MM Review: 2011 Scion tC
11-11-10, 03:27 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Review: 2011 Scion tC
A Review of the 2011 Scion tC.
http://www.scion.com/#/tC
In a Nutshell: A sportier chassis than its predecessor, but stiff and noisy, and the interior trim is very poor.
Scion, of course, means "Youth", or "Offspring", and, despite the mediocre sales/appeal of the initial small xA model, one certainly cannot deny the success of the Scion division as a whole, and that of the larger xB, xD, and the tC coupe. The Scion brand, as the name suggests, like the Lexus division, was spun off of the parent Toyota corporation as an attempt to market specific vehicles to a youth-oriented market. Toyota, for years, had been looked down by much of the under-25 crowd as a maker of stodgy, boring, appliance-like cars, though this image (as with most automotive sterotypes) was not entirely true, as the Toyota MR2, Celica, and Supra proved. But, of course, the MR2 and Celica were dropped after 2005, and the Supra had already gone out some 10 years earlier. So, to some extent at least, the kids were right....most Toyotas were safe, reliable, dull, rolling-appliances that they rode to Grandma's house in.
So, of course, the marketers at Scion decided to try and change that for the parent Toyota corporation, as young people were defecting, in droves, to buy Honda Civics, Mazda3s, and other, sportier vehicles that better-appealed to them. Scion's basic idea, at first, was to take small, entry-level Toyota FWD platforms, give them funky, out-of-the-ordinary styling/interiors, use a simple formula of list-price, no-hassle deal-making that had already been proved at Saturn, and provide literally a ton of factory-approved, dealer-installed accessories/trim-items, and even a dealer-ordered, bolt-on factory/TRD supercharger. Scion did not adopt all of Saturn's customer-friendly sales/service policies, but the no-hassle, list-price deals turned out to be a success, as they make it easier for first-time auto buyers to get through the endless paperwork and red-tape associated with new-car-buying.
As mentioned above, Scions were re-done from small Toyota platforms. The original xA and xB used the same platform/drivetrains as the former Toyota Tercel/Echo. The tC coupe, introduced shortly later, was re-done from the Toyota Avensis, a smallish sedan that was not sold in the American market (the same Avensis platform can also be seen today in the sedan Lexus HS250 Hybrid). The only problem was (although it could hardly be described as a problem), was that the xA/XB Scions, despite being designed to appeal to the youth market, were also appealing to older buyers as well. People in their 30s, 40s, and, in some cases, 50s, were also deciding that there was nothing wrong with a small, high-quality, reliable, economical vehicle that was also easy in the deal-making process. So what if it was shaped like a shoe box?...big deal. Designs like that, though they may not win automotive beauty-contests, are space-efficient and easy to get in and out of...a not-insignificant matter when bones, muscles, and joints start to age (and I can speak with some experience myself in that regard).
So, the small, boxy Scions, despite the shoe-box styling, were as much of a sales success to older adults as they were with the intended age-group of those under-30. Not so, however, with the tC....the subject of today's review. The tC coupe was the one Scion product that DID end up appealing almost exclusively to its intended youth-buyer-group, and statistics showed it ended up wth one of the lowest average-buyer-age-group in the industry. Of course, one reason for that is because the tC had a lower-stance, making for more-difficult entry/exit than its boxier-shaped brothers. It also, of course, had a considerably more sporting character than its brothers, though car reviewers, at tht time, did not consider it a hard-edged sport-coupe by any means. It was basically a low-priced coupe designed to sell to the masses....and succeeded very well in its intended range.
I myself had owned a bright blue 1995 Toyota Celica sport-coupe for almost 6 years, a car whose styling I loved (which shows that the Celica was not limited to young people, either), but I was very disappointed in the next-generation 2000-model Celica that replaced it when it first came out. My brother thought the 2000 Celica looked like a Hot Wheels/Matchbox car, and, IMO, he was right. It was small and cramped inside in comparison to the 1995-99 model, had poor rear-vision, poor headroom even without a sunroof, a bunch of cheap, poorly-finished plastic pieces inside, thinner-feeling body sheet-metal, and, in the GT-S version, a super-high-winding VVT-i four. Like the Honda S2000, you had to rev to motorcycle-RPMs to get any torque out of it.....and, even then, the available torque was much less than the HP peak. In fact, I saw a couple of Celica GT-S powerplants in the service-shop getting replaced because young kids had over-revved them while drag-racing and blown them. So, I definitely decided the new 2000 Celica wasn't for me....but that's another story, and I won't bore you with any more details here.
As for the original tC, however, when it was introduced, I looked it over and felt that, at the time, that this was the car that the 2000 Celica should have been, and wasn't. The original tC, though not ideal (it didn't quite have the 1995-99 Celica's beautiful styling), was, IMO, a much better design, in many ways, than the 2000 Celica. Apparantly the Toyota people themselves must have (eventually) agreed, because they dropped both the Celica and the 2-seat, mid-engine MR2 after the 2005 model year. I've got much to say about the MR2's marketing and limited-production/availability compared to the Mazda Miata, but I'll save that for another occasion.
For 2011, we have an all-new, redesigned tC, one that the Toyota marketers (and some auto reviewers) claim has a more-sporting character....and that is true, to some extent. One basic line of tC models is sold, with a choice of a six-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission, although, as before, there is an endless choice of dealer/factory/aftermarket accessories and packages available. The FWD layout remains, with a new 2.5L, 180 HP four with 173 ft-lbs.of torque.......the same HP rating as the 2000 Celica GT-S, but much more torque, and at a lower RPM. For the review, I chose a 6-speed automatic in an unusual light-grayish color called "Cement"...and the color, appropriately named, DID look just like wet, freshly-poured, cement. A manual-transmission model would probably have been more appropriate to this car's sporting image, but I didn't see any in stock, and the dense traffic in the area did not bode well for a stick-shift. I did, however, get a long enough test-drive, with enough stretches of light-enough traffic, for a adequate review.
This was a surprising car, in both ways....good and bad. Details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Scion tC
BASE PRICE: $19,275
OPTIONS: None
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $720
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $19,995
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transversely-mounted 2.5L VVT-i in-line 4, 180 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 173 Ft-lbs. @ 4100 RPM, 6-speed manual transmision iwth Manual Sport-Shift.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 23 City / 31 Highway / 26 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: Cement
INTERIOR: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Decent HP/torque for a standard 4-cylinder.
Responsive chassis.
Quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Responsive brakes.
