Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Regards,
Don
Nashville TN
than the original (I think the new is 22"), but it works fine.
I find the stock Michelins extremely grippy in my mostly dry road driving. I was planning on upgrading the tires right after purchase, but have been pleasantly surprised by stock. At least in terms of grip...
The MPG peaks in the summer, and "tanks" in the winter (NW PA). We use a 5 tank MPG figure to smooth out the fill variances.
The 5-tank peak for 2000 was 39.7
The 5-tank peak for 2001 was 43.2
The 5-tank peak for 2002 is 44.3 so far
And the nice weather is just beginning! Maybe go for 45 average this summer?? I think that the car is breaking in nicely, and also that I learn how to drive it more economically over time. We love our ECHOs (we have two).
Over in the NorthEast PA, there's some advertising, and a good number on the commuter road to New Jersey/ New York.
Per Toyota manual, I think they recommend 60,000 miles for transmission oil change (the manual is not very clear). Is this true or should I do it every 30,000 miles?
Thanks in advance.
This is what I did. Cost is aprox. US$ 40 including taxes and I think it is cheap insurance.
Supposedly the Toyota "sludge" problem is limited to the former Camry 4 and 6 cylinder engines (which appear in some other cars, too), but some mechanics have said the problem is due to small oil passages in the cylinder heads designed to allow higher cylinder head temperatures for cleaner emissions, and if this is a design goal at Toyota maybe the Echo has the same problem. There haven't been any reports of problems, but it is mainly in higher mileage vehicles where the sludge problem starts to show up, so maybe enough time hasn't passed for the Echo "fleet" for a problem to emerge.
I do know that at 1,500 miles I was surprised the oil in my Echo was darker in color and had some variations in color - nothing thick and gooey like sludge, but some kind of contamination (maybe just carbon?). My other cars don't show dirt or whatever it is until closer to 3,000 miles, and I run the same oil in them. So maybe that little 1.5 liter high performance engine tucked away in the Echo is working extra hard. (Although, come to think of it, maybe it is just easier to see discoloration in the oil against the bright yellow plastic dipstick of the Echo, than against a dull dark metal dipstick.)
Anyway, I think synthetic oil has enough other good features - it sticks better to the metal parts and provides better lubrication on start-up, and has high resistance to viscosity breakdown, to make it my oil of choice.
I stick with a conservative oil change schedule - every 3,000-4,000 miles - since I am looking for better protection and better performance, not for longer miles between oil changes.
WalMart is where I go. For $27 I get full synthetic and new filter. That's what I paid before for regular oil at lube shops and express shops at dealers.
I think the next best bet to "beat the sludge" is to use regular oil, but to change the oil every 3,000 miles, not the longer 5,000 "severe cycle" recommended by Toyota, and certainly not Toyota's 7,500 "normal cycle." (Manufacturer's are all over the map on frequency of oil changes - Ford is 5,000 regular, 3,000 severe; VW is 10,000 regular, 5,000 severe; Dodge is 7,500 regular, 3,750 severe; Honda is now 10,000 regular, 5,000 severe).
For what its worth, my new Echo (three weeks old; but I changed oil at 67 miles to get synthetic in, and again at 1,500 miles to flush out any "wear particles" from the initial break in period) came with a "slip" in the owners manual cautioning against infrequent oil changes and warning of dire consequences. I suspect these warning notices are recent, based on their customer hassles over engines damaged by sludge.
Toyota still maintains that the problem is infrequent (less than the manual specifies) oil changes, not a design problem.
My local Toyota dealer includes, as its standard service, a "flush" of the crankcase with some type of aftermarket solvent/cleaner. I thought this was just another bogus dealer attempt to make a couple of extra bucks (while leaving residues to contaminate the actual new oil!) but now I am wondering if they didn't know something before all the publicity this year about the "sludge."
cap off you could see sludge in it. Kind of adhering to the inside of the cap, not just a film, but
a substantial layer of it. I changed oil regularly when I had the car, but there had been temperature problems, and I didnt solve them quickly. The temp gauge didnt work when I first got the car, so I got a new sending unit and fixed that. But it did run hot. The radiator looked great, so I didnt think to change it. But after a couple years I finally got the water aboil when coming up a long hill. So I turned it off, and got a ride home and brought water and it was ok.
