SCION debuts 2011 tC (pg.4)
as the rest of the car. 
01-19-11, 04:31 PM
#153
Lln
Shortly after the movie Fast and the Furious debuted, manufacturers were trying to capitalize on a fluke of a movie with a new crop of customizable compacts.
Such was the case in Toyota’s Scion brand and its tC coupe. Now in its 2nd generation, is the 2011 Scion tC still the gateway for younger buyers that the company hoped for? Or have these so-called tuners moved on?
Leftlane takes a look at Scion’s most conventional model.
What is it?
The tC is actually the only “normal” looking vehicle in Scion’s lineup. With the iQ and xD covering the micro-vehicle side of the equation, and the “you can go with this or you can go with that” xB, in the role of the Angry Toaster, the tC is utterly average in its appearance.
A 2-door, 4-seater, it actually has rear seat legroom for a night on the town for you and 3 of your homies. Add in the convenience of a lift hatch with fold-down rear seats, for an open cargo area, and you really have something.
In many ways, the tC is a replacement for Toyota’s long-dead Celica, although it shares its 4-cylinder engine with the latest Camry and RAV4
What’s it up against?
Logical competitors in the segment run the gamut. Honda Civics and Kia Fortes both make natural rivals in their coupe forms, while we could see some comparison shopping against the Volkswagen Golf and the upcoming Hyundai Veloster.
This segment is so crowded and will only become more so as this year goes on.The tC’s entry-level status is strictly by design since the Scion division was Toyota’s idea for an easily modifiable platform that was an easy entry point for new, younger customers.
Any breakthroughs?
An evolutionary design, the new Scion tC is a case of sharpening up its appearance, and updating its innards. In other words “if it ain’t broke, let’s freshen it up a bit, anyways.”
A new 2.5-liter with direct injection replaces the old 2.4-liter found in the outgoing model. With the more modern fuel supply system comes a few more ponies, too. A 6-speed stick finally shows up on the options list.
Beyond that, the true beauty of the tC lies in the total customization that is possible with the car. That, and the way that the brand has managed to create a whole flock of Scion disciples.
How does it look?
If you were to see this Scion standing alone, you would immediately know that it was a slightly different tC. That’s because this new model is more evolved from the 1st generation and is now sharper, crisper and more confident appearing. Our test model featured a full JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) color scheme, meaning it had a white body with black roof and black accents. Scion officials told us that, in profile, the TC was inspired by the look of a full-face race helmet, used while piloting race cars around a track. We can see that. We think.
Although not appreciably wider then the model it replaces, this new Scion has the look, from the front, of a squatting bulldog. In fact, the look actually belies the car’s front-drive set up, and appears more like a rear-drive car. If only.
Projector beam headlights lend a contemporary look to the lighting package, as do the LED turn signals. Blacked out A-pillars impart a sinister look from the Calty–designed coupe that is built at Toyota’s Sutsumi plant in Japan.
The standard panoramic moonroof is a fun look at the world through the car’s ceiling. Wrapping up the rear, our tC was equipped with a rear lip spoiler, which was installed by one of the automaker’s regional distributors and not Toyota directly.
And on the inside?
Scion’s pricing is mono-spec, meaning that, generally, 1 price fits all. At launch, we thought the dashboard was rather plain in a boxy, almost ’80s Japan sort of way. We still do, but it has grown on us since we saw it a few months ago. We like the flat bottom sports steering wheel, and the gauges behind it, which are direct and to the point. Since our test car was equipped with an automatic transmission, we would have enjoyed the driving experience more if there were steering wheel-mounted paddle-shift levers, too.
The color scheme concentrated on basic black, with faux aluminum trim pieces throughout. This Scion was optioned with Alpine’s premium audio system with navigation and HD radio capabilities. The system, in addition to offering Bluetooth, had streaming audio, which was seamlessly integrated into the redundant steering wheel controls. AUX and iPod inputs are also included.
The seats offered great support during long drives, allowed us to arrive without fatigue. The pattern on the fabrics is a combination of geometric shapes and swirls, which almost get lost in the blackness of the overall interior. Overhead, the panoramic glass moonroof features manual curtains inside, which are probably there to help keep costs down. The rear seats recline a little bit, and also fold forward in a 60-40 split, to open up the rear for more cargo capacity. Cargo capacity is 34.5 cubic feet.