Excellent, strong body sheet metal.
Well-done paint job.
Good exterior hardware.
Excellent underhood layout.
Flat-bottom steering wheel a help on entry/exit.
OK rear vision for a small coupe.
Huge, easy-read primary gauges.
Good front headroom for a small coupe.
Nice Panorama-glass roof in front.
Separate moon-roof.
Comfortable (for smaller people), supportive seats in front.
Easy, Saturn-type no-haggle dealing/pricing.
A enormous number of dealer/factory/aftermarket trim items/accessories/packages.
MINUSES:
Copious road noise, particularly on coarse-pavement surfaces.
Significant wind noise.
Fairly loud exhause noise.
Stiff, but not overly-harsh ride.
Useless rear seat for adults.
Underhood prop-rod instead of struts.
No body-side mouldings for ding-protection.
No standard rear cargo-cover (an accessory).
Awful, ultra-thin-plastic interior door panels.
Hard-dash surface.
Large but cheap, clumsy-feeling climate-control *****.
Too much black (IMO) monotone interior.
Very cheap-looking/feeling silver-plastic interior trim.
Annoying ziz-zag shifter.
Mediocre cargo-area finish.
Temporary spare tire.
No engine-coolant temperature gauge.
EXTERIOR:
The exterior of the new Second-generation tC is styled substantially different from the original one, although not totally unrecognizable. I was not pleased, however, with the elimination of the body-side mouldings on the new model....a cost-cutting feature that more and more manufacturers are adopting today. But the sheet metal strength, outside, was very solid and well-done...shut the doors/hood/trunk-lid on the tC, and you will think you have a Mercedes or Volvo. The choice of seven paint colors on the tC was about average for this class, though the color-choice overall, to me, seemed a little dull for a small sport-coupe. There were several fairly nice shades, though. The ground clearance, typical for small sport-coupes, was on the low side, so you have to be careful hot to hit objects lying in the road or scrape the front-curb while parking. The wheels on my test-car were nicely-done in a grayish-hue that went with the Cement paint color nicely. The roof panel is glass over the front seat and what appears to be a conventional-type sunroof in back (too bad the rear-seat is unusable for adults...more on that later). The C-pillars, in back, are fairly thick, but, with the inverse-upsweep design, still don't impede on rear-vision too badly. I liked the fairly conservative design of the headlights/grille/taillights....I tend to get turned-off by excessively bullet-shaped/aero-design cars (though the front end of the 1995-99 Celica, despite the aero-look, was gorgeous).
UNDERHOOD:
Open the solidly-cast hood, and the underhood layout is One of the car's best features.....except for the Cheapo manual prop-rod that holds the hood up instead of more convienient struts or springs. This is, though, a fairly inexpensive car, so that can be overlooked to some extent. The transversely-mounted 3.5L four fits in very nicely, and, like with many lower-line cars, does not have an annoying plastic engine-cover to block access to things. Access to reach components around all three sides of the engine-block was fairly easy, and the battery, off to the right, was also uncovered and easily-accessed. All dipsticks, filler caps, and reservoirs were easily reached. This is one area where low-line/entry-level cars, IMO, as a group, are WAY ahead of premium cars.....many upmarket-vehicles make reaching almost anything under the hood diifcult or nearly impossible. I forgot to check for an underhood insulation pad like I usually do, and there did seem to be a fair amount of engine/exhaust noise...more on that later.
INTERIOR:
This was not my kind of interior at all....IMO, generally a poor job inside. Yes, to be fair, there were a few things about it I liked...the handy, upright door-pulls, the nice glass panel overhead, the B-I-G, easily-read speedometer/odometer, the fairly nice-grade cloth on the seats, and the simple, easy-to-use design of many of the *****/controls, and the D-shaped, flat-bottomed steering wheel that helps big, heavy legs get in and out easier. My particular car did not have a stereo in it (just a big hole in the dash with a colorful cardboard-cover), even though a base-level stereo is standard. Apparantly, most tC buyers opt for one of several dealer-installed, factory-approved custom stereos, so the dealers routinely take the base/standard stereo out, and install it only if the customer requests it.
But little else in the interior impressed me. The interior door-panels, despite the black-fabric inserts, had plastic panels so thin that I could buckle them with my little finger. There is no engine-coolant-temperature gauge...just the cold/hot idiot-lights. The shifter on the console, like many Toyota/Scion products, has an annoying zig-zag pattern instead of the simpler fore/aft motion....though it does include a Sport/Manual mode. The sun visors and headliner had a very thin fabric, which was not quite as cheap as the hard-plastic on some vehicles, but were still not very pleasant to handle. Almost the entire interior was monotone black (way too much so for my tastes), and what little silver-plastic there was on the steering-wheel spokes and door-pulls looked and felt cheap. The front-seat bolsters, though probably comfortable for smaller, narrower people, were marginal for larger rumps like mine, though not as restrictive as on some pocket-rockets I've sampled like the VW GTI and R32, for instance. The three big round climate-control *****, like in some other smaller Toyota/Scion products, had a somewhat stiff and awkward feel to them, but at least they didn't wobble as much in the tC as in some of those other vehicles....the manual ***** in the Camry and Corolla, for insance, wobble noticeably when you try to use them. The tiny rear seat, as is usually the case in small coupes, is best used as a cargo/package-shelf, and almost useless for adults. The reddish-orange glow to the gauge-panel lights, as on some Mazdas, BMWs, and Pontiacs (and older Audis), has never been one of my favorites...I generally like the white or ice-blue lights. In my opinion, the interior, overall, even considering the fairly low price of this car, is a washout....they need to go back to the drawing board and make a number of improvements.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
In general, I was not very impressed wth the cargo area, either, except for the strong, solid-closing sheet-metal on the hatch-lid and the two handy cubby-compartments on each side of the trunk-bed. The hatch-lid itself is quite large, but the tapered rear-end means that there isn't much room inside for tall items/packages...the available cargo-room wedges down quite a bit towards the rear. The sides of the cargo area are the same light/cheap-plastic I remarked about on the interior door panels, and the floor is covered with a thin, flimsy cover with an an even thinner, cheesy fabric. Under the floor is, as usual, a temporary-spare tire instead of a real one. Yes, this is an inexpensive car, but I'm still a believer in real spares, not donuts or temps.......but I tend to overlook it a little more in entry-level vehicles. Fortunately, the rear-seats, as in most coupes, fold down to help with the somewhat short cargo area, and allow some taller packages and cargo in. There is (apparantly) no standard cargo pull-cover to hide the trunk's contents...I couldn't find one listed in the literature, but the mounts are built into the trunk for it, and the Scion people say that one is available as an accessory. Or, you can just throw a blanket over anything in the trunk that you don't want prying eyes to see.
