NVH vs Handling, choose your own devil.

Don't get me wrong, we can get good NVH and good handling together on new pavement, or even 5 years old pavement that is intact.

The UHP/UUHP tyres can be awesome at absorbing small rattle/vibration due to soft rubber compounds. The noise are not that perceivable to human ears with new tread design.
Then the stiff shock absorbers, sport suspension handle big undulation better than soft setup.

On the flip side, when comes to rough or bad roads, like patches scattering around, or non broken road, but with the tar dried and turned light grey from old age, the car rattle like crazy (not talking about the interior rattle sound).

It is very hard for Corolla Cross to beat Focus, if it the ecoboost generation then impossible.

For me that is prone to motion sickness, I'll anytime rather to have rattle vs soft suspension what swing up/down 2-3 times extra on every big undulation on highway. Suspension that is too soft is harsh for my body.

Ask yourself are going to be satisfied with something middle ground - not sport enough, but also not comfort enough vs leaning on sporty side vs all out comfort?
Again different person has different line on each situation.



This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jun 29 2023, 09:57 AM

Depends what you perceived as tuned sport steering. Do you want precision? Do you want quick turn-in? The 2 doesn't always come together.

Precision is partly the suspension geometry (how wheel rotate around the kingpin inclination), partly the tyre. We can't not change (at least not until replace all arm with adjustable) the geometry, but replace the eco tyre (I believe Toyo CR1 on Corolla Cross) with with something more grippy and stiffer side wall, eg:. UHP or even premium touring would make great difference. That also improve the response, initial turn-in.

Artificial quick turn-in give some sporty feels, but may not ideal for precise control. For some that actually drive the car fast on winding road, linear steering is preferred.
Most car naturally accelerate then turn towards more steering angle due to the geometry. Some actual sport car actually do the "reserve variable ratio" to make it more linear.

In the sense that the quick turn-in response should come naturally from the actually grip (tyre + suspension geometry design), solid rigid chassis, lightweight of actual sport car, not tune the steering ratio to make it feels so.

P/S: From Toyota history of cost saving, it is unlikely for them to design different arms just for a GR Sport variant. Most likely slightly lower spring 10mm without changing the suspension geometry, then the car will naturally run higher negative camber + run higher toe-in. That's pretty much all. Just check the alignment spec from 4S dealership, should be able to confirm it.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jun 29 2023, 10:48 AM

Ok, in English = just get the regular Corolla Cross, spend the $$ difference on a set of UHP tyre. The handling improvement will out do what you gotta get on CC GR Sport.

If CC GR Sport come with UHP/Touring from factory, the improved handling mostly contributed by tyre. The rest are body kits.

If CC GR Sport run normal sponge eco tyre and get good handling, I'm skeptical some minor lowering will do major difference, anyway no harm to test drive to validate it.

From AutoBuzz to avoid PT kacau. It is the same eco Toyo CR1.

https://autobuzz.my/2023/02/22/video-2023-t...nsion-and-more/

Help you translate to layman English. Expect heavier steering, less body roll. That's all.


“Sport ECU” for the electric power steering that is claimed to increase steering feel and response.

= software only "tune", meaning reduce assist force, make steering heavier. No going to impact the precision and sharpness. Given same eco tyre, so...no need to repeat. Most car sport mode already does this.


There’s also reduced body roll thanks to stiffer suspension (retuned springs and struts), and the addition of a Performance Bar.

= stiffer spring and added a struct tower bar. Like I said earlier Toyota will not redesign the suspension geometry for small project like this. No mention of lowering, so expect same camber as well. Don't know what is "Performance Bar", if that is referring to Anti-roll bar, it is wtf moment like regular CC don't have ARB??? Anyway entire thing is around reduce body roll, which attending to regular consumer perception less body roll = good handling. Nothing too serious here.


P/S: ARB is more important as front/rear balance tool, generally stiffer end will slide first. Perfect example is 86 vs BRZ, where BRZ get softer rear ARB than 86.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jun 30 2023, 12:44 AM

Better fuel consumption in all conditions are not guarantee. Only it is statistically better in most conditions.

