Consumer Guide (www.consumerguide.com) is an independent service that provides some of the most unbiased opinions I've come by. They test some models of cars and write up reports.

Here, I've taken information from several models that try to compete with Scion. The MSRP recorded is that of a base model with no additional packages unless a certain model was tested i.e. Focus ZX5.

A tilda symbol (~) indicates an estimation. A question mark (?) indicates that the information wasn't provided. This is only a comparison and numbers should only be used as a general guide. This comparison does not take into account optional packages or optional engines that are available in such models as the Civic, Focus, or PT Cruiser.

Model 0 to 60 times (Consumer Guide) MSRP

Scion XB MT 9.8 : AT ~10.6 $14165
Scion XA MT~9.6 : AT: 10.6 $12965
Suzuki Aerio SX MT ? : AT: 10.7 $15519
Saturn Ion MT~9.5 : AT~10.0 $11995
Mitsu Lancer Not Tested :( $14172
Protégé LX MT 9.8 : AT ? $14100
Mazda 3 Not Tested :( $14200
Hyundai Elantra MT 8.4 : AT ? $13839
Honda Civic MT 9.4 (EX) : AT 10.2 (LX) $13300
Focus ZX5 MT 9.3 : AT ? $15820
PT Cruiser MT 8.9 : AT ? $18080
Matrix MT~9.5 : AT ? $15185
Kia Spectra MT 9.2 : AT~11.2 $12360

These are numbers from only one source, so results may vary. Take everything here very lightly, but I thought it was interesting. :)

at least it proves once and for all that the MT is definately faster than the AT :shock:

Just a note: The 2004 Suzuki Aerio is faster than the above stats. For ’04 it comes with a 2.3 L 155hp/153tq(?) engine. However, with an AT, I'm sure it's still in the 9s 0-60.

That list really puts things into perspective.

Just a note: The 2004 Suzuki Aerio is faster than the above stats. For ’04 it comes with a 2.3 L 155hp/153tq(?) engine. However, with an AT, I'm sure it's still in the 9s 0-60.

That list really puts things into perspective.

yeh

we slow!

:(

It's almost hard to beleive for me honestly. My car doesn't feel THAT slow to me... :shock:

I'm actually totally OK with the performance. 10-15 more hp would be great, but I'm not craving it like a dog.

Then again, I've never had a *really* fast car. My last car was a VW Jetta TDI (turbodiesel) with 90 hp, so I'm probably not a good person to go by. :lol:

I, personally, was kinda excited when I compiled this information. Half a second on 0-60 times is like nothing.

All the reviews about how the XB and XA are underpowered made me feel bad, so I did some research. Turns out, reviewers (and drivers) are just power hungry.
I was surprised Suzuki didn't make better use of their horses. Which reminds me. Most of these cars are 20 or 30 HP more powerful. Thank goodness for HP/weight ratio.

I betchya XB'ers could take the Trac Off and gain a couple of tenths anyway.

was there any indication whether the aerio times posted were for 2 or all wheel drive?

well figure this for the fun of it......my 2k civic si stock put 138hp and 98ft lbs of torque stock to the ground.....it has 4.11 to 1 final drive and weighs about 300lbs more then the scion xB.....the scion xB has about the same torque at the wheels and has a 4.39 to 1 final drive.....
civic si 98ft lbs of torque little over 300lbs heavier....
civic si 4.11:1 final drive....scion 4.39:1 final drive...
now with my injen intake i get 100ft lbs of torque....should be able to take an si off the line and give it a run for its money till the civic hit 3rd....at least stock....

if we could port the head and put some real cams in the scion...it would be fast.....the head/cams/valve setup and ecu are for fuel economy....if i ported the head/bigger valves/new cams/new ecu/ u should be able to pull 150+ hp with the 10.5:1 compression....2k civic si has 10.2:1 and is only .1 liters larger....the stroke is comparable....i can see this motor with some work putting down some nice hp/tq numbers.....


good economy way....port the head/new valves/new cams/new ecu....deck plate to lower the compression to 9:1....boost about 12psi...call it done....flying box