ON THE ROAD:
The reviews of this car, in the auto press and magazines, that say it is sportier than the former tC, are generally correct. Start up the 2.5L four with a conventional side-column ignition switch key/fob (no engine START/STOP button), and it idles smoothly and quietly for a four, as most Toyota-designed fours do. Exhaust noise, however, builds noticeably with the engine revs....this is definitely no Lexus. But the perky little four is no slouch...even with the automatic transmission, it has a fair amount of torque for everyday driving....the 6-speed manual would (likely) give it even better pickup. The 6-speed automatic shifts smoothly but solidly, but the lever, though operating smoothly, has the aforementioned (and annoying) zig-zag motion in its regular gate. A yellowish-green "Eco" light on the dash, which indicates more fuel-efficient, higher-MPG programming, comes on when the transmission is in the regular full-automatic mode...it goes off with the Sport-manual mode.
The new chassis, as the reviews indicate, is worthy of a sport-coupe, with quick, precise steering response, flat cornering, and a level of snap not seen in an entry-level Toyota product for quite some time. Twist the steering wheel, and this car, despite the nose-heavy FWD layout, goes pretty much where you point it. There is some feel to the steering, too, though not, of course, not to the level of BMW steering. And, though I didn't actually measure it, the turning-radius, for a FWD car this size, seemed pretty small, too....you could generally make a U-Turn in a pretty small area. The car's (apparant) lack of sound insulation, perhaps due to cost-cutting, is fairly loud but tolerable on smooth surfaces. But really made itself known, in tire noise, on coarse/rough surfaces, where the roaring intruded profusely. If you plan to buy this car and use it for long trips, make sure to test it out on a coarse-pavement road and see if the road-noise is not too much for you.....it could get tiring after a couple of hours, along with engine-exhaust and a fair amount of wind noise, too. I remarked to the Scion people about the road noise, but they say that they get few actual complaints about it, because the tC's generally-young buyers tend to turn their custom stereos way up or be downloading music with I-Pods, and the music covers up the road noise (I couldn't argue with them....that explanation does make some sense). Ride comfort, as expected, was on the firm side (in general, too firm for my tastes), but, given the way the tC is likely to be driven, probably (again) will not be noticed by the tC's generally young buyers. Though they were not the strongest brakes I have sampled by any means, I did like the firm, right-now response of the brake pedal, without any apparant sponginess (I remember how awful and spongy the Toyota Corolla's brake pedal was when I sampled it). The braking action was not Porsche-quick, but when you hit the pedal, you generally got brakes instead of mushiness. The pedal was also fairly well-located, and my big size-15 clodhopper shoes did not have any significant problems hanging up on the pedal when going from gas to brake.
THE VERDICT:
Scion, with the new tC, apparantly catering to its youth-buyer base (younger, with the tC, than with any other Toyota/Scion product), has come up with an inexpensive but credible sports-coupe. It's too bad that the bean-counters had to skimp so much on the interior trim and some other features this car should have. But, as the Scion people are quick to point out, you can order almost anything for this car, either from the dealer/factory or aftermarket, if you are wlling to pay for it. They showed me the the option/accessory check-off list on the dealer-order-form......it is page after page, almost endless. That is just the way Scion markets their products...each car is bought at the dealership in more or less a base-shell form and then virtually custom-ordered. Or, if you want, just take the base-car home as it is, with no options...but remember, Scion's list-price sales policy means that the base car will, like Saturns, sell at full-list price, with no discounts. The flip side, of course, is that there are no daler mark-ups if supplies are limited and demand is high....though dealers can get around that, in a tight market, by putting for-profit accessories on, even if they aren't wanted by the customer.
But the tC has other things going for it, too. Its exterior sheet metal is tank-like and will probably not be easily-dented. Like most small Toyota products, previous versons of it had a good reliability record in Consumer Reports (the new 2011 model is, of course, new and untested). Stability-control, missing on earlier versions, is now standard. And those who have formerly criticized Toyota for not doing a true sport-coupe have less of reason to complain now.
And, as always, Happy Car-Shopping
.
MM
http://www.scion.com/#/tC
In a Nutshell: A sportier chassis than its predecessor, but stiff and noisy, and the interior trim is very poor.
Scion, of course, means "Youth", or "Offspring", and, despite the mediocre sales/appeal of the initial small xA model, one certainly cannot deny the success of the Scion division as a whole, and that of the larger xB, xD, and the tC coupe. The Scion brand, as the name suggests, like the Lexus division, was spun off of the parent Toyota corporation as an attempt to market specific vehicles to a youth-oriented market. Toyota, for years, had been looked down by much of the under-25 crowd as a maker of stodgy, boring, appliance-like cars, though this image (as with most automotive sterotypes) was not entirely true, as the Toyota MR2, Celica, and Supra proved. But, of course, the MR2 and Celica were dropped after 2005, and the Supra had already gone out some 10 years earlier. So, to some extent at least, the kids were right....most Toyotas were safe, reliable, dull, rolling-appliances that they rode to Grandma's house in.
So, of course, the marketers at Scion decided to try and change that for the parent Toyota corporation, as young people were defecting, in droves, to buy Honda Civics, Mazda3s, and other, sportier vehicles that better-appealed to them. Scion's basic idea, at first, was to take small, entry-level Toyota FWD platforms, give them funky, out-of-the-ordinary styling/interiors, use a simple formula of list-price, no-hassle deal-making that had already been proved at Saturn, and provide literally a ton of factory-approved, dealer-installed accessories/trim-items, and even a dealer-ordered, bolt-on factory/TRD supercharger. Scion did not adopt all of Saturn's customer-friendly sales/service policies, but the no-hassle, list-price deals turned out to be a success, as they make it easier for first-time auto buyers to get through the endless paperwork and red-tape associated with new-car-buying.