You won’t find many luxurious materials, but at least the graining is unique and everything feels exceptionally well screwed together.
But does it go?
Once again in the 1-size-fits-all category, the tC can be had in any engine size you want as long as it’s a 2.5-liter, in-line 4-cylinder engine. Thanks to the direct-injection, the big breakthrough underhood is the 12% horsepower increase and 6.7% increase in torque. That equals 180-horsepower and 173 lb-ft of torque. As light as the Scion is, you would think that would yield a whole lot of speed. The truth is things don’t really start happening under the hood until you get into the high-rev zone of this engine’s powerband. Unfortunately, that seems to be de rigueur for most of the small 4-cylinder engines coming from import manufacturers. Mileage on the 3,100 lbs. vehicle clocks in at 23 city and 31 highway – not great, but about right for a sporty coupe.
The tC’s suspension kit consists of MacPherson struts in front and a double wishbone setup in rear with stabilizer bars at both ends to keep things in a rigid state. The electric power steering is actually quite good, and gave good feedback from the various surfaces we encountered. The added benefit here is no power being sapped from the engine’s pulleys, which results in better fuel economy.
Power finally got to the pavement through all-season Toyo Proxes 4 tires mounted on 18-inch alloy rims. As good as these tires are in providing grip, they caused a fair amount of road noise to come into the cabin while we kept in contact with Leftlane headquarters via the car’s Bluetooth phone hookup.
Although it is a car that is louder than many of the vehicles we have driven lately, this tC is a high-pitched whiner that pumps out a note that is music to a tuner’s ear.
The 6-speed automatic transmission was a smooth shifting unit, but as we said during our experience at the tC’s launch, we would have enjoyed spending more time in a real shift-it-yourself unit. Regardless, Scion predicts 70% of its buyers will opt for the automatic, a true sign of the times.
We were surprised to see a large expanse of raw metal in place of plastic engine cladding under the hood. Perhaps it is time for a return to painted engine blocks and valve covers like days of old where engines paraded in red or blue.
We loved thrashing the front-drive coupe through cloverleaf on-ramps and sweeping turns around the ranch, and listening to the 4-banger beat it onto the local interstate. In situations like that, it’s fun to feel the front wheels pull us through. Torque steer was about average for this style of vehicle and this sort of power, but experience with rivals suggests that it is part of the class’ character.
Why you would buy it:
Because you would like a clean canvas with which to paint your motoring masterpiece.
Why you wouldn’t:
Because you are upside down after “tuning” Mom’s old Civic with that huge 2-tier spoiler and coffee can muffler.
Leftlane’s bottom line
Scion has built an affordable 2-door coupe that is essentially the automotive equivalent of a blank sheet of paper. It’s ready to be converted into the car of dreams for tuners and enthusiasts everywhere.
2011 Scion tC base price, $19,275. As tested, $22,667
Navigation, $1,999; Floor mats, $109; Lip spoiler, $499; Destination, $785.
01-19-11, 05:03 PM
#154
Lexus Fanatic
I reviewed a new tC a few months ago. Good durable sheet metal, fairly spunky powerplant, a responsive (though stiff-riding) chassis, and sharp steering; but the interior materials are extremely poor....worse, IMO, than on some entry-level Dodge products. Of course, many tC owners swap the stock interior parts for customized ones anyway.....some tC's don't even come with a standard stereo, figuring that owners will install their own.
01-19-11, 05:32 PM
#155
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty sure he got the direct-injection part wrong. The 12% horsepower increase comes only from a larger displacement and a newer-generation engine design (DVVT-i, etc.).
.
01-20-11, 04:43 AM
#159
Lexus Fanatic
The 2011 tC's interior, IMO, s**ks royally......but, as I pointed out above, a number of tC owners tend to swap some of the the stock interior parts for customized ones anyway. Other tC owners, apparantly, just don't place much of an emphasis on interior plushness....they buy the car for its new, more-sporty chassis and drivetrain.