Due to parasitic power drawn by MG1 (I'll explain later), if we have hypothetical long drive without need to brake at all, Toyota HSD hybrid will be less efficient.
Any fuel saving is contributed by the 98PS ICE that use Atkinson cycle (in layman = longer combustion stroke than intake stroke to gain higher thermal efficiency, ok maybe not layman enough for those doesn't know Otto cycle, sorry I tried my best).

Here's the 101 of Toyota HSD
- the 72PS/163Nm is called MG2. It has 2 jobs - direct drive the wheel, and regenerative braking
- there is another motor MG1 (unknown spec). It has 2 jobs - charging the hybrid battery from engine, and control the gear ratio of eCVT

2nd job of the MG1 is the one that steal engine power, and can consume 20% of engine torque for 2.4L Camry Hybrid. I couldn't find data for the Cross Hybrid.

So imagine if one is traveling permanent constant speed. Statistically, this is unlikely, even highway we get to brake.
- MG2 has no chance to generate power from braking.
- MG1 consume engine power to maintain hybrid battery level
- MG1 consume engine power to fix gear ratio of eCVT

For comparison normal ICE car or other brand hybrid that use AT/DCT, has permanent mechanical lock to fix gear ratio (tiny amount of electric to maintain oil pressure in AT/DCT).

I guess, this also answer you 2nd question, at continuously high load (including hill climb), it really depends how much MG2 regenerative charging can keep up with the acceleration requirement, so that we don't need MG1 to keep replenishing battery power and consume engine torque.

Then we also don't know the MG2 max RPM, usually for PMSM (permanent magnet synchronous motor), torque started to drop around 50% of max rpm, then at max RPM the torque is about 50% of max torque.
PMSM is popular to low speed efficiency but lack of high rpm performance. This affect the MG2 torque reduction at high speed. Toyota didn't disclose this, at least I couldn't find the spec.

We also don't know MG1 power. What is its output ratio to engine max horsepower (which decide how much parasitic load on the engine). Again Camry Hybrid case is 20%, remember it is bigger 2.4L engine.

Of course, all are still limited by how fast the hybrid battery charge (aka C rate). Most of the time this is the bottleneck. Put bigger MG1 also no point.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jun 30 2023, 03:45 PM

Ya lowest among the C segment.

But then Civic FC/FE is not particularly low versus the exec C contis. The seating position not as low as Civic, but ground clearance 130mm - 150mm range is lower than Civic. Can you measure yours? I see some 140mm to 170mm, not sure malaysia spec. Hybrid RS maybe different height vs turbo too.

Overall hip point height about the same, could even be lower depending on model/spec.

My car used to have ground clearance 13cm near front wheel, 14cm near rear wheel (align with 136mm of official spec). Now is 15cm+/16cm+, lol.
New tyre lifted my car some 20mm. Maybe 5mm contributed by new tread, the rest 15mm I can only attebute to stiffer side wall despite I drop 2psi.

P/S: cm becuase I measure myself, not at eye level could be few mm off

But any of that still better than old camry combination. High sitting position, 160mm ground clearance but very soft spring. When fully toad with passengers, ground clearance KO, hit the floor at many Taman bump, front bumper hit the ramp of some multi level carpark. At least Civic FC/FE never heard any friends got such problem.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jul 3 2023, 09:16 AM

Different mode on daily driving passenger car only change the throttle response, power delivery.

No impact on max torque/horsepower. If you already floor it, it is what you get eco or sport mode, no different.

Remember my old corolla hill climb. 2nd gear drag to redline about 80km/h. Upshift to 3rd, stuck at 3500rpm max and speed slowly drop even with fully pressed throttle. Dropped to 70km/h downshift to 2nd and repeat the sad driving story, until I gave up 3rd gear, floor it, whatever speed let it be.

Yes, it is a manual 1.3L AE92. Maybe my youth emotional damage made me obsessed with horsepower these day.

Hahahaha, well said!!!

I didn't mean just hard acceleration. I meant floor pedal to metal max acceleration.

Quick tap on throttle to eg 3k-4k rpm, sport mode ECU open throttle faster, thus faster response.

Sport mode doesn't make more power than eco, just more willing to give you power with smaller input, more willing to downshift. When throttle already open max, horsepower/torque same in every mode. Same concept on the throttle controller.

Being said that, beside spirited driving, taking fully loaded passengers and luggages up hill, don't expect sport mode to give you any boost.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Jul 3 2023, 12:58 PM