I will be picking up my 05 Black TC this up and coming friday (crosses his fingers), however I still have a few questions lingering. I test drove a white AT TC a month or so back, at which point I put down $500 and called it a deal. At the time the AT felt pretty weak in terms of power, but I figred like most cars it would be much peppier w/ a 5spd tranny in it.

If you own a 5spd TC, what do you think about its powerband? Is it smooth? Peaky? Good amount of power? Weak on the freeway?

For the past two months I have been going back and forth between a GTI 1.8T and a TC - the 5spd 1.8T has balls and I'd really hate to regret getting the TC for lack of power and have to wait for the S/C.

Thanks,

Tyler

This car has one of the smoothest powerbands in its class. Period. If you look at dyno numbers, you'll see how the torque is almost constant throughout, while other cars such as the RSX jolts up at higher rpms.

Its like an economy car that gets bad gas mileage, so its not really an economy car. Power is what should be expected out of it. Its not a sports car, not meant to be fast. Has enough to get onto the freeway, but thats about it. Make sure you drive one throughly before driving. Regretting a $17k-20k car purchase really sucks.

Chipped 1.8T GTI would kick tC's butt, But I like 2.4L potential and relaxed power. It's got enough, plus the 5-speed gearing is very agressive.

you hsould look up a rsx dyno. it may peak at 7800 rpm but at 4,000 the TQ is very near what it is at 7800. rsx have very good powerbands

Both the RSX and the TC being at 160HP, how would those of you who have driven both compare? I have driven a RSX and a GTI 1.8T and the GTI was way smoother. As well as just plain faster.

Could someoone compare the RSX w/ the TC in terms of power and torque?

Thanks for the feedback thus far guys...

-Tyler

my gf drove both the RSX and the tC in stick. The gearing in the tC is a bit shorter in comparison so it has a fair bit more of "PEP" to it. The tC also had noticibly more torque.

I wouldn't know how to compare it to the GTI 1.8T though. I'd imagine it'd be quite similiar in driving characteristics.

I am happy with it, but as short as the gears are... NEEDS 6 speed bad!

If you want the speed and performance, go with the 1.8GTI

It is a car perhaps better balanced and with a chip you gain another 50hp, which you probably have to spend about 3000 to crank out 50 more hp on the tC. 2.4L do have torque, but never estimate the power of turbo charger.

I personally will go with tC just because it has better exterior/ interior styling. And also too much R32 GTI around my area so the 1.8T becomes like nothing...
:roll:

Its like an economy car that gets bad gas mileage, so its not really an economy car. Power is what should be expected out of it. Its not a sports car, not meant to be fast. Has enough to get onto the freeway, but thats about it. Make sure you drive one throughly before driving. Regretting a $17k-20k car purchase really sucks.

Wow, for a minute there I thought you were talking about a Volkswagen. Especially with the regret part (my 1.8T Jetta got traded in for a Honda Pilot).

If you want the speed and performance, go with the 1.8GTI

It is a car perhaps better balanced and with a chip you gain another 50hp

I had a 1.8T Jetta, I would never go back. It was a great looking car with a lot of features, but the build quality was pure garbage.

When the TRD SC is out the price for a base tC plus the SC will be very close (if not less) than a 1.8T Jetta/GTI. So with the tC you get a bigger sunroof, larger stock wheels, a better stock sound system (MP3's?), etc etc but above all else, Toyota Build Quality.

Picking a SC'd tC over a 1.8T Jetta/GTI is the very definition of the term no brainer.

i don't understand the whole it's not meant to be fast thing. i must be a poor slob, cause i think the tC is pretty fast. it's not meant to be a lambo, but it is fast. i guess it's all relative. anyways, the gti peaks its torque at 1850 rpm.....i don't know how, but it does. so it will give you big smokey burn outs, but other than that i dunno. go drive both, open it up as much as you can on a test drive....and go from there.

i don't understand the whole it's not meant to be fast thing. i must be a poor slob, cause i think the tC is pretty fast. it's not meant to be a lambo, but it is fast. i guess it's all relative. anyways, the gti peaks its torque at 1850 rpm.....i don't know how, but it does. so it will give you big smokey burn outs, but other than that i dunno. go drive both, open it up as much as you can on a test drive....and go from there.