01-20-11, 04:49 AM
#160
Lexus Fanatic
I'm a fan of DI myself......I've generally been impressed with the engines I've sampled that have it. But automakers point out that it is more costly and expensive to produce. And the tC's four, even without DI, has a fair amount of spunk.....certainly more than the engine it replaces.
12-28-11, 10:39 AM
#163
Comparo w/ Scion tC
For as much as people often consider their car an extension of their personality, the automotive world is strikingly conservative. Sure, automakers like to wow us with out-of-this-world concepts, but you almost never see those in showrooms.
Every so often, though, a vice president gets a few too many drinks in him and says, "Sure, what the heck."
Once it's too late to cancel the project, the marketing people start biting their nails and wondering how they're supposed to sell the public on a car with 3 doors. Invariably, they decide to target younger buyers looking for a way to disassociate themselves from their parents.
These segment-defying cars don't really have direct competitors. If you're a marketing guy trying to convince a millennial or a hipster that a car is as nonconformist as it gets, that's an asset. If you're a car magazine trying to set up a comparison test, it's a headache. We've got nothing against quirky cars. In fact, we're fans of the cars that try something different, but that doesn't make our planning meetings any easier.
After a few cocktails of our own, the solution seemed clear. We'd just throw all the oddballs into one comparison. While that sounds like a cop-out, it's actually an elegant little fix. These youth-targeted rides all carry a youth-friendly base price of about $20,000 or less. So we put ourselves in the shoes of the recent high school/college grad with a few bucks from Mom and Dad who wants a sporty ride, and wouldn't be caught dead in the same Corolla S all their friends drive.
6TH PLACE: Scion tC
Lots of space and lots of power, but falls down when you take a corner.
Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom.We engage in it as much as you do, and when we started gathering the specs here, the Scion looked the clear favorite. The most horsepower in the test, the lowest as-tested price, and the only contender to offer seating for 5. So what went wrong?
True, the Scion offers a trunk big enough for hauling bags of clothes to your new studio apartment, and was one of two contenders with a back seat that could accommodate 6-footers (the other was the Beetle). It was also the clear winner at the dragstrip and obviously the most powerful from behind the wheel. The problem is, that's all it's got. Funky C-pillar and didn't-expect-it liftback hatch aside, the tC is the least quirky car of the bunch. For as much as Scion projects a counterculture image, the tC is pretty much a by-the-numbers coupe, and based on our tester, not a very good 1.
We can only hope the car Scion sent us is not representative of all tCs, because our tester was a mess. Ignoring superficial nits like the trashed paint, missing engine cover, and ill-fitting glovebox, the tC was plagued with driveability issues. It rode like an old truck, crashing over bumps and transmitting every decibel of road and tire noise into the interior. It shook so violently during acceleration testing, it vibrated the windshield wiper stalk into the "on" position. In canyons, the tC flopped around the corners, while the slow steering returned no feedback and the tires gave up what may be the first recorded case of lift-throttle understeer. Judges were unanimous, and the tC dropped from on-paper favorite to dead last.
5TH PLACE: Fiat 500
Charismatic to the nth degree, but doesn't have practicality or handling chops for this group.
The Cinquecento is a tough car to pin down. You can't help but smile when you look at it, or when you drive it. It possesses an endearing charm. This phenomenon was no more evident than when we debated the finishing order. No 1 wanted to be the guy who relegated the cute little Fiat to 5th place, but no 1 could justify putting it ahead of the others.
While the Fiat satisfied our style criteria without breaking a sweat, it struggled everywhere else. With its little-bitty trunk and vestigial rear seats, the Fiat isn't practical by any stretch. You certainly won't be bringing home your new Ikea bookshelf in this one. You also won't be bringing more than 1 friend along anywhere.
The Fiat's other failing was in the drive. A short wheelbase combined with a narrow footprint and a sport-tuned suspension conspire to give the car a bouncy ride that keeps your head tossing constantly on the freeway. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into fun in the hills, either. While the 500 is incredibly nimble, it tends to bounce around over bumps and is quick to understeer when pressed. Exacerbating everything was the driving position, which felt like driving from a bar stool.
Add to that an as-tested price of over $19,000 for the smallest car here, and 3rd-place fuel economy, and you can see why as much as we like the Fiat by itself, it wasn't a standout in this group.
