1zzfe Longevity

I think a "reasonable expectation" would be close to 250K. When you consider the fact that you use synth lube and most of its miles are highway, I'd believe it would go that far, depending on your driving habits.

By the time it reaches 250K you'd probably be ready to cast it off and replace it anyway. You'd probably have to replace a water pump, alternator or other part during that period but I'd believe the engine and tranny would hold up, provided routine maintenance was kept up.

I read on Toyota's Planet Kaisen website about QC processes regarding their engines. One is selected at random from a completed lot and subjected to wide-open throttle running for 180 hours, so components like crankshaft, bearings, piston rods, etc. can be tested for strength and durability. Essentially, this test is the equivalent of driving your car at maximum speed for 7.5 days nonstop.

Check it out. http://www.toyota.com/html/planetkaizen/

I think a "reasonable expectation" would be close to 250K. When you consider the fact that you use synth lube and most of its miles are highway, I'd believe it would go that far, depending on your driving habits.

By the time it reaches 250K you'd probably be ready to cast it off and replace it anyway. You'd probably have to replace a water pump, alternator or other part during that period but I'd believe the engine and tranny would hold up, provided routine maintenance was kept up.

I read on Toyota's Planet Kaisen website about QC processes regarding their engines. One is selected at random from a completed lot and subjected to wide-open throttle running for 180 hours, so components like crankshaft, bearings, piston rods, etc. can be tested for strength and durability. Essentially, this test is the equivalent of driving your car at maximum speed for 7.5 days nonstop.

Check it out. http://www.toyota.com/html/planetkaizen/

Maybe:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/18/Autos/ford...gt500/index.htm

Whoa momma! Now that's a car I could rub on over the weekend? (Wax, you pervs)

Just drive the rolla until it catches on fire, and leave the burned out hull on the side of the road.

That's pretty sweet.

My take - in light of the rise in fuel costs I'd be more inclined to look towards a vintage two-seater ragtop, or even a non-vintage like that new Honda S2000 or Miata for a plaything.

Raw, tire-burning horsepower will always remain a testosterone-inducing thrill for many, and its rennaissance of late has appealed to both young and old.

I guess from my vantage point I couldn't envision owning the new Shelby or Mustang because neither one would fit inside my garage.

Its kinda like "how long is a piece of string"?

Depends.

I've had vehicles that the press, CR, R&T, C&D have dumped on almost unmercilessly yet proved to be sturdy, reliable, and fun to drive. An example would be the K-cars from Mopar.

Conversely, I've had vehicles that got glowing reviews but turned out to be duds. The only car that was "average" (in terms of press reviews and durability as well as my own experience, was a 95 Ford Taurus.) Other than the maddeninly lazy shifting transmission, this car was pretty reliable.

I guess durability, to an extent, is based on a definition that all must agree upon. For instance, is a Mazda or Honda that requires a timing belt replacement every 60K as "durable" as a Toyota or even a Suzuki product having a timing chain that needs no replacement? Or would one be considered "high maintenance" while the other is "low maintenance"?

Some of the previous generation 1ZZ-FE (98-02) had oil consumption problems. I believe the current generation ones are ok. Toyota was using the 4A engine in the corolla for 15 years or so and they retired it in 97 and put an all new engine in the 98. Since the 1ZZ-FE engine was totally new, I suspect they were working through some issues in the first generation.

sv11

I guess durability, to an extent, is based on a definition that all must agree upon. For instance, is a Mazda or Honda that requires a timing belt replacement every 60K as "durable" as a Toyota or even a Suzuki product having a timing chain that needs no replacement? Or would one be considered "high maintenance" while the other is "low maintenance"?

Durability, for me, is how long a car will last without requiring very expensive repairs. For example, at 150,000 miles, the Corolla will be worth very little. It might not make very good sense to replace the engine at this point if it fails. That's not my idea of "durability".

My idea of "durability" is a good balance of low service costs and yet long service life. The timing belt issue was one thing that led me to the Corolla over the Civic.

In my estimation, with the way I treat and maintain this car, anything less than 250k will be a disappointment.

I guess durability, to an extent, is based on a definition that all must agree upon.  For instance, is a Mazda or Honda that requires a timing belt replacement every 60K as "durable" as a Toyota or even a Suzuki product having a timing chain that needs no replacement?  Or would one be considered "high maintenance" while the other is "low maintenance"?

That's not what I'm talking about.

 

Durability, for me, is how long a car will last without requiring very expensive repairs. For example, at 150,000 miles, the Corolla will be worth very little. It might not make very good sense to replace the engine at this point if it fails. That's not my idea of "durability".

My idea of "durability" is a good balance of low service costs and yet long service life. The timing belt issue was one thing that led me to the Corolla over the Civic.

In my estimation, with the way I treat and maintain this car, anything less than 250k will be a disappointment.

However, a coworker was satisfied with his Cavalier and none the less disappointed that he had to replace the transmission at 95K. Now he drives a Saturn, had tons of troubles, and is thinking about getting a Cobalt all because of his experience with his Cavalier. Different expectations!

