Melody Toyota

• Introduction  »
• Interior / Walk Around  »
• Driving Impressions  »
• Summary

Driving Impressions

As mentioned, two engines are available, but the 1.8-liter engine is used only in the base model. However, we found the 1.8-liter engine sportier and more enthusiastic than the 2.4-liter. It's not as powerful, but it's more eager and entertaining in response, more of a driver's engine.

The smaller engine also gets significantly better mileage than the 2.4-liter, averaging 4-5 mpg higher ratings. With the four-speed automatic you'll lose 1 mpg or so from the 1.8-liter and be pushing it fairly hard for onramps or carting a full load up a hill. We found the five-speed version is quite happy to have you beat the snot out of it and still get decent mileage. So we recommend getting the manual if you get the 1.8-liter.

The 1.8-liter engine EPA fuel economy ratings are 26/32 city/highway mpg for manual transmission models and 25/31 for the automatic transmission model powered by a 1.8-liter engine. The 1.8-liter is rated at 132 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 128 lb.-ft. of torque at 4400 rpm. This 16-valve four-cylinder engine features Dual VVT-i (Variable Valve Timing with intelligence) on both the intake and exhaust camshafts that helps it balance performance and economy.

The 2.4-liter engine comes on all other models. The 2.4 offers a choice of five-speed manual or five-speed automatic except the AWD version which only comes with a four-speed automatic. The 2.4-liter engine nets 26 hp over the 1.8 but it's the additional 34 lb-ft of torque you'll notice and use the most because winding it up doesn't add a lot of speed or any pizzazz it simply adds more noise. Both engines use regular unleaded, significant given that some cars call for premium. The 2.4-liter engine with five-speed automatic transmission gets an EPA-rated 21/29 City/Highway mpg. The 2.4-liter is a 16-valve DOHC four-cylinder engine with VVT-i is rated at 158 hp at 6000 rpm and 162 lb.-ft. of torque at 4000 rpm.

The midrange power makes the 2.4-liter practical but more the non-driver's engine as it merely goes about its business. Clutch and shifter effort from the manual transmission are relaxed, the latter giving the gear requested but not as precise as class leaders. And the automatics all behave nicely.

Regardless of drive system or engine, the Matrix comes across quite polished for an economy car, the only negative is a tendency to catch and grab on bumpy roads and surface transitions under acceleration.

The Matrix AWD is the best choice for the Snow Belt. Its four-speed automatic transmission and hardware in the electronically controlled all-wheel-drive are similar to the system used in the RAV4 (though the Matrix doesn't get the RAV's locked 4WD mode). Normally, the all-wheel-drive system sends all power to the front wheels, which is best for fuel economy. But when slippery conditions demand it, the AWD system automatically diverts up to 45 percent of the power to the rear wheels. There is no driver action required and you'll never know it's working until you see the front-drive Matrix stuck in the snow next to you while you move onward. Any dynamic change you note on test drives is more likely a result of the extra weight than the added rear drive.

That isn't to say the all-wheel drive might handle or ride slightly better because it shares the independent rear suspension with the XRS. The IRS delivers finer control of suspension travel, and perhaps more of it, maintaining rear tire contact and a softer ride on the S-AWD.

The XRS keeps the control factor, but the ride isn't quite as good because the 18-inch wheel/tire package has far less sidewall and because the XRS uses firmer suspension calibrations. Those 18-inch wheels also take away steering lock to a point where the wee XRS needs just a few inches less space for U-turn than an eight-passenger Sequoia. Interestingly, we found the 18-inch BFGoodrich TA KDW tires that offer such prodigious grip and account for much of the XRS better

Go to Summary