As mentioned above, Scions were re-done from small Toyota platforms. The original xA and xB used the same platform/drivetrains as the former Toyota Tercel/Echo. The tC coupe, introduced shortly later, was re-done from the Toyota Avensis, a smallish sedan that was not sold in the American market (the same Avensis platform can also be seen today in the sedan Lexus HS250 Hybrid). The only problem was (although it could hardly be described as a problem), was that the xA/XB Scions, despite being designed to appeal to the youth market, were also appealing to older buyers as well. People in their 30s, 40s, and, in some cases, 50s, were also deciding that there was nothing wrong with a small, high-quality, reliable, economical vehicle that was also easy in the deal-making process. So what if it was shaped like a shoe box?...big deal. Designs like that, though they may not win automotive beauty-contests, are space-efficient and easy to get in and out of...a not-insignificant matter when bones, muscles, and joints start to age (and I can speak with some experience myself in that regard).
So, the small, boxy Scions, despite the shoe-box styling, were as much of a sales success to older adults as they were with the intended age-group of those under-30. Not so, however, with the tC....the subject of today's review. The tC coupe was the one Scion product that DID end up appealing almost exclusively to its intended youth-buyer-group, and statistics showed it ended up wth one of the lowest average-buyer-age-group in the industry. Of course, one reason for that is because the tC had a lower-stance, making for more-difficult entry/exit than its boxier-shaped brothers. It also, of course, had a considerably more sporting character than its brothers, though car reviewers, at tht time, did not consider it a hard-edged sport-coupe by any means. It was basically a low-priced coupe designed to sell to the masses....and succeeded very well in its intended range.
I myself had owned a bright blue 1995 Toyota Celica sport-coupe for almost 6 years, a car whose styling I loved (which shows that the Celica was not limited to young people, either), but I was very disappointed in the next-generation 2000-model Celica that replaced it when it first came out. My brother thought the 2000 Celica looked like a Hot Wheels/Matchbox car, and, IMO, he was right. It was small and cramped inside in comparison to the 1995-99 model, had poor rear-vision, poor headroom even without a sunroof, a bunch of cheap, poorly-finished plastic pieces inside, thinner-feeling body sheet-metal, and, in the GT-S version, a super-high-winding VVT-i four. Like the Honda S2000, you had to rev to motorcycle-RPMs to get any torque out of it.....and, even then, the available torque was much less than the HP peak. In fact, I saw a couple of Celica GT-S powerplants in the service-shop getting replaced because young kids had over-revved them while drag-racing and blown them. So, I definitely decided the new 2000 Celica wasn't for me....but that's another story, and I won't bore you with any more details here.
As for the original tC, however, when it was introduced, I looked it over and felt that, at the time, that this was the car that the 2000 Celica should have been, and wasn't. The original tC, though not ideal (it didn't quite have the 1995-99 Celica's beautiful styling), was, IMO, a much better design, in many ways, than the 2000 Celica. Apparantly the Toyota people themselves must have (eventually) agreed, because they dropped both the Celica and the 2-seat, mid-engine MR2 after the 2005 model year. I've got much to say about the MR2's marketing and limited-production/availability compared to the Mazda Miata, but I'll save that for another occasion.
For 2011, we have an all-new, redesigned tC, one that the Toyota marketers (and some auto reviewers) claim has a more-sporting character....and that is true, to some extent. One basic line of tC models is sold, with a choice of a six-speed manual or 6-speed automatic transmission, although, as before, there is an endless choice of dealer/factory/aftermarket accessories and packages available. The FWD layout remains, with a new 2.5L, 180 HP four with 173 ft-lbs.of torque.......the same HP rating as the 2000 Celica GT-S, but much more torque, and at a lower RPM. For the review, I chose a 6-speed automatic in an unusual light-grayish color called "Cement"...and the color, appropriately named, DID look just like wet, freshly-poured, cement. A manual-transmission model would probably have been more appropriate to this car's sporting image, but I didn't see any in stock, and the dense traffic in the area did not bode well for a stick-shift. I did, however, get a long enough test-drive, with enough stretches of light-enough traffic, for a adequate review.
This was a surprising car, in both ways....good and bad. Details coming up.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2011 Scion tC
BASE PRICE: $19,275
OPTIONS: None
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $720
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $19,995
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transversely-mounted 2.5L VVT-i in-line 4, 180 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 173 Ft-lbs. @ 4100 RPM, 6-speed manual transmision iwth Manual Sport-Shift.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 23 City / 31 Highway / 26 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: Cement
INTERIOR: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Decent HP/torque for a standard 4-cylinder.
Responsive chassis.
Quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Responsive brakes.
Excellent, strong body sheet metal.
Well-done paint job.
Good exterior hardware.
Excellent underhood layout.
Flat-bottom steering wheel a help on entry/exit.
OK rear vision for a small coupe.
Huge, easy-read primary gauges.
Good front headroom for a small coupe.
Nice Panorama-glass roof in front.
Separate moon-roof.
Comfortable (for smaller people), supportive seats in front.
Easy, Saturn-type no-haggle dealing/pricing.
A enormous number of dealer/factory/aftermarket trim items/accessories/packages.
MINUSES:
Copious road noise, particularly on coarse-pavement surfaces.
Significant wind noise.
Fairly loud exhause noise.
Stiff, but not overly-harsh ride.
Useless rear seat for adults.
Underhood prop-rod instead of struts.
No body-side mouldings for ding-protection.
No standard rear cargo-cover (an accessory).
Awful, ultra-thin-plastic interior door panels.
Hard-dash surface.
Large but cheap, clumsy-feeling climate-control *****.
Too much black (IMO) monotone interior.
Very cheap-looking/feeling silver-plastic interior trim.
Annoying ziz-zag shifter.
Mediocre cargo-area finish.
Temporary spare tire.
No engine-coolant temperature gauge.
EXTERIOR:
The exterior of the new Second-generation tC is styled substantially different from the original one, although not totally unrecognizable. I was not pleased, however, with the elimination of the body-side mouldings on the new model....a cost-cutting feature that more and more manufacturers are adopting today. But the sheet metal strength, outside, was very solid and well-done...shut the doors/hood/trunk-lid on the tC, and you will think you have a Mercedes or Volvo. The choice of seven paint colors on the tC was about average for this class, though the color-choice overall, to me, seemed a little dull for a small sport-coupe. There were several fairly nice shades, though. The ground clearance, typical for small sport-coupes, was on the low side, so you have to be careful hot to hit objects lying in the road or scrape the front-curb while parking. The wheels on my test-car were nicely-done in a grayish-hue that went with the Cement paint color nicely. The roof panel is glass over the front seat and what appears to be a conventional-type sunroof in back (too bad the rear-seat is unusable for adults...more on that later). The C-pillars, in back, are fairly thick, but, with the inverse-upsweep design, still don't impede on rear-vision too badly. I liked the fairly conservative design of the headlights/grille/taillights....I tend to get turned-off by excessively bullet-shaped/aero-design cars (though the front end of the 1995-99 Celica, despite the aero-look, was gorgeous).
