What does everyone think of the 22/29 mpg rating that Scion is giving the TC with a manual? The numbers seem a little low to me. Hopefully they are being reserved with them. There are a lot of cars people will see as alternatives to the TC, like the Mazda 3, that are getting better numbers. :?:

try 18 - 19 premium when you get the S/C...

I had my WRX and only got over 20 twice... Really pain in the ___ after a few fill ups...

I agree that those numbers for MPG are rather poor. 22/29... thats just 3 or 4 city MPG away from the Vette (not that anyone would cross-shop)... add on the SC and watch it dip further.

THis vehicle must be:

A- heavier than 2900 lbs.
B- simply have very close ratios in the tranny, allowing better acceleration but crummy cruising RPMs

Seriously, after totalling my WRX and swapping for a 90 Integra LS... I'm getting 22 - 25 mpg and dropped under 20 like twice, this is with about 90% local driving... I get almost 28 - 30 mpg with extensive high way on 87 octane!!!

But I do hate the crappy 3K - 4K crusing RPM... I like to finally have a car that'll keep 65 at 2K again... The WRX was good for this and it bites that the tC will only have 5 spd.. A nice 6th gear for overdrive on the highway would be wonderful and 5 aggressive short gears to rip the heck out of the S/C would be awsome too...

But since I only drive 2 miles to work, and don't have much of a life LOL, gas isn't really huge on my part... But for the first year or so, I'm gonna make it my duty to drive around for absolutely no good reason...

dont the tC come with 5spd w/ overdrive?

What does everyone think of the 22/29 mpg rating that Scion is giving the TC with a manual? The numbers seem a little low to me. Hopefully they are being reserved with them. There are a lot of cars people will see as alternatives to the TC, like the Mazda 3, that are getting better numbers. :?:

I think the tC MPG numbers are in line the with Mazda 3 when you consider the tC is a heavier car. You can't go by the Mazda 3 i version which is only 147 HP. Also the Mazda 3 is less heavy by a few hundred pounds.

You are not going to get the MPG like the xA does? People, get realistic.

Kevin

First of all, where did you get this 22/29 rating? The only specs I've seen on the tC were the preliminary ones that have since been taken off the website, with highway mileage around 32.

Remember that the tC uses the same drivetrain found in the manual Camrys, including the 5-speed transmission. The Camry is heavier than the tC, and gets 23/33.

Granted, the tC has slightly more power, but that would not warrant a 4 MPG decrease; if that's the case, we'd be talking about 1 MPG decrease per 1HP gained, and that would be indicative of a big problem with Toyota's engineering.

My guess is this: Coupes have never been known to be areodynamic. If that 22/29 MPG figure turns out to be true, it leads me to believe that the tC is relatively areodynamically inefficient, leading to that loss of MPG. The stock 17-inch wheels don't help matters. The Camry, despite weighing more, is probably more areodynamic than the tC, which is why we see the disparity between the MPG figures.

Overall, not too surprsing, but the Forester I'm looking at has a bigger engine and has to cope with AWD and still gets 21/28, making the tC seem less impressive in that regard. The Forester is probably more areodynamic as well.

By the way, the Mazda3 isn't too impressive areodynamically either. It gets good MPG because it's a lightweight car with a smaller engine.

Another note on the Mazda 3. Per their forum, many owners are complaining about the MPG and only getting in the low 20s. But then I don't think I have ever had a car that equaled the MPG given the car. In fact, look at the Prius, they gave it a 55-60 MPG and most people are getting in the low 40s.

If the tC (with auto) gets in the mid 20s, I will be happy. If people are looking to get in the low 30s, the tC is not for them.

Kevin

CofCtC

The 22/29 comes from a PDF you can DL on Scion's website under the new TC section.

EDIT: I agree the mid 20's is honestly not that bad. I was just comparing it to other (new) cars in the same price range that someone might consider. It's actually down to the TC and Mazda 3 in my mind right now. I like the looks of the TC a lot and love coupes, but it does look like the car might be a tad on the heavy side.

I don't see those specs anywhere on the site. And why is Scion using DIS instead of TDI? I'm sure it's the same thing, and if so, they're taking this whole non-Toyota thing too far...

Go to www.scion.com. Click TC. Click brochure. Download the TC PDF brochure. It's all there.

