Getting a grip on the supercharged Scion tC
By Ed Hellwig Email
Date posted: 01-09-2006

The first acceleration run is worthless, nothing but front-tire spin and smoke. Easing up the second time around, we bog the engine, miss a shift, and turn in a quarter-mile time that could vote.

You would think we were trying to launch a nitromethane-spewing Top Fuel dragster, but instead we're behind the wheel of a 2006 Scion tC coupe that looks like it could barely chirp the tires.

Ordinary tCs do struggle to grab rubber, but this is no ordinary Scion. Under the hood of this tC sits a centrifugal supercharger developed by Toyota Racing Development (TRD). It's squeezing 7 pounds of boost into the stock 2.4-liter four-cylinder with the help of a revised air intake. Bigger fuel injectors and a remapped engine control unit (ECU) assure an adequate mix of fuel and spark while a TRD exhaust spits out the leftovers.

Still, it's no Hemi Charger, so we continue to rip it down the drag strip in search of a respectable quarter-mile time.

Full article and video:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108776

Coo coo

7.2 0-60? what is that?
15.1 in the 1/4?

these guys cannot drive

too much wheel spin

Their jobs are not to tune it themselves.. they simply drive it how they get it.. if they get too much wheel hop or too much of anything, they simply use it as a way of showing the downside of the car.

Ican't believe the found a way to price a tC with options to be around 26 k lol.

Ican't believe the found a way to price a tC with options to be around 26 k lol.

and then count the price with all the options as a strike against it. a base manual tC with the supercharger should be the same price as a base Si.

That is unfair they jack the price up!!

Good Objective Journalism..... YEAH RIGHT. BAH!

Drop the Eighteens and you might have a 14 sec quarter... :ponder:

I think manufacturers are the ones who decide how test cars are optioned because they provide the media with the vehicles for evaluation.

I guess they're torn between trying to show a sparsely equipped car with a low MSRP or a car that shows all the available options with a much higher MSRP. Looks like we know which they chose in this case.

maybe they had to make the si look better somehow...well it does have a lsd gotta give em that ;)

Yeah that car is at least 5-6k over priced and would be quicker with 17's. I do think without an LSD that the SI will always be the better car. The SI is going to hit 7.2 each time while most of the time the tC will spin the wheels. We really need an LSD.

Hey guys, how about when talking about a car's price, we include thousands of dollars in unnecessary options, and then complain about it? You think the new Si is about $19k? Wrong! I just built one for $25,241 with 18" wheels, spoilers, and all kinds of others stuff, and this doesn't even include the navigation system! If I add the navigation and some other options, the price will be around $29k! If you compare this to the new Lexus IS250, which runs for about the same amount of money, the Si loses big time. :loser:

I can write a better, more objective review than those guys... Seriously.

well, maybe they thought the bigger tires would give better traction. wouldn't it have spun even more with the 17's? has anyone ever lifted those 17's? they are riduculous light.

Right, maybe they thought the tires would give better traction, but that's not a good enough reason to compare prices when you "think" certain options improve the car. You can take any car on the market and push its MSRP by thousands by loading it with a plethora of options. Why are they comparing the base MSRP of the Si, with $10,000 (literally) of options added to the tC?

I agree that the article is mis-leading, particularly in regards to the tC pricing. For a 'performance' only comparison, they should have used a stock tC with only the S/C, or perhaps S/C, springs/struts and kept the 17s. The rotational mass of the 18s could have have an effect on the runs.

i think its a pretty good article, only problem i have with it are the horsepower numbers. I thought the supercharger made 200 at the wheels and the scion is rated at 160bhp, meaning we dont get a 40hp gain but actually more than that....that is one misleading part...

on the same note, with that in mind, si makes 197 bhp i think and tc makes 200 whp.....big difference between those numbers

put an LSD in it and we win, but stock for stock, the Si is a better car in terms of acceleration (more consistent) and handling probably as well....

i think its a pretty good article, only problem i have with it are the horsepower numbers. I thought the supercharger made 200 at the wheels and the scion is rated at 160bhp, meaning we dont get a 40hp gain but actually more than that....that is one misleading part...

on the same note, with that in mind, si makes 197 bhp i think and tc makes 200 whp.....big difference between those numbers

put an LSD in it and we win, but stock for stock, the Si is a better car in terms of acceleration (more consistent) and handling probably as well....

I think it makes about 190 at the wheels meaning its underrated. That would get you about 50 more at the wheels over stock.

Why go supercharged whe you can go turbo and get a lot more horsepower. Right know I have my turbo set to 8 psi, which is what the TRD supercharger is claimed to be set to, and I have 232 whp!!! 254 lb-ft.
Check out this turbo in my cardomain page, this is a stage 1 turbo which is already for sale!

^^some people like their (limited time) warranty lol

The rotational mass of the 18s could have have an effect on the runs.

If they used the TRD 18's then supposedly they weigh about the same as the stock 17's. Anyone can verify that? And they stockers aren't that light considering they are cast.

I agree that the article is mis-leading, particularly in regards to the tC pricing. For a 'performance' only comparison, they should have used a stock tC with only the S/C, or perhaps S/C, springs/struts and kept the 17s. The rotational mass of the 18s could have have an effect on the runs.

Exactly, they would have had better results had they run the test with the 17's. Less rotational mass = less power to turn the wheels, and more power to the ground. i think the 0-60mph time would have been in the mid-high 6 second range with the 17's and a more consistant driver, someone better aquanted with the car.

Oh no Honda has a new car out! Let the media brown nosing begin! :ttth:

the stock 17s are freaking heavy. Light wheels should weigh around 35 lbs with tires. I think the 17s are almost 27 lbs per wheel.
Considering you can get 17 inch wheels @ like 18 lbs they are very heavy.
The tC just needs better tires and you'll be able to hit mid 14s with just the supercharger.

Get some advans or prada spec2. Toyo t1s... anything but the stock tires including the ones on the 18" wheels.

I had the same opinion about the $26K price tag. WTF?!? If Scion had any sense, they would have just delivered them a base tC with a S/C, and then swap the tires for something that actually grips. Couldn't have been that hard.