4TH PLACE: Hyundai Veloster
Wins on quirkiness hands-down, and is practical to boot, but the body makes promises the chassis can't keep.
Were this comparison to be determined solely by the number of turned heads, the Veloster would win hands-down. Everywhere we went, people stopped to stare at the sporty-looking Hyundai. Maybe it was the Chernobyl green paint, maybe it was the 3rd door, but whatever it was, it got folks' attention.
The Hyundai's 4th-place finish is due entirely to its failure to deliver. The bulging fenders, fast roof, and rubber band tires promise a sporty ride, but it isn't there. Instead, the Veloster rides harder than you'd expect with no discernable payback in handling. It's not eager to turn in, and when it does, it feels like the front end is all rubber. The car pitches and bounces and can't hold an arc through a turn.
Add to that a lethargic engine and you've got the recipe for basic transportation, not a sports car. Despite having the 3rd-highest horsepower rating, the Veloster was achingly slow in nearly all circumstances. The engine is slow to rev and then you're disappointed because there's not much more power up there.
Top-gear acceleration is nonexistent, so you'll be working the shifter quite a bit, and the square **** will give you bad visions of 1980s Mustangs. The real letdown, though, was the fuel economy, as the Veloster was the only car in the test whose observed fuel economy was lower than its EPA city rating.
If only it drove better, we'd be singing a different tune. The Veloster is an otherwise strong contender, offering a big trunk, seating for 4 sub-6-foot adults (if you can get to that 4th seat), lots of low-cost options, and a great warranty for 1st-time buyers. Alas, the cool factor wears off when you lose a stoplight drag race to a Camry.
3RD PLACE: Volkswagen Beetle
Roomy, practical, and better-looking, but too soft for this sporty bunch.
If the bottom half of the group was defined by a failure to meet expectations, the top half was the opposite. Going in, no 1 expected the Beetle to do particularly well. The heaviest car with the biggest as-tested price and lowest EPA estimated fuel economy didn't look like a frontrunner on paper, but nevertheless, here it sits with a podium finish.
The Beetle merits this position by being perhaps the best all-arounder. It's not the fastest, the sportiest, or even the quirkiest, but it holds its own in each category. The retro look, especially now that it's been butched up, comes off a little forced, but no one will mistake it for anything but a Beetle, and we do like it better than the last 1. It's also 1 of the most practical cars here, with rear seats that fit real adults and a decent-sized trunk to boot.
And while the non-turbo Beetle isn't a sporty car, it doesn't feel like it's trying to be. The I-5's second-highest power rating cancels out its extra curb weight, leaving the car with a decent pull that was perfectly adequate among this group. Unfortunately, Volkswagen wasn't able to find us a manual transmission car, so we had to make do with the automatic, but it didn't draw much ire. The suspension is clearly tuned for touring rather than sporting, but the chassis is solid and it takes a corner better than any of the lower-ranked cars with the added benefit of riding better on all surfaces. Still, it felt heavy in the corners and the hyperactive stability control grated nerves.
In the end, though, its lack of sporting character and the fact that it really is a not-quirky Golf in retro clothing held it back.
2ND PLACE: Honda CR-Z
Fun-to-drive factor is held back by greater potential and a lack of seating.
Hybrids can't be fun, can they? Yes, actually, they can. The CR-Z has taken its lumps for not being the exact CR-X incarnate die-hards wanted, but that doesn't make it a bad car. It's actually quite a good little car, hybrid or not.
Like others in this group, the CR-Z was an unexpected surprise. Between the weak-on-paper hybrid powertrain and the lack of seating, we predicted a mid-pack finish at best. After climbing out of it, though, some were clamoring for it to win. The shifter, in classic Honda style, is the best of the group, sliding into every gear with just the right amount of mechanical resistance to let you know there's real metal at work here. The steering is quicker than even the Mini's and it showed itself in the bends, where the little hybrid attacked the corners with gusto. Even the hybrid drivetrain had defenders, as it delivered both exceptionally smooth power and best-in-test fuel economy.
Of course, there are reasons why it didn't win. Despite a surprising amount of zip from the electrically enhanced motor, we want more power from this car. We also want a decent set of tires and perhaps some larger wheels, for which we'd happily trade a few mpg.