Gotcha. I was looking for a specific place in the tC page...Turns out it was just their general brochure page. I saw that when they first released it. For some reason, I thought the MPG was around 31. Oh well.

Yeah it just seems low for what you are getting. I was hoping for slightly over 30 mpg.

well it should get better than 22/29 though. Camry is 200 pouds heavier, yet it gets like 23/32, and even the Rav4 get better gas, and actually makes alittle more power. I think Toyota is bieng conservative, or accounting for the fact that scion will be driven hard. Or maybe they haved tunes the engine for less tourge down low (like they have in the Mazada 3), so the engine requires more revs and burns more gas, that would suck cause I want a torque I4.

I believe the poor gas milage is emblematic of Scion's use of close gear ratios in gears 1-5. Basically, better acceleration, more shifting, higher rev's at crussinign speed= poor gas milage.

Compare the 5 speed xA to the ECHO, and despite the 300 lbs difference, the gears play a major role in high reving freeway speeds.

Well hopefully they are being conservative. I would like to see a minimum of 24 to 25 mpg.

Unfortunately the downside to more torque is higher fuel consumption. You can't really have one without the other. There is a benefit though, large low rev'n engines last longer than small high rev'n engines.

For a stocker 2.4L without S/C I guess 20+ can be expected... Remember the weight is only a factor IF you stop and go a lot... So low 20's should be easy to accompilsh no problem...

As for the S/C version... Don't look like it'll get 20 too often... Maybe borderline at best...

For those looking for MID 20's... Good luck... I'm getting 25 with 50% local and highway, and thats a 90 integra LS with a 1.8L engine and ~2450 lbs...

When I drive 100% local I barely hit 20...

Now on the second part... Where is the speculation of coupes not being aerodynamic? I don't think they base supercars on anything but coupes... Aerodynamics have nothing to do with the class of a car but how round they are in the front... As long as the lines allow for air to move faster up top and isn't flat while doing that, then you're going to have a streamlined car... If you ask me, the tC looks no more blockish than our average Civic...

But seriously, gas is gonna be a bother now anyways... ~$2.20 for 87 octane in San Francisco :(

daym... $2.20/gallon? thats alot. san antonio is like $1.60 and i thought that was alot and its still rising too.

the forester is aerodynamic? the thing is a sloppy lookin' brick on wheels... no offense to the xBer's....

Forester isn't a coupe...

Or did I miss something? LOL must be sleepy if I did :D

Edit:

Also forgot to answer, any car with overdrive just means a really long gear at the end to allow low crusing RPM, it's nothing fancy mechanically but if you had 6 gears making 6th the O/D, then you have 5 gears that can be fitted for agressive acceleration (and lots of downshifting fun!!)

the forester is aerodynamic? the thing is a sloppy lookin' brick on wheels... no offense to the xBer's....

As Robin Williams would say, "You don't know ____ about ____, my man." Ever seen an Audi 5000S? Your dumb ___ may be quick to write it off as a "sloppy lookin' brick," yet it was one of the most areodynamic road-going cars ever created. Lexus has a hard time matching its .25cD with the current LS430.

There's a big difference between what your uneducated eyes see and mind interprets and the actual science that goes in areo.

Forester isn't a coupe...

Or did I miss something? LOL must be sleepy if I did :D

Edit:

Also forgot to answer, any car with overdrive just means a really long gear at the end to allow low crusing RPM, it's nothing fancy mechanically but if you had 6 gears making 6th the O/D, then you have 5 gears that can be fitted for agressive acceleration (and lots of downshifting fun!!)

Ya, you must have been sleepy. That post was about areodynamics. Here are the Cliff's Notes: Just because a coupe looks sleek to you doesn't mean it can fool the wind. In the same vein, a boxy-looking vehicle may be surprisingly areodynamic.

anyone know if the automatic will be close gear too? I hope not, i rather save on gas.

anyone know if the automatic will be close gear too? I hope not, i rather save on gas.

Probably going to be the same 4-speed that's in the Camry.

Well, I don't know what is the current way of aerodynamics flow to, but I can say that they sure don't make 5000S planes or Boats or F1 cars...

I tried finding a cuf # for the 5000S but came up empty, but still that is NOT as boxy as a xB... Note that xB is almost a mini SUV, and that big box going 60 mph on the freeway running smack into the wind will be like a wall going 60 mph, but with some holes in the grille...

