2.4l GT vs regular performance

[vit]

What makes the GT 2.4 quicker than the regular 2.4? I test drove both when shopping for mine and it was a big difference. My 05 Corolla felt quicker than the plain 2.4. Gearing?

[j42.snyder]

Did they both have the same transmission? Was the "regular" one an AWD?Mechanically, the only difference is the rear suspension and different diameter wheels. Engine, gearing, everything else is exactly the same - so acceleration should be virtually identical. I don't have exact weight spec's, but I wouldn't be surprised that the "base" may actually be lighter - and therefore technically it should be quicker than a GT - although the difference would not likely be meaningful.The only other difference I can think of would perhaps be the accelerator pedal - whether one was modified as per the recall and the other not.The gearing between automatic and manual is quite drastic - so the two can't be compared fairly. My brother has a manual 2.4 vs. my automatic - and they feel entirely different to drive. His feels quite torquey compared to mine - but it has very low gears as well. My automatic really never lets the engine "lug" much - it always unlocks the converter before you'd feel much of any roughness being induced. It probably needs to do this because of the tall gearing it has. Mine revs approximately 700RPM lower at legal cruising speeds - which means it's also better on gas and quieter. His manual 5th gear is actually slightly lower than my auto's 4th - so his always feels quite responsive in comparison when at speed.Because of the low gearing, the manual is actually quite an impressive machine for towing - but for daily use I'll stick with my automatic. I've driven several hundred thousand km's in manual over the years - so I think I've "done my time". I still enjoy driving manual occasionally - but not for my daily commute anymore.Essentially, if both cars were equipped the same - there should have been no perceptible difference in power. The only differences are in the looks and handling departments.John

[vit]

Both 2.4's with 5 speed automatics.

[Kincaid]

Just a guess - did it seem like the GT had higher shift points?If anything, I'd expect a base to be a hair faster because of the slightly smaller (and maybe lighter?) wheels.

[Kincaid]

A little quick googling didn't really reveal much. I found two sources for a 0-60 time, the quickest was by Car and Driver magazine testing a manual GT and it was 7.9 secs with a 16.0 1/4 mile.Another source indicated an auto GT did 0-60 in 8.6 secs, a figure I saw in a few other places but where I couldn't tell if it was an instrumented test, an estimate or quoting another test.Also found two other 1/4 mile times - a manual GT recorded at 16.6 secs and 86 mph. A auto GT recorded at 16.5 secs and 86.8 mph.I couldn't find anyone that tested or even quoted a 2.4L base.

[star_deceiver]

Did you have one in the manual mode???

[vit]

No.Both cars were 2010's, 2.4 liter with 5 speed automatics, similar mileage, drove the same exact course one right after the other. Maybe somebody else should try this experiment.

[kowell]

The GT has better suspensions but that's about it.

[ponta2147]

Maybe you should elaborate on what you mean by "quicker"... faster acceleration from a stop? Faster shifting? More drastic acceleration while driving? Something else?My guess is that if there really aren't mechanical differences, it might be psychological (aka, you expect a GT to be faster and subconsciously change your driving style a little) OR maybe one had the pedal modifications and one didn't, so it was more/less responsive. But more details will help us figure out what you mean.

[Kincaid]

Could also have to do with any number of maintenance factors to either individual car.My base 2.4L seem awfully dang quick in the lower gears, but the only other Vibe I ever drove was a 1.8L stick.

[vibedrivermatt]

Since theres no differences of the gearing and hp on GT and base 2.4.l. they should be pretty evenly matched in a drag race. Although I'm sure the manual is quicker in either trim than automatic or manumatic. if both GT and base cars were equipped with the same transmission and had a drag race, I'd agree with the others and would put my money on the base. My theory is it would be slightly quicker in a straight line because it may weigh less without independent rear suspension. Guess it also depends on how many options the car has. The sun and sound package must add a little weight. Then theres the GT's suspension which I've thought to have heard has higher spring rates. That could affect its launch a little I guess. If the cars were to go head to head around a road course the GT should be able to take turns better because of the nicer suspension so it could be quicker in that reguard. but for people who like to drive manual, the GT eqipped with manual is the best one IMO

[Kincaid]

Quote, originally posted by vibedrivermatt »Although I'm sure the manual is quicker in either trim than automatic or manumatic.These days this is not always true as it was in the past (though I think the stick in mine shifts pretty sweet). Some automatics even get better mpg than manuals when that used to never be the case.

[leemur]

I'm with Kincaid and Vibedrivermatt, the base should win with more tire revolutions per mile, IE lower gearing. Bump the base to 205/60-16 and they should tie.

[Vibe2.0]

Here is all the technical data - gear ratios http://www.new-cars.com/2009/p...ssionAlso to consider 18" vs 17" tires effect gear ratio / differential