There's also the issue of seating. Some of us made it through college with 2-seaters just fine, while others decried the lack of practicality. We also found that anyone over 6 feet tall is going to have trouble getting comfortable in this car.
Like so many vehicles before it, the CR-Z got a bum rap because it didn't meet everyone's preconceived notions of what it should be. That being said, it's still carrying a few too many compromises to win this comparison.
1ST PLACE: Mini Cooper
Handling dream, useable seats, quirky everything, and good fuel economy -- the Mini does it all.
If you haven't heard, Minis are really fun to drive. That doesn't just apply to the turbocharged S model, either. Much to our delight, the base Mini is no penalty box. Instead, it was the unanimous winner. Despite being 1 of the least-powerful cars here, the Mini laid down the 2nd-fastest 0-60 time and the best stopping and skidpad performance by far, and still pulled off the 2nd-best observed fuel economy, losing to the hybrid CR-Z by a tenth of an mpg. To top it off, despite a well-earned reputation for pricey options, the Mini wasn't the most expensive car here.
Of course, there are some drawbacks. You either love or hate the Mini interior, and its oddball ergonomics had more critics than defenders. Detractors conceded you'd probably get used to them. There's also the issue of the cargo capacity, or lack thereof. The smallest trunk of the bunch (yes, even smaller than the Fiat's) came under fire for its serious lack of practicality, but the tradeoff of useable back seats helped offset it.
The Mini won, of course, with its driving. The 1-2 punch of smart gearing and a thick power band make the most of the available power, and they're accessed via a precise shifter and well-positioned pedals. The real magic comes from the solid chassis, sport-tuned suspension, and direct, communicative steering. To be fair, our tester was optioned with larger wheels and better tires and an electronic limited-slip differential, but these wouldn't affect the handling enough to take the Mini out of 1st. Mini's dedication to the driver pays off in handling that trounced the field, albeit at the price of a harsh ride on rough pavement. Unlike some other contenders, though, you feel like you're getting something in return for your chattering teeth. And we didn't even spec the $500 sport suspension. It's worth adding a bit more ramen to your diet so you can swing the extra $7 a month on a 72-month lease for that.
The Mini isn't the most practical car here nor the most comfortable. It's the best combination of rewarding handling, useable space, and value. There isn't an oddball on the road that does it better.
EPILOGUE
Performance costs money, so most cars sold aren't enthusiast-oriented, high-horsepower, manual trans models. But while we picked consumer-friendly models here, turbochargers are on the horizon. Mini has its S; VW has its Beetle Turbo; Fiat just launched the 500 Abarth; and a Veloster Turbo is looming. Can you say "rematch"?
PHP Code:
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2011 Scion tC 2012 Fiat 500 2012 Hyundai Veloster
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD
ENGINE TYPE I-4, aluminum block/head I-4, iron block/aluminum head I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 152.2 cu in/2494 cc 83.5 cu in/1368 cc 97.1 cu in/1591 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.4:1 10.8:1 11.0:1
BATTERY TYPE N/A N/A N/A
POWER (SAE NET) 180 hp @ 6000 rpm 101 hp @ 6500 rpm 138 hp @ 6300 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 173 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm 98 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 123 lb-ft @ 4850 rpm
REDLINE 6250 rpm 6750 rpm 6750 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 17.1 lb/hp 23.9 lb/hp 19.8 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual 5-speed manual 6-speed manual
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.82:1/2.32:1 4.10:1/2.76:1 4.27:1/2.94:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 14.8:1 16.3:1 14.2:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8 3 2.9
BRAKES,F;R 11.7-in vented disc; 11.0-in disc, ABS 10.1-in vented disc; 9.4-in disc, ABS 11.0-in vented disc; 10.3-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 225/45R18 91W Yokohoma Avid S34 195/45R16 84H M+S Pirelli Cinturato P7 215/40R18 85V M+S Kumho Solus KH25
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 106.3 in 90.6 in 104.3 in
TRACK,F/R 60.6/61.4 in 55.4/55.0 in 61.3/61.8 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 174.0 x 70.7 x 55.7 in 139.6 x 64.1 x 59.8 in 166.1 x 70.5 x 55.1 in