UNDERHOOD:
Open the solidly-cast hood, and the underhood layout is One of the car's best features.....except for the Cheapo manual prop-rod that holds the hood up instead of more convienient struts or springs. This is, though, a fairly inexpensive car, so that can be overlooked to some extent. The transversely-mounted 3.5L four fits in very nicely, and, like with many lower-line cars, does not have an annoying plastic engine-cover to block access to things. Access to reach components around all three sides of the engine-block was fairly easy, and the battery, off to the right, was also uncovered and easily-accessed. All dipsticks, filler caps, and reservoirs were easily reached. This is one area where low-line/entry-level cars, IMO, as a group, are WAY ahead of premium cars.....many upmarket-vehicles make reaching almost anything under the hood diifcult or nearly impossible. I forgot to check for an underhood insulation pad like I usually do, and there did seem to be a fair amount of engine/exhaust noise...more on that later.
INTERIOR:
This was not my kind of interior at all....IMO, generally a poor job inside. Yes, to be fair, there were a few things about it I liked...the handy, upright door-pulls, the nice glass panel overhead, the B-I-G, easily-read speedometer/odometer, the fairly nice-grade cloth on the seats, and the simple, easy-to-use design of many of the *****/controls, and the D-shaped, flat-bottomed steering wheel that helps big, heavy legs get in and out easier. My particular car did not have a stereo in it (just a big hole in the dash with a colorful cardboard-cover), even though a base-level stereo is standard. Apparantly, most tC buyers opt for one of several dealer-installed, factory-approved custom stereos, so the dealers routinely take the base/standard stereo out, and install it only if the customer requests it.
But little else in the interior impressed me. The interior door-panels, despite the black-fabric inserts, had plastic panels so thin that I could buckle them with my little finger. There is no engine-coolant-temperature gauge...just the cold/hot idiot-lights. The shifter on the console, like many Toyota/Scion products, has an annoying zig-zag pattern instead of the simpler fore/aft motion....though it does include a Sport/Manual mode. The sun visors and headliner had a very thin fabric, which was not quite as cheap as the hard-plastic on some vehicles, but were still not very pleasant to handle. Almost the entire interior was monotone black (way too much so for my tastes), and what little silver-plastic there was on the steering-wheel spokes and door-pulls looked and felt cheap. The front-seat bolsters, though probably comfortable for smaller, narrower people, were marginal for larger rumps like mine, though not as restrictive as on some pocket-rockets I've sampled like the VW GTI and R32, for instance. The three big round climate-control *****, like in some other smaller Toyota/Scion products, had a somewhat stiff and awkward feel to them, but at least they didn't wobble as much in the tC as in some of those other vehicles....the manual ***** in the Camry and Corolla, for insance, wobble noticeably when you try to use them. The tiny rear seat, as is usually the case in small coupes, is best used as a cargo/package-shelf, and almost useless for adults. The reddish-orange glow to the gauge-panel lights, as on some Mazdas, BMWs, and Pontiacs (and older Audis), has never been one of my favorites...I generally like the white or ice-blue lights. In my opinion, the interior, overall, even considering the fairly low price of this car, is a washout....they need to go back to the drawing board and make a number of improvements.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
In general, I was not very impressed wth the cargo area, either, except for the strong, solid-closing sheet-metal on the hatch-lid and the two handy cubby-compartments on each side of the trunk-bed. The hatch-lid itself is quite large, but the tapered rear-end means that there isn't much room inside for tall items/packages...the available cargo-room wedges down quite a bit towards the rear. The sides of the cargo area are the same light/cheap-plastic I remarked about on the interior door panels, and the floor is covered with a thin, flimsy cover with an an even thinner, cheesy fabric. Under the floor is, as usual, a temporary-spare tire instead of a real one. Yes, this is an inexpensive car, but I'm still a believer in real spares, not donuts or temps.......but I tend to overlook it a little more in entry-level vehicles. Fortunately, the rear-seats, as in most coupes, fold down to help with the somewhat short cargo area, and allow some taller packages and cargo in. There is (apparantly) no standard cargo pull-cover to hide the trunk's contents...I couldn't find one listed in the literature, but the mounts are built into the trunk for it, and the Scion people say that one is available as an accessory. Or, you can just throw a blanket over anything in the trunk that you don't want prying eyes to see.
ON THE ROAD:
The reviews of this car, in the auto press and magazines, that say it is sportier than the former tC, are generally correct. Start up the 2.5L four with a conventional side-column ignition switch key/fob (no engine START/STOP button), and it idles smoothly and quietly for a four, as most Toyota-designed fours do. Exhaust noise, however, builds noticeably with the engine revs....this is definitely no Lexus. But the perky little four is no slouch...even with the automatic transmission, it has a fair amount of torque for everyday driving....the 6-speed manual would (likely) give it even better pickup. The 6-speed automatic shifts smoothly but solidly, but the lever, though operating smoothly, has the aforementioned (and annoying) zig-zag motion in its regular gate. A yellowish-green "Eco" light on the dash, which indicates more fuel-efficient, higher-MPG programming, comes on when the transmission is in the regular full-automatic mode...it goes off with the Sport-manual mode.
The new chassis, as the reviews indicate, is worthy of a sport-coupe, with quick, precise steering response, flat cornering, and a level of snap not seen in an entry-level Toyota product for quite some time. Twist the steering wheel, and this car, despite the nose-heavy FWD layout, goes pretty much where you point it. There is some feel to the steering, too, though not, of course, not to the level of BMW steering. And, though I didn't actually measure it, the turning-radius, for a FWD car this size, seemed pretty small, too....you could generally make a U-Turn in a pretty small area. The car's (apparant) lack of sound insulation, perhaps due to cost-cutting, is fairly loud but tolerable on smooth surfaces. But really made itself known, in tire noise, on coarse/rough surfaces, where the roaring intruded profusely. If you plan to buy this car and use it for long trips, make sure to test it out on a coarse-pavement road and see if the road-noise is not too much for you.....it could get tiring after a couple of hours, along with engine-exhaust and a fair amount of wind noise, too. I remarked to the Scion people about the road noise, but they say that they get few actual complaints about it, because the tC's generally-young buyers tend to turn their custom stereos way up or be downloading music with I-Pods, and the music covers up the road noise (I couldn't argue with them....that explanation does make some sense). Ride comfort, as expected, was on the firm side (in general, too firm for my tastes), but, given the way the tC is likely to be driven, probably (again) will not be noticed by the tC's generally young buyers. Though they were not the strongest brakes I have sampled by any means, I did like the firm, right-now response of the brake pedal, without any apparant sponginess (I remember how awful and spongy the Toyota Corolla's brake pedal was when I sampled it). The braking action was not Porsche-quick, but when you hit the pedal, you generally got brakes instead of mushiness. The pedal was also fairly well-located, and my big size-15 clodhopper shoes did not have any significant problems hanging up on the pedal when going from gas to brake.