But I finally was able to determine that the radiator was crap and wasnt flowing much water even though it looked to be just fine. The engine didnt run as strongly when I sold it, but was still ok for an older car. The blame was mine and the prior owners, not toyota, in my mind. I do notice that the engine oil in my Echo looks more dark than what I would expect when I change it. But not sludgey, and after 51K miles this Echo is in top shape. Oh, the Camry was a 4 cylinder.
I finally got my ECHO back from the body shop. The cost of repair - rear-end accident was over $3,440. I am so glad to be driving my car again.
I have a 2000 and have just over 16,000 miles on mine.
Have you seen the Letter from the Town Hall Manager on the Town Hall Welcome page? If not, you might want to follow that link to have a look.
And hang on to your seats. Change is never easy - for any of us - but resolving the Search problems we've had will be worth the pain.
Pat
Sedans Host
I think the Echo manual says to use 5W30 oil but the last time it was changed the manager of a convenience lube recommended 10W30 during hot summer weather. Is he right?
here is the biggest kicker---when i run floor only----it is by far the weakest on the floor but puts plenty air out to all 4 front vents and the defrost mode.
what the heck is taking place???? the a/c works fine--just as good as my 2 echo's. if anyone has any idea please let me know so i can take it to the local dealer b4 the 3yr/36k mile runs out.
one last thing---i want to get any tsb's(technical service bulletins) and/or recalls completed on his lil echo b4 the warranty is over---other than hubcaps--any other tsb's or recalls u may know of?? thank you so much in advance for any help---i love this board--and i love "our" echo's.
mike
He then told me his neighbor liked the Echo so much they bought two! The man that was admiring my car was driving a Mercedes 450SL.
Three out of fifteen vehicles recommended are Toyotas: Corolla S sedan (03), Matrix XR 4WD (03), and Echo.
"Toyota Echo: Not real big on the outside, but surprisingly ample room inside. A 4-cylinder with the energy, but not the quiet, of a small V-6. But the 32 mpg city/38 mpg highway mileage brings its own peace. Base price: $11,325."
These tires are supposed to be extra good in the rain, and I am happy I got them since I have an 80 mile (roundtrip) commute, and California drivers just don't know how to handle rain - that's when it gets iffy on the freeways.
Surprisingly, the suspension feels "better" with the grippier tires - as if the original equipment tires were the limiting factor, but now the suspension can show its stuff.
I'll give it a few thousand miles and report back on mileage and longer term impressions.
The only negatives are the ride is a little bumpier - the sidewalls on this "H" rated tire are apparently much stiffer than on the oem "high gas mileage, cushy ride" soft sidewall tires.
I said originally that the oem tires were better than I had expected, and that is still true, but if there are any of you out there who do high speed commuting and wish the car were more stable at speed, this is a quick and cheap fix. I also notice much less sensitivity to crosswinds across the bridge. Instead of getting twitchy, the car absorbed the crosswinds and kept tracking true.
The car honestly handles as well as my 2001 VW Golf hatchback, and I like these tires better than the Dunlop Sport A2's I put on that car (the Dunlops have slightly soft sidewalls). I think the VW has about a 10mph greater "stability" factor, but I'm happy at 80 and don't need to go 90. It's how stable the car is at 80 that I worry about. And the Echo is a lot quieter - the VW with a stick is pulling high revs at highway speeds.
I got the tires at the tirerack.com. They recommended 195/60 instead of 185/60. Both fit, and are within 1% speedometer accuracy, but the 195 gives slighty more rubber on the road.
The difference between 175 and 195 is only 20 millimters - about 3/4 of an inch - so I think the biggest improvement in handling is due to the better tire design and grippier tread, not due to upgrading the size.
