makes the car look cute just what white does. I really do agree that the Corolla is an appliance. oes it have a sticker on the underside of the hood that states Mobil 1 is preferred?
This is the same engine (family) that was later put in Lotuses, a shame they didn’t keep it in production in Toyotas.
As I recall, it was going to be too expensive to make it compliant with the next round of Euro emissions and so Toyota decided it wasn’t worth the bother.
Toyota has actually offered a long line of sporty Corolla derivatives going back to the first Levin and Sprinter Trueno in 1972. A lot of them weren’t sold in the U.S. and the ones that were generally didn’t sell well (although they have a fanatical cult following). Likewise in Europe, where Toyota tried hard for a while to make a hot hatch out of the three-door model. They had some pretty impressive hardware (there was a whole lexicon of 20-valve 4A-GE engines and a supercharged 16-valve version, plus Super Strut and various other tricks), but they could never really get over the image problem.
The 2ZZ engine was also avalible in the Fielder Aerotourer in Japan.
http://www.performancecar.co.nz/articles/toyota-corolla-fielder-aerotourer-z-buyers-guide-152
The SR16VE NEO-VVL was offered in the Pulsar with the N-1 cam. The result was 200 horses out of 1.6 liters. I believe only 500 were built for the japanese market. As far ar as Nissans 3.7 liter VVL, i don’t think it had any lift properties.
When my wife decided she wanted a new Corolla in ’07, I really wanted an XRS. Unfortunately she is among the newer generation that was never taught to drive a manual; so we got an automatic S model. The handling is not horrible but the weak motor and rear drums make it no more than a bullet proof wet sandwich.
The XRS Corolla was an unusually good idea from Toyota. It was a modern day sleeper and proof that Toyota engineers can let loose with a shot of whiskey every once in a while.
When they came out with the next gen Corolla, they put the big Camry four (compared to the 1.8) in it and offered a six – speed auto with manual capability (I believe they may have had paddles behind the steering wheel). But that generation ‘Rolla had gotten too big and lost the character of that peaky 2ZZ engine. And don’t get me started on the current model.
Toyota marketing stated it, as a detuned version of the 2zz. It was a false statement probably to protect Celica GT-S sales. The 2002 and 2005 Celica GT-S were rev-limited to 7,800. The 2003-2005 Celica GT-S were also drive by wire (you can’t use a stand alone computer to lower LIFT engagement and tune). The 2005-2006 Corolla XRS had a 8,200 rpm red line but rev limiter was set at 8,400 rpm. It had a throttle cable and can be used with after market stand alone ecu’s for tuning.
The horsepower measurement changed in 2005, which gave it a 170hp rating and 165hp rating in 2006. Actual horse power was the same as earlier 2zz-ge variant rated at 180hp in 2003 and dyno proven. Only 6,600 XRS were produced and mated only to a 6 speed manual. Underated on paper, but equal in power to previous 2zz engines for its sleeper status.
Note: Insurance on the car is the same as the 1zz-fe 9th gen, which will surprise people.