THE VERDICT:
Scion, with the new tC, apparantly catering to its youth-buyer base (younger, with the tC, than with any other Toyota/Scion product), has come up with an inexpensive but credible sports-coupe. It's too bad that the bean-counters had to skimp so much on the interior trim and some other features this car should have. But, as the Scion people are quick to point out, you can order almost anything for this car, either from the dealer/factory or aftermarket, if you are wlling to pay for it. They showed me the the option/accessory check-off list on the dealer-order-form......it is page after page, almost endless. That is just the way Scion markets their products...each car is bought at the dealership in more or less a base-shell form and then virtually custom-ordered. Or, if you want, just take the base-car home as it is, with no options...but remember, Scion's list-price sales policy means that the base car will, like Saturns, sell at full-list price, with no discounts. The flip side, of course, is that there are no daler mark-ups if supplies are limited and demand is high....though dealers can get around that, in a tight market, by putting for-profit accessories on, even if they aren't wanted by the customer.
But the tC has other things going for it, too. Its exterior sheet metal is tank-like and will probably not be easily-dented. Like most small Toyota products, previous versons of it had a good reliability record in Consumer Reports (the new 2011 model is, of course, new and untested). Stability-control, missing on earlier versions, is now standard. And those who have formerly criticized Toyota for not doing a true sport-coupe have less of reason to complain now.
And, as always, Happy Car-Shopping
.MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-11-10 at 03:53 PM.
11-11-10, 03:39 PM
#2
Pole Position
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: IL
Posts: 2,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the review MM. 
I agree with you on the interior. I felt that the last gen had a better looking interior and had a better looking exterior. And i didnt see this when I looked at it, but did the back seats have those designs that you have in the pictures at the top?
I agree with you on the interior. I felt that the last gen had a better looking interior and had a better looking exterior. And i didnt see this when I looked at it, but did the back seats have those designs that you have in the pictures at the top?
11-11-10, 03:45 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure...anytime.
Yes, that seat fabric was petty much the stuff I had in the test-car.
Both the old one and the new one have, IMO, decent-looking (though somewhat-diffrent) exteriors, but I agree with you on the new interior....you can really tell the cost-cutting in the inside. But, to compensate, the body sheet-metal on the new one is like a tank......they sure didn't skimp there.
I agree with you on the interior. I felt that the last gen had a better looking interior and had a better looking exterior. And I didnt see this when I looked at it, but did the back seats have those designs that you have in the pictures at the top?
Both the old one and the new one have, IMO, decent-looking (though somewhat-diffrent) exteriors, but I agree with you on the new interior....you can really tell the cost-cutting in the inside. But, to compensate, the body sheet-metal on the new one is like a tank......they sure didn't skimp there.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-11-10 at 03:49 PM.
11-11-10, 04:02 PM
#4
Mike, your review is quite predictable for the 2nd gen tC.
I knew that Toyota would have done a lot of cost-cutting. And it's good that most of it is with the interior, which is (for a prominent group of Scion enthusiasts) easily modifiable.
Scion enthusiasts have little qualm gutting stereo components and replacing them with new systems, including speakers on the doors and such (which would require repadding and insulation; which Toyota appropriately skimped on). Seats are also popularly modified, either with new seat covers, or with completely different seats altogether. Lighting (both interior and exterior) are quickly changed to LEDs and HIDs and what not. Wheels and tires are almost always changed to create a distinctive look, so I could imagine Toyota bean counters thinking "go cheap with stock tires". This might help road noise a bit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Toyota probably did enough research to determine where to cut costs. It seems that little was skimped on performance and handling and safety, but creature comforts suffered. But if Scion designers knew what would be removed and modified, then they found a way to justify the downgrades.
I know that this kind of mentality still cheapens the car, especially to those who have no desire to modify their car at all. But Scion is at a spot where they need to establish an even greater sense of brand recognition, and part of that idea encourages to change many of the cheaper stock amenities to better aftermarket ones. I guess they had to choose their battles...
I knew that Toyota would have done a lot of cost-cutting. And it's good that most of it is with the interior, which is (for a prominent group of Scion enthusiasts) easily modifiable.
Scion enthusiasts have little qualm gutting stereo components and replacing them with new systems, including speakers on the doors and such (which would require repadding and insulation; which Toyota appropriately skimped on). Seats are also popularly modified, either with new seat covers, or with completely different seats altogether. Lighting (both interior and exterior) are quickly changed to LEDs and HIDs and what not. Wheels and tires are almost always changed to create a distinctive look, so I could imagine Toyota bean counters thinking "go cheap with stock tires". This might help road noise a bit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Toyota probably did enough research to determine where to cut costs. It seems that little was skimped on performance and handling and safety, but creature comforts suffered. But if Scion designers knew what would be removed and modified, then they found a way to justify the downgrades.
I know that this kind of mentality still cheapens the car, especially to those who have no desire to modify their car at all. But Scion is at a spot where they need to establish an even greater sense of brand recognition, and part of that idea encourages to change many of the cheaper stock amenities to better aftermarket ones. I guess they had to choose their battles...
11-11-10, 05:41 PM
#6
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great review. . . a heads up on the history, the xA and xB were rebadged JDM models, the IST and the bB, respectively. The xD is based on the Yaris and shares most of the components, but has different sheetmetal and the (available overseas on the Yaris) 1.8L engine.
It's a shame the interior stinks so bad, considering how gorgeous the 1st gen's interior was.
It's a shame the interior stinks so bad, considering how gorgeous the 1st gen's interior was.
11-11-10, 05:47 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Mike, your review is quite predictable for the 2nd gen tC.
I knew that Toyota would have done a lot of cost-cutting. And it's good that most of it is with the interior, which is (for a prominent group of Scion enthusiasts) easily modifiable.