TURNING CIRCLE 37.4 ft 30.6 ft 34.1 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3069 lb 2414 lb 2736 lb
WEIGHT DIST,F/R 63/37% 62/38 % 60/40%
SEATING CAPACITY 5 4 4
HEADROOM,F/R 37.7/36.4 in 38.9/35.6 in 39.0/35.3 in
LEGROOM,F/R 41.8/34.6 in 40.7/31.7 in 43.9/31.7 in
SHOULDER ROOM,F/R 55.4/52.1 in 49.4/46.4 in 55.6/54.0 in
CARGO VOL BEH F/R 34.5/-- cu ft --/9.5 cu ft 34.7/15.5 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.3 sec 2.8 sec 2.7 sec
0-40 3.6 4.6 4.7
0-50 5.1 6.8 6.6
0-60 6.9 9.8 8.9
0-70 9.2 13.8 11.9
0-80 11.8 18.5 15.2
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.7 6.1 4.7
QUARTER MILE 15.4 sec @ 90.6 mph 17.3 sec @ 77.5 mph 16.8 sec @ 83.5 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 125 ft 123 ft 127 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.82 g (avg) 0.83 g (avg) 0.82 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.3 sec @ 0.63 g (avg) 28.1 sec @ 0.58 g (avg) 27.3 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 2400 rpm 2500 rpm 2400 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $19,005 $16,000 $18,060
PRICE AS TESTED $19,005 $19,200 $22,155
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $18,777 $18,203 $21,396
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi 10 yrs/100,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 2 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/unlimited 5 yrs/unlimited
FUEL CAPACITY 14.5 gal 10.5 gal 13.2 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 23/31 mpg 30/38 mpg 28/40 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 147/109 kW-hrs/100 mi 112/89 kW-hrs/100 mi 120/84 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.75 lb/mi 0.59 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi
MT FUEL ECONOMY 26.5 mpg 30.0 mpg 27.6 mpg
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded premium Unleaded regular
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2012 Volkswagen Beetle 2011 Honda CR-Z EX 2011 Mini Cooper
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD
ENGINE TYPE I-5, iron block/aluminum head I-4, aluminum block/head I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 151.3 cu in/2480 cc 91.4 cu in/1497 cc 97.5 cu in/1598 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 9.5:1 10.4:1 11.0:1
BATTERY TYPE N/A Nickel-metal hydride N/A
POWER (SAE NET) 170 hp @ 5700 rpm 113 (gas)/13 (elec)/122 (comb) hp 121 hp @ 6000 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 177 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm 107 (gas)/58 (elec)/128 (comb) lb-ft 114 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
REDLINE 6500 rpm 6250 rpm 6500 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 18.3 lb/hp 21.5 lb/hp 20.8 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic 6-speed manual 6-speed manual
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.50:1/2.35:1 4.11:1/2.83:1 4.35:1/2.97:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 16.3:1 12.8:1 14.1:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3 2.5 2.8
BRAKES,F;R 11.3-in vented disc; 10.7-in disc, ABS 10.3-in vented disc; 10.2-in disc, ABS 11.0-in vented disc; 10.2-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 8.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum 6.0 x 16-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 235/45R18 94H M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400 195/55R16 86V M+S
Dunlop SP Sport 7000 A/S 195/55R16 87H Bridgestone Turanza ER300
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 99.9 in 95.9 in 97.1 in
TRACK,F/R 61.8/60.9 in 59.6/59.1 57.4/57.8 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 168.4 x 71.2 x 58.5 in 160.6 x 68.5 x 54.9 in 146.6 x 66.3 x 55.4 in
TURNING CIRCLE 35.4 ft 35.4 ft 35.1 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3104 lb 2617 lb 2521 lb
WEIGHT DIST,F/R 63/38% 59/41% 61/39%
SEATING CAPACITY 4 2 4
HEADROOM,F/R 39.4/37.1 in 36.9/-- in 38.8/37.6 in
LEGROOM,F/R 41.3/31.4 in 42.7/-- in 41.7/27.9 in
SHOULDER ROOM,F/R 55.3/49.0 in 53.8/-- in 50.3/44.7 in
CARGO VOL BEH F/R 29.9/15.4 cu ft 25.1/-- cu ft 24.0/5.7 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.8 sec 2.7 sec 2.5 sec
0-40 4.5 4.3 4.2
0-50 6.4 6.1 6
0-60 8.9 8.4 8.1
0-70 12 11.4 11.4
0-80 15.4 14.8 14.8
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 5.1 4.8 4.7