As for the Forrester, it's got more defined lines, but still it rides too high to hide itself from wind...

Regardless of which, the Enzo looks really boxy, but then it's very low and sleek, so there isn't as much wind for it to cut through (LOL I said cutting wind) and it's got so much downforce going for it in it's design the spoiler was opt out of the final design and now we have that ugly Ferrari that everyone enjoys so much :D


P.S. Wouldn't it be funny to fly a plane that looks like a xB?

Compare a 1987 5000S to a F1 car from the same year. They don't look similar for good reason. The F1 cars have areo work that is designed for maximum speed. Road car designers are concerned with fuel economy and minimized noise and design their areo accordingly.

This is actually rather stupid in my opinion. If you're going to compare the areo of F1 cars and airplanes to regular road cars, why not compare engines? Wow, those new Rolls-Royce turbines put the tC to shame... :roll:

I dunno I never bought a car for it's aeros, the fuel economy would be nothing really if at most 1 - 2 mpg with extensive highway miles... It equates to nothing for my 100% local driving LOL :D

I always heard that the less air go'n underneath the car the better the aerodynamics. The Forester is pretty high off the ground. *shrug*

Aerodynamic science aside, a Forester sure looks like it would catch more wind than the tC.

My Celica prolly has a better cd than either a tC or the forester. :P

no.. aerodynamics just means the way something cuts through air...

There are different effects you can achieve with aerodynamics...

What you eplained about more over than under manes downforce... If you fliped that you get lift... Down force keeps a car glued to the ground while lift makes planes fly...

aerodynamics in a fuel economy sense would just mean how well a car runs into air with the less ammount of opposing force by the air thats in front of the car... With little sense of how it is spread...

Seriously, the xB and Forrester are not great aerodynamic designs, not for downforce, not for lift, and not for fuel economy...

Coupes car for car are usually more aerodynamic than any other car forms...

Anywho, it seriously isn't a big concern... You'll mostly only lose like 1 - 2 mpg over extensive highway driving only... Lose a few mph of top speed and thats about it... You really won't notice it in a production car...

High profile cars however do get swayed by cross wind on the highway like SUVs that have high ground clearance and high center of gravity...

I always heard that the less air go'n underneath the car the better the aerodynamics. The Forester is pretty high off the ground. *shrug*

Aerodynamic science aside, a Forester sure looks like it would catch more wind than the tC.

My Celica prolly has a better cd than either a tC or the forester. :P

Celica Cd: .32
Camry Cd: .28
Forester Cd: .36

The tC will no doubt be "up there," so to speak. So I guess you could say that the Camry is to the Celica what the Celica is to the Forester. :P

Anywho, it seriously isn't a big concern... You'll mostly only lose like 1 - 2 mpg over extensive highway driving only... Lose a few mph of top speed and thats about it... You really won't notice it in a production car...



I think aerodynamics make a pretty big difference in mpg....i'm averaging over 34 mpg in my auto xA. I haven't heard of any xB owners getting anywhere close to that. With very little weight difference between the 2, i think aerodynamics is what's making the difference...

And no....i don't drive like a grandma..yes i'm sure the calcs are right (my ocd engineer bf does the fill ups and calcs)...i drive 80% hwy 20% city.... hwy is 50% stop and go (50% time wise, 25% distance wise)

I hate to say it but 1-2 mpg adds up over time at $1.57 a gallon.

The only real way to test that is to take some weight off the xB and YOU end up driving it in the same habit that you drive with your xA... But still, the xB is so unaerodynamic it probably equates to WAY more than what the average difference of aerodynamics are from coupe to coupe which we're concerned about talking about the tC in comparison to other cars in it's class / competition...

Note weight over 300 miles of travel adds up while going and stopping... Torque is what helps move the car at a stand still or a slow roll, so over a full tank of gas that can equate... (These cars are far from muscle cars :D)

As for $1.57 a gallon, if you lose 1 - 2 mpg from say 24 to 22, you won't pay an extra $1.57 until you used up 11 gallons... Considering the difference in aerodynamics isn't a brick vs a stream line design... (it's $2.20 for 87 octane and $280 for 92 octane where I live so $1.57 is like so 3 years ago for me LOL)

So with thouse mpg figures, you're only paying an extra $1.57 over 264 miles... If you can't afford that lord knows how you can afford a new car...