Scion enthusiasts have little qualm gutting stereo components and replacing them with new systems, including speakers on the doors and such (which would require repadding and insulation; which Toyota appropriately skimped on). Seats are also popularly modified, either with new seat covers, or with completely different seats altogether. Lighting (both interior and exterior) are quickly changed to LEDs and HIDs and what not. Wheels and tires are almost always changed to create a distinctive look, so I could imagine Toyota bean counters thinking "go cheap with stock tires". This might help road noise a bit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Toyota probably did enough research to determine where to cut costs. It seems that little was skimped on performance and handling and safety, but creature comforts suffered. But if Scion designers knew what would be removed and modified, then they found a way to justify the downgrades.
I know that this kind of mentality still cheapens the car, especially to those who have no desire to modify their car at all. But Scion is at a spot where they need to establish an even greater sense of brand recognition, and part of that idea encourages to change many of the cheaper stock amenities to better aftermarket ones. I guess they had to choose their battles...
I knew that Toyota would have done a lot of cost-cutting. And it's good that most of it is with the interior, which is (for a prominent group of Scion enthusiasts) easily modifiable.
Scion enthusiasts have little qualm gutting stereo components and replacing them with new systems, including speakers on the doors and such (which would require repadding and insulation; which Toyota appropriately skimped on). Seats are also popularly modified, either with new seat covers, or with completely different seats altogether. Lighting (both interior and exterior) are quickly changed to LEDs and HIDs and what not. Wheels and tires are almost always changed to create a distinctive look, so I could imagine Toyota bean counters thinking "go cheap with stock tires". This might help road noise a bit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Toyota probably did enough research to determine where to cut costs. It seems that little was skimped on performance and handling and safety, but creature comforts suffered. But if Scion designers knew what would be removed and modified, then they found a way to justify the downgrades.
I know that this kind of mentality still cheapens the car, especially to those who have no desire to modify their car at all. But Scion is at a spot where they need to establish an even greater sense of brand recognition, and part of that idea encourages to change many of the cheaper stock amenities to better aftermarket ones. I guess they had to choose their battles...
Your comments do make some sense. It is likely that a number of components will be changed or modified by many owners. And I guess, then, that the average tC owner won't care about things like paper-thin plastic door panels or a cheesy cargo-area finish. Well, then, if Toyota and Scion can make money with this car, and sell it the way it is, then more power to them.
Trending Topics
11-11-10, 06:03 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
. . . a heads up on the history, the xA and xB were rebadged JDM models, the IST and the bB, respectively. The xD is based on the Yaris and shares most of the components, but has different sheetmetal and the (available overseas on the Yaris) 1.8L engine.
It's a shame the interior stinks so bad, considering how gorgeous the 1st gen's interior was.
11-11-10, 06:11 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Though styling is objective, actually, I think the exterior looks prettty good. I pretty much agree with you on the interior, though........it has some good features, but I haven't seen interior plastics that bad for a long time......even from a GM car. The worst ones (and they're simply awful) are on the door panels, but, as PhilipMSPT and I discussed above, that is not likely something that the average tC owner is likely to be concerned about. Like you, though, I wouldn't want an interior like that.
11-11-10, 06:48 PM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
Great review as usual! The cheap interior is certainly a disappointment. I hadn't heard about the noise factor, but glad I did here.
However, bodyside moldings on a small, modern, sporty car would be a laugh. Maybe on a formal Buick sedan from the 80's, but not here or on just about anything else sold today. Marshall, I say this as a friend and fellow car nut who also loves to review cars... you really have to consider letting go of bodyside moldings. They are gone and have been gone for quite a while. They are not coming back. It's time to let go and say R.I.P. bodyside moldings. You lived a good half century. =)
However, bodyside moldings on a small, modern, sporty car would be a laugh. Maybe on a formal Buick sedan from the 80's, but not here or on just about anything else sold today. Marshall, I say this as a friend and fellow car nut who also loves to review cars... you really have to consider letting go of bodyside moldings. They are gone and have been gone for quite a while. They are not coming back. It's time to let go and say R.I.P. bodyside moldings. You lived a good half century. =)
11-11-10, 07:05 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
The road noise, as is usually the case, was most pronounced on coarse/porous pavement. On smooth roads, it was less-noticeable, but still more than what you typically find with most vehicles today. Part of it may (?) have also been the tire-tread design and rubber-compound. These were obviously well-performing tires from a sport/handling sense, and sometimes they can be noisy, as that kind of tire is generally not designed for comfort. The specs list them as P225/45R18's, but don't give any further info on them.
This issue......and comments......have been brought up before, by some other posters too. There, I respect your opinions, but simply disagree. Whether it is a new vehicle costing 10K or 100K, small or large, econobox, luxury, minivan, truck, sports car...whatever have you, a door ding is a door ding, and it is just as annoying on a new 2011 model vehicle as it is on a 20-year-old one (perhaps even more so, as most older cars already have a good collection of scratches and dings on them). Not all automakers are phasing them out, either....my brother's new Kia Soul, for example, (a brand-new design only a little more than a year old), has some excellent mouldings....Kia didn't skimp on them one penny. They were one factor (among many others, of course) in his decision to buy a Soul.
The cheap interior is certainly a disappointment. I hadn't heard about the noise factor, but glad I did here.
However, bodyside moldings on a small, modern, sporty car would be a laugh. Maybe on a formal Buick sedan from the 80's, but not here or on just about anything else sold today. Marshall, I say this as a friend and fellow car nut who also loves to review cars... you really have to consider letting go of bodyside moldings. They are gone and have been gone for quite a while. They are not coming back. It's time to let go and say R.I.P. bodyside moldings. You lived a good half century. =)
but simply disagree. Whether it is a new vehicle costing 10K or 100K, small or large, econobox, luxury, minivan, truck, sports car...whatever have you, a door ding is a door ding, and it is just as annoying on a new 2011 model vehicle as it is on a 20-year-old one (perhaps even more so, as most older cars already have a good collection of scratches and dings on them). Not all automakers are phasing them out, either....my brother's new Kia Soul, for example, (a brand-new design only a little more than a year old), has some excellent mouldings....Kia didn't skimp on them one penny. They were one factor (among many others, of course) in his decision to buy a Soul.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-11-10 at 07:12 PM.
11-11-10, 07:17 PM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
Thanks.