Another co worker had no issue at all in replacing timing belts on his Civic every 60K. She considered her Civic to be durable.

In both instances, my peers were perfectly "satisfied" with their rides.

Once again, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Its all in how you look at it.

Even if it isn't one of toyota's best it will probably still last longer than i'd want to keep it. An imperfect toyota motor is probably still better than any ford/GM/Chrysler motor.

Even if it isn't toyotas best reliability effort, at least the motor has extra character and fizz.........it's from the MR2 so it has to be. why go an extra 100k miles if those miles are just going to be boring...

Regardless of most people's opinion of Fords, Crown Vic taxis routinely run 250K+ miles before being scrapped.

Checker cabs would do 300-500K.

I see no reason why any carefully driven and well-maintained automobile should not last 300 - 500,000 miles. From 1996 to 2000, I worked a full-time 7-days a week job as an airport shuttle pilot driving a fleet of 3 1996 Plymouth Voyager minivans between Dover, Delaware and the Baltimore and Philadelphia airports. I personally put almost a half-million miles on this fleet, and they held up remarkably well in spite of their poor reputation for durability and my boss' penny-pinching maintenence. Two out of three had transmissions replaced, and one of them had the engine replaced as well. One (the one I drove the most) went the whole way -- over 400,000 miles, on the original engine/tranny with only some electrical problems. Of course, they were getting 99% highway mileage. This experience may not necessary be relevant to a Corolla forum, but gives a good example of what's possible in terms of modern vehicle longevity.

I would expect my Corolla to literally last forever considering it's low utilization (less than 13,000 miles per year) and over-maintenence (Mobil 1 and Toyota filter changed every 3K). Sure, stuff like brakes will get worn out and be replaced. But the basic car should be capable of lasting me a good long time. At two years and 27,700 miles, I'm just getting started!

I guess durability, to an extent, is based on a definition that all must agree upon.  For instance, is a Mazda or Honda that requires a timing belt replacement every 60K as "durable" as a Toyota or even a Suzuki product having a timing chain that needs no replacement?  Or would one be considered "high maintenance" while the other is "low maintenance"?

That's not what I'm talking about.

 

Durability, for me, is how long a car will last without requiring very expensive repairs. For example, at 150,000 miles, the Corolla will be worth very little. It might not make very good sense to replace the engine at this point if it fails. That's not my idea of "durability".

My idea of "durability" is a good balance of low service costs and yet long service life. The timing belt issue was one thing that led me to the Corolla over the Civic.

In my estimation, with the way I treat and maintain this car, anything less than 250k will be a disappointment.

that's fine and dandy.

 

However, a coworker was satisfied with his Cavalier and none the less disappointed that he had to replace the transmission at 95K. Now he drives a Saturn, had tons of troubles, and is thinking about getting a Cobalt all because of his experience with his Cavalier. Different expectations!

Another co worker had no issue at all in replacing timing belts on his Civic every 60K. She considered her Civic to be durable.

In both instances, my peers were perfectly "satisfied" with their rides.

Once again, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Its all in how you look at it.

I was just asking a simple question: how long should we expect the 1zzfe engine to last?

What's so hard about that? Other folks didn't seem to have trouble giving direct answers. I think I see your point, but it's not relevant to the question.

I'm more worried about the car lasting instead rather than the engine. At 3 years my car is a rattle box and that stupid radio gap is now huge. Bumper to Bumper warranty is up and for the 4th time the passenger side weatherstipping is falling off. Nice. I can see myself selling this car before the engine dies from old age....which is too bad as I do like the balance of power and fuel economy.

would not be satisfied with the Cavalier or the Saturn you mentioned . . and I don't believe I suggested that.

I was just asking a simple question: how long should we expect the 1zzfe engine to last?

What's so hard about that? Other folks didn't seem to have trouble giving direct answers. I think I see your point, but it's not relevant to the question.

Again, how long is a piece of string?

would not be satisfied with the Cavalier or the Saturn you mentioned . . and I don't believe I suggested that.

I was just asking a simple question: how long should we expect the 1zzfe engine to last?

What's so hard about that? Other folks didn't seem to have trouble giving direct answers. I think I see your point, but it's not relevant to the question.

Again, how long is a piece of string?

It all depends on many things - your travels, driving behaviour and maintenence. You cannot say x motor will last for 20 years. A car driven around town on 10,000km dino oil changes will not last as long as a highway car that uses mobil 1 on a 5000 km change interval.

Still I'd be surprised if it lasts as long as the 7A-FE because of extra moving parts and extra strain the motor is under.

OK, how about this question:

Would you expect that, all things being equal (service, driving habits, etc), the new engine would last longer or less than the previous generation (before the fzz) Corolla engines?

Is it build to last longer? Someone mentioned more moving parts. What, more valves? Is it under more stress because of the output/economy? Does the use of aluminum shorten the lifespan?

I don't care how long a string is.