QUARTER MILE 16.8 sec @ 83.1 mph 16.5 sec @ 84.4 mph 16.4 sec @ 83.9 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 124 ft 119 ft 107 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.83 g (avg) 0.84 g (avg) 0.90 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.4 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) 27.6 sec @ 0.60 g (avg) 26.6 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1950 rpm 2450 rpm 2500 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $19,765 $20,115 $20,100
PRICE AS TESTED $25,965 $23,475 $24,600
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $23,749 $21,315 $23,267
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain Dual front, front side, front curtain Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 3 yrs/36,000 mi N/A 4 yrs/unlimited
FUEL CAPACITY 14.5 gal 10.6 gal 13.2 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 20/29 mpg 31/37 mpg 29/37 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 169/116 kW-hrs/100 mi 109/91 kW-hrs/100 mi 116/91 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.83 lb/mile 0.58 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi
MT FUEL ECONOMY 24.2 mpg 33.1 mpg 33.0 mpg
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded premium
12-28-11, 02:36 PM
#165
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA™
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6TH PLACE: Scion tC
Lots of space and lots of power, but falls down when you take a corner.
Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom.We engage in it as much as you do, and when we started gathering the specs here, the Scion looked the clear favorite. The most horsepower in the test, the lowest as-tested price, and the only contender to offer seating for 5. So what went wrong?
True, the Scion offers a trunk big enough for hauling bags of clothes to your new studio apartment, and was one of two contenders with a back seat that could accommodate 6-footers (the other was the Beetle). It was also the clear winner at the dragstrip and obviously the most powerful from behind the wheel. The problem is, that's all it's got. Funky C-pillar and didn't-expect-it liftback hatch aside, the tC is the least quirky car of the bunch. For as much as Scion projects a counterculture image, the tC is pretty much a by-the-numbers coupe, and based on our tester, not a very good 1.
We can only hope the car Scion sent us is not representative of all tCs, because our tester was a mess. Ignoring superficial nits like the trashed paint, missing engine cover, and ill-fitting glovebox, the tC was plagued with driveability issues. It rode like an old truck, crashing over bumps and transmitting every decibel of road and tire noise into the interior. It shook so violently during acceleration testing, it vibrated the windshield wiper stalk into the "on" position. In canyons, the tC flopped around the corners, while the slow steering returned no feedback and the tires gave up what may be the first recorded case of lift-throttle understeer. Judges were unanimous, and the tC dropped from on-paper favorite to dead last.
Lots of space and lots of power, but falls down when you take a corner.
Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom.We engage in it as much as you do, and when we started gathering the specs here, the Scion looked the clear favorite. The most horsepower in the test, the lowest as-tested price, and the only contender to offer seating for 5. So what went wrong?
True, the Scion offers a trunk big enough for hauling bags of clothes to your new studio apartment, and was one of two contenders with a back seat that could accommodate 6-footers (the other was the Beetle). It was also the clear winner at the dragstrip and obviously the most powerful from behind the wheel. The problem is, that's all it's got. Funky C-pillar and didn't-expect-it liftback hatch aside, the tC is the least quirky car of the bunch. For as much as Scion projects a counterculture image, the tC is pretty much a by-the-numbers coupe, and based on our tester, not a very good 1.
We can only hope the car Scion sent us is not representative of all tCs, because our tester was a mess. Ignoring superficial nits like the trashed paint, missing engine cover, and ill-fitting glovebox, the tC was plagued with driveability issues. It rode like an old truck, crashing over bumps and transmitting every decibel of road and tire noise into the interior. It shook so violently during acceleration testing, it vibrated the windshield wiper stalk into the "on" position. In canyons, the tC flopped around the corners, while the slow steering returned no feedback and the tires gave up what may be the first recorded case of lift-throttle understeer. Judges were unanimous, and the tC dropped from on-paper favorite to dead last.