The road noise, as is usually the case, was most pronounced on coarse/porous pavement. On smooth roads, it was less-noticeable, but still more than what you typically find with most vehicles today. Part of it may (?) have also been the tire-tread design and rubber-compound. These were obviously well-performing tires from a sport/handling sense, and sometimes they can be noisy, as that kind of tire is generally not designed for comfort. The specs list them as P225/45R18's, but don't give any further info on them.
This issue......and comments......have been brought up before, by some other posters too. There, I respect your opinions, but simply disagree. Whether it is a new vehicle costing 10K or 100K, small or large, econobox, luxury, minivan, truck, sports car...whatever have you, a door ding is a door ding, and it is just as annoying on a new 2011 model vehicle as it is on a 20-year-old one (perhaps even more so, as most older cars already have a good collection of scratches and dings on them).
The road noise, as is usually the case, was most pronounced on coarse/porous pavement. On smooth roads, it was less-noticeable, but still more than what you typically find with most vehicles today. Part of it may (?) have also been the tire-tread design and rubber-compound. These were obviously well-performing tires from a sport/handling sense, and sometimes they can be noisy, as that kind of tire is generally not designed for comfort. The specs list them as P225/45R18's, but don't give any further info on them.
This issue......and comments......have been brought up before, by some other posters too. There, I respect your opinions,
but simply disagree. Whether it is a new vehicle costing 10K or 100K, small or large, econobox, luxury, minivan, truck, sports car...whatever have you, a door ding is a door ding, and it is just as annoying on a new 2011 model vehicle as it is on a 20-year-old one (perhaps even more so, as most older cars already have a good collection of scratches and dings on them).
11-11-10, 07:35 PM
#13
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No disrespect meant at all, as I love your reviews, but yeah. . . body-side moldings are no longer "stylish," and I don't see them coming back. Same with non-"zig-zag" shifters. I know you always gripe about them, but I think most consumers just feel it's cheap to have a traditional type gear-shift design. It also seems manufacturers favor the zig-zag or push-button/joystick type designs, maybe because they are simpler to make, not needing a shift-lock button.
11-11-10, 08:10 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
No problem...I understand.
Thanks. I put a lot of time and effort into them.
I respect your opinion, but I'm still not convinced it's a styling issue. Automakers save maybe a couple of dollars on each car by omitting them, which doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by thousands of those car produced eacy year in the plant, and then it can add up to significant amounts. For decades, I've watched how automakers operate...they will often go to great lengths to save even a couple of cents on each car. Of course, somethings they can't leave off, and don't have any choice......such as things that are required by Federal standards.
The zig-zag shifter issue, unlike the body-side moulding issue, has nothing to do with "cheapness" or cost-cutting. It was originally a safety-issue....though, IMO, a somewhat misguided one. Some drivers, particularly on older Honda automatics, because of weak shifter-detents, had a tendency to pull the lever straight back, too hard, into D3 instead of D4. Some other drivers weren't making sure the vehicle was in Park or Reverse properly. So, the Safety-Nannies came up with the ziggy-poo shifter pattern, which was supposed to insure that the proper gear was always selected before hitting the gas.....or when parking. Never mind the fact that the push-button lever-release, which prevented taking the lever out of PARK or into reverse without pressing the button, had already been developed years earlier.
In addition, a number of older Ford products had defective parking-prawl detents, especially on the column-shifters, which sometimes had drivers thinking they were solidly locked in park, when in fact, they were still in reverse...there were two massive recalls on that. But, as I see it, that is simply a quality-control/installation issue at the factory (and should be dealt with as such), not a reason to totally redesign the gate into a zig-zag instead.
As always, the key to safe driving, at least as I see it, is to LOOK at (or know) what you are doing, both inside and outside the car, not depend on safety-nanny devices to guide you through things like little children. I was a licensed pilot for a number of years, and I know the extreme importance of making sure you hit the right controls at the right time......some pilots have been known to raise the landing-gear lever instead of the flap lever after the plane has touched-down and is rolling, letting the plane settle right down to the pavement on its belly. They've also stressed-out piston aircraft engines by advancing the throttles before the prop-control levers.
as I love your reviews,
I put a lot of time and effort into them.
but yeah. . . body-side moldings are no longer "stylish," and I don't see them coming back.
but I'm still not convinced it's a styling issue. Automakers save maybe a couple of dollars on each car by omitting them, which doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by thousands of those car produced eacy year in the plant, and then it can add up to significant amounts. For decades, I've watched how automakers operate...they will often go to great lengths to save even a couple of cents on each car. Of course, somethings they can't leave off, and don't have any choice......such as things that are required by Federal standards.
Same with non-"zig-zag" shifters. I know you always gripe about them, but I think most consumers just feel it's cheap to have a traditional type gear-shift design. It also seems manufacturers favor the zig-zag or push-button/joystick type designs, maybe because they are simpler to make, not needing a shift-lock button.
In addition, a number of older Ford products had defective parking-prawl detents, especially on the column-shifters, which sometimes had drivers thinking they were solidly locked in park, when in fact, they were still in reverse...there were two massive recalls on that. But, as I see it, that is simply a quality-control/installation issue at the factory (and should be dealt with as such), not a reason to totally redesign the gate into a zig-zag instead.
As always, the key to safe driving, at least as I see it, is to LOOK at (or know) what you are doing, both inside and outside the car, not depend on safety-nanny devices to guide you through things like little children. I was a licensed pilot for a number of years, and I know the extreme importance of making sure you hit the right controls at the right time......some pilots have been known to raise the landing-gear lever instead of the flap lever after the plane has touched-down and is rolling, letting the plane settle right down to the pavement on its belly. They've also stressed-out piston aircraft engines by advancing the throttles before the prop-control levers.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-11-10 at 08:15 PM.
11-11-10, 09:29 PM
#15
Rookie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent review. I inspected a 2011 Scion Tc with my college-age son last week and we went for a test drive. As we were looking for a new car for him to commute to college at not to expensive a price it seemed a natural contender. However his overall impression was summed up by "meh". Cheap, charmless and no character.
What really surprised me though was how expensive the new Scion Tc was to lease which Toyota was offering at over $250/Month for 12,000 miles.
Afterwards we went down the road and leased a more expensive Mini Cooper with more options for just under $197/month. For my son it was no contest. My wallet is happier too!
Chris
What really surprised me though was how expensive the new Scion Tc was to lease which Toyota was offering at over $250/Month for 12,000 miles.
Afterwards we went down the road and leased a more expensive Mini Cooper with more options for just under $197/month. For my son it was no contest. My wallet is happier too!
Chris