Its a turbo engine. When the tubo is matched right to the engine you gain a great deal of low end power but somewhat at the cost of large amounts of high end power. I would trade off for lots of low end seeing thats where I drive at compared to a engine with no low end & lots of lag before you get into the high end.

Man Nick@AGP has only posted about how ____ing slow the tC ONCE in this post? Being 12 replies, I'd expect at least 2 posts by him saying how slow it is to the rsx, integra, etc. etc.

I'd also like to add.

Zero to 60 mph

RSX Type-S = 6.8 sec
tC = 7.4 sec

That's with the Type-S having 50% more horsepower than the tC. I personally don't mind getting a quieter ride, more options, and saving $6,000 with the tC.

Like someone said, performance wise get a GTI. Either the VR6 or 1.8t. 1.8t stock will bust the tC's ___ all day long. Vr6 as well of course. I have been a big VW/Audi nut, and still am. I loved my 1.8t, and had no problems with it till someone drilled my car and it hasn't been the same since. 1.8t has one of the best engines, as well as a great aftermarket section. The vr6 has a great powerband, but of course with the 1.8t , you will not experience anything close to a N/A 2.8lt V6.

I was a heartbeat in trading in my car for a R32 cause the car is just really nice everyday car that I would have fun driving. Also, alot of my mods like OEM HID's and all can go onto my R32. I think it is a great compromise car between performance and comfort..but that is nowhere near the range of what we are talking about.

with 350 dollars you can get a Upsolute chip or 500 for a Revo or APR and get a nice increase of 30hp, and then with the rest of the bolt ons like full turboback exhaust, CAI, N75 race valve, and can be looking at 215fwhp with about 230ft lb tq. With race gas, it is a whole different story. The car is capable or running 13.2 with a GREAT GREAT driver and that is with the stock turbo. Also, many ppl are breaking into the 13's with turboback and chip with race gas.

I really like the tC cause of one great thing, well I like the styling, and I also like that it should be reliable, atleast more reliable then VW's are right now. When stepping into german cars it is a completely different ball game. As I am learning stepping over to japanese imports.

This is kind of a specific question but has anyone gone from a 95 Grand Am to a tC? the HP numbers are the same but the grand am has about 20ft/lbs over the tC. Not that either car was/is made to be a speed demon but i dont wanna take a step down, but I know the tC has it beat in just about everything else. :D

This is kind of a specific question but has anyone gone from a 95 Grand Am to a tC? the HP numbers are the same but the grand am has about 20ft/lbs over the tC. Not that either car was/is made to be a speed demon but i dont wanna take a step down, but I know the tC has it beat in just about everything else. :D

im going from a 98 chevy malibu to the tC does that count lol

i went from a 300hp camaro to this no comparison lol but i like it dont regret sellin the camaro :D

Like someone said, performance wise get a GTI. Either the VR6 or 1.8t. 1.8t stock will bust the tC's ___ all day long. Vr6 as well of course.

By the time you get a 1.8T GTI matching the tC in terms of options (sunroof, 17 inch Monte Carlo's, etc), the price between it and a tC with the optional TRD supercharger(coming this fall) will be very close, if not +/- just a couple of hundred dollars. If the difference is a few hundred bucks, but with one I'm getting Toyota reliability and resale, I'm gonna go with the Toyota every day of the week. As I said before, this choice is practically the definition of the term "no brainer".

The R32 is impressive but that's in the $28K+ crowd with Evo's, STi's and used S4's. I'll argue any day that the R32 has the most potential of the bunch: it isn't even blown yet. I totally expected Car&Driver's review to dismiss it immediately due to lack