Gram,

I've never know anybody with any Toyota where the engine died before 150k. Most of the people I know who have owned their Toyotas long term have between 200k and 300k with no engine problems. I have no doubt that Toyota has engineered the engine in the current generation Corolla to be just as reliable as the previous engines. As long as you maintain it properly, the engine will outlast your interest with the car.

My interest with the car pretty much ended the minute I drove it off the lot. It is strickly a how-cheap-can-I-make-my-100-mile-commute decision. It's been good so far, but the longer it lasts the better that equation gets.

So, I'm already out of love with it. Even when I do decide to get an around-town vehicle (boy, do I miss my F150) when the 'Rolla reaches beater status (at 55k on an '04 model, she's still a loooong way from beater but it won't take long to get there), I'm hoping to drive it into the ground and leave it in a flaming heap on the side of the interstate.

Then, I'll probably go pick up another cheapest-to-drive car. If the 'rolla makes it to 300k, it'll probably be another Corolla. Something less than 200k, then there are more attractive alternatives.

136k miles on my 96. Runs good. I'm expecting/wanting to break 300k with it.

OK, how about this question:

Would you expect that, all things being equal (service, driving habits, etc), the new engine would last longer or less than the previous generation (before the fzz) Corolla engines?

Is it build to last longer? Someone mentioned more moving parts. What, more valves? Is it under more stress because of the output/economy? Does the use of aluminum shorten the lifespan?

I don't care how long a string is.

Gram,

I've never know anybody with any Toyota where the engine died before 150k. Most of the people I know who have owned their Toyotas long term have between 200k and 300k with no engine problems. I have no doubt that Toyota has engineered the engine in the current generation Corolla to be just as reliable as the previous engines. As long as you maintain it properly, the engine will outlast your interest with the car.

I remember at least one with failed rod at 60000, something unheard of in the older corolla engine design. It possibly could be a fallout of oil burning issues in early production of 1zz-fe.

OK, how about this question:

Would you expect that, all things being equal (service, driving habits, etc), the new engine would last longer or less than the previous generation (before the fzz) Corolla engines?

Is it build to last longer?  Someone mentioned more moving parts.  What, more valves?  Is it under more stress because of the output/economy?  Does the use of aluminum shorten the lifespan?

I don't care how long a string is.

Newer 1zz-fe have variable intake valve timing. There was a discusion here a few weeks ago how the VVT can be an another wear item.

 

Gram,

I've never know anybody with any Toyota where the engine died before 150k. Most of the people I know who have owned their Toyotas long term have between 200k and 300k with no engine problems. I have no doubt that Toyota has engineered the engine in the current generation Corolla to be just as reliable as the previous engines. As long as you maintain it properly, the engine will outlast your interest with the car.

Many folks have said that.

 

My interest with the car pretty much ended the minute I drove it off the lot. It is strickly a how-cheap-can-I-make-my-100-mile-commute decision. It's been good so far, but the longer it lasts the better that equation gets.

So, I'm already out of love with it. Even when I do decide to get an around-town vehicle (boy, do I miss my F150) when the 'Rolla reaches beater status (at 55k on an '04 model, she's still a loooong way from beater but it won't take long to get there), I'm hoping to drive it into the ground and leave it in a flaming heap on the side of the interstate.

Then, I'll probably go pick up another cheapest-to-drive car. If the 'rolla makes it to 300k, it'll probably be another Corolla. Something less than 200k, then there are more attractive alternatives.

The 1ZZ-FE engine is a newer generation that is designed to be leaner burning and more fuel efficient than the previous generation. Translated... this means the engine runs quite a bit hotter and is more sensitive to sloppy tolerances. My take on your issue is... yes, it has the possibility of matching the longevity of the older Corolla engine IF you are mindful of maintenance (especially air filters, oil changes, emissions components). NO, it isn't as "bulletproof" as the older design but then again its squeezing more horses out of less gasoline use. Here is a link to a white-paper for the 1ZZ-FE engine. Some interesting technology behind this engine... particularily the sprayed-on valve seats that are laser-shaped.

http://www.spyderchat.com/1zzfe.pdf

I've got 195 000 km on mine now and its still got good compression and doesn't eat any oil. Having problems with the VVT actuator though but again, its not an essential component of the engine. I consider crank bearings, valvetrain, crankshaft, pistons + rings, connecting rods as part of the equation of "bullet-proof". If you're driving the car in dusty conditions then for sure, you'll get less out of the engine regardless of what you drive.

I'm expecting at least 400 000 km from the major engine components before anything has to be overhauled.

Hope that's more concise.

If Toyota's don't last as long as they used to, then Toyota will loose sales in the future. The main difference with the newer engines is oil changes. You must stay on top of this. The days of changing the oil once a year is over. Maybe if you run amsoil or something, but for regular oil, change it every 5K on your VVTi engine. Maybe even sooner if you drive hard or life in a dusty area.

I expect long life at a low cost. That's why I bought a Corolla. I give her fresh oil and well, I'm still under 20K miles, so that's all I've given the car. That and a TRD air filter.