My other tire option was to stay completely "stock" in size, but the only performance tire in stock size is the Dunlop Sport A2. Those are good tires, but not as good as these new design Bridgestones.
So overall I am very happy I took the plunge.
On the other extreme is the Echo. I don't think the NHTSA has had any inquiries on the Echo. So why do people buy that Focus?
And it works admirably.
2) While both are tall-profile cars, the Focus has a styling closer to mainstream tastes; I have seen few people give "unattractive appearance" as a reason for not buying a Focus.
3) Ford is manufacturing and shipping hordes of "Foci" to dealerships. (How many ECHOs are on the lot at your local Toyota dealership?) You can only sell a lot if you make a lot in the first place. . . .
4) At least in my area, the Focus is advertised more frequently, usually with the lure of low financing or rebates.
5) Hatchbacks are re-emerging as desireable cars, and the Focus is now available in ZX3 and ZX5 styles.
I don't necessarily think the Focus is a better car, but there are reasons why it sells. . . .
1) The KISS (Keep It Simple, Silly) Principle: If you don't need all the "toys" that have become standard features in most cars recently, it's may still be possible to come away with a truly cheap car.
2) "I can always find my car in a parking lot.": The styling isn't goofy to YOU, and you don't mind having a different car from everyone else.
3) High-tech engine: Despite giving up half a liter of displacement to the Focus, lack of acceleration doesn't even come close to being an issue, largely thanks to VVTi. One of the payoffs is. . . .
4) "Honey I shrunk the minivan.": Boxy styling doesn't generate much emotional passion, but it does generate interior volume. The smaller engine (and engine compartment) also helps leave more room for passengers and cargo. The ECHO even ends up with a larger trunk than a Focus sedan. The other payoff of the 1.5-liter engine is. . .
5) Ultimate commuter vehicle: This Toyota is more ECHOnomical on gas than any other new car out there that doesn't get battery assistance. At a 45/55 highway/city driving ratio, the EPA projects that the ECHO will have a 20-25% advantage in this area.
That's five, and I didn't even need to touch any quality/reliability issues.
2) Space
3) Style
4) Fuel economy
5) Safety
The car is after all reliable, performs well, made by a manufacturer with a very good reputation for quality, is more comfortable than other small cars (and many larger ones). AND the people who own them love them. The problems that owners report are minor.
I think that the Echo appeals to people who think for themselves and are looking for good, objective value in the cars they buy. Not all of these people will or should buy the Echo, but it's the kind of car that would appeal to the person who thinks independently and makes up his own mind about things.
But there are quite a few people who don't do this. Their first thought about buying a car is "what will other people think of me?". They are probably buying a car to make some sort of fashion or "lifestyle" statement. It matters to them that other people think they are "successful" or "cool" or whatever.
The original Edmunds review is a perfect example of this second-hand mentality. For instance, the guy thought it was really important that one's future in-laws approved of the car one drove.
I've read other negative reviews in car magazines which shall remain unnamed, and without exception these were filled with comments that were not based on anything except that the reviewer didn't think the Echo looked like what he thought a car should look like. No objective facts, just the rantings of a car-snob. Or these people will take what is a *great* feature of the Echo, such as its center-mounted pod, and make up reasons why this is a bad thing, without giving it much thought.
I've always ignored what people like this have to say, but I am sure plenty of people won't buy an Echo because they've read some self-styled expert say it's no good, and after all "he must know".
Why doesn't the Echo appeal to car snobs? I haven't a clue, other than if someone's first thought is "what will the neighbors think?", he is unlikely to do anything in life but follow the crowd.
As for the Echo-vs-Focus, the thing that amuses me is that before I owned an Echo, I used to regularly mistake these cars for each other when I saw them on the road. (I don't any more of course.) They really do have a very similar profile when I look at them.
.........
The best source of information for potential car buyers is a forum like this, where one can read what the experience of actual owners is. One can then look at facts, such as "I had problem X".