Toyota Auris Reviews from UK and Ireland

2008 Toyota Auris SR180D 2.2 turbo diesel

Model year2008
Year of manufacture2008
First year of ownership2011
Most recent year of ownership2012
Engine and transmission 2.2 turbo diesel Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.0 / 10
Distance when acquired38000 miles
Most recent distance48000 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Golf

Summary:

Fast and comfortable, but terrible fuel consumption

Faults:

Engine shroud lost all retaining clips, causing a rattling noise.

Loose battery terminals caused the car to cut out at random.

EGR valve manifold gets badly clogged up with soot.

General Comments:

Generally the Auris is a good car. Toyota have gone for a model that is more comfort orientated than many competing designs (Focus, Golf, etc), and it has plenty of internal space.

For a brand as quality conscious as Toyota, the dashboard and switchgear feels very low rent, especially compared to a VW.

The Auris also seems to have a longer wheelbase than cars like the Golf, and combined with the lowered stance of the SR model, together with what is pretty soft suspension for a supposed 'sports' model like the SR180, means that it tends to ground out very frequently when driving over even modest speed bumps and the like, unless you take them *very* slowly.

The ride is very good, and ultimately the road-holding seems reasonable too, but the way the suspension and steering have been engineered mean that this is far from a driver's car; the steering is very soft and the nose always seems to want to push wide in slower corners. If you persist in hustling it through a bend or roundabout, it holds on, but does not feel comfortable in the same way a Golf or Focus does.

The great thing about this car however is the engine. It is one of the smoothest diesels I have tried, and has fantastic low-end and mid-range grunt. The power delivery stays constant through the whole band though, so there is no 'shove' as you expect from a VW or Audi TDI for example. For that reason it initially feels quite slow, until you realise quite how quickly you are going. First and second gears feel a little bit short, but from third gear onwards, the car really puts the hammer down, and is a fantastic motorway car with brilliant overtaking ability. There is very little noise for a diesel, and what noise there is is mostly turbo 'woosh' rather than combustion noise. It is astonishingly quiet and smooth compared to almost any other four cylinder diesel; makes a VAG TDI feel like an actual tractor!

Unfortunately, Toyota spent a lot of time making this engine very 'clean', so it has low NOX emissions, almost the lowest for any diesel. This is partially achieved by aggressive exhaust gas recirculation. I say 'unfortunately', because this has two downsides.

Firstly the EGR valve seem to be incredibly intrusive at tick over, ruining the quiet, smooth nature of this engine.

Secondly, it cripples the fuel economy. Driving this car at a reasonable motorway speed, I am very lucky to average over 37mpg on a trip. Town driving averages around 25-30mpg. My combined average MPG is probably only 33-35mpg, compared to my previous Golf 2.0TDI 170, which although ultimately a little slower than the Auris on the motorway, used to average a combined MPG of about 43-45mpg. Discussing with other owners of this model, and the results seems to be very similar. Driven exceptionally gently at a constant 50-55mpg, I have managed to average 50mpg, but it is very rare that I drive on such a trip, and driving on the motorway at 55mph is just not realistic. The realistic range on a full tank is only around 360 miles, a good 100-150 miles less than a Golf TDI (which has a slightly bigger fuel tank).

Finally, the trip computer is one of the worst I have ever used. There is no button on the steering wheel or stalk to change the mode, so you have to reach through the steering wheel to cycle computer modes. The range calculations are ridiculous, filling up after a trip where 370 miles was achieved, the trip computer will always state that the range until empty is 280 miles, and the fuel gauge is an electronic bar graph that takes 100-140 miles for the first "eighth" to disappear, then rapidly disappears, with the "low fuel" warning coming on randomly when you have between 15 and 20 miles left (according to the trip computer!).

In summary, the positives of this car are the really very comfortable ride, and the smooth, powerful engine that almost lets you forget it's a diesel on the motorway.

This is let down by the poor switchgear, terrible trip computer, wobbly slow speed cornering, but most of all, the unacceptable fuel consumption!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 2nd March, 2012

2009 Toyota Auris T3 1.33 VVTI Stop and Start

Model year2009
Year of manufacture2009
First year of ownership2009
Most recent year of ownership2010
Engine and transmission 1.33 VVTI Stop and Start Manual
Performance marks 1 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.2 / 10
Distance when acquired28 miles
Most recent distance11988 miles
Previous carFord Fiesta

Summary:

Reliable, but disappointing

Faults:

Irritating top glove box rattle.

General Comments:

This is probably the slowest car we have ever owned. We bought it new as a car for my wife. When we are all in the car (four humans plus dog, around 360 kg in total) it sometimes felt that you would have to get out and push when you came to a steep hill.

The Auris had very poor fuel consumption (36 mpg), which is very disappointing considering the performance on offer. The fuel consumption did not vary much, long journeys improved it only slightly. I suspect the engine had to work so hard to move the car that the engine is simply too small for such a substantial car. The stop/start technology did work very well, but switching it off made pretty much no difference to the fuel consumption, so it was hard to see the point of it.

Some of the plastics used in the cabin were not of the required quality for a Toyota (we have owned three different Toyota cars, so have a fair idea of what to expect).

It was very reliable and handled in a safe (if ponderous) manner, but my wife often felt the brakes were "spongy". The car seemed pretty well built, but after 18 months of ownership my wife (hardly a fast driver) said she had had enough of it, and wanted something with a wee bit more grunt, and sod the fuel costs.

It is not a bad car, I am sure it will run with no faults for years, but there has to be some enjoyment from your car, does there not?

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 19th October, 2010

Average review marks: 6.6 / 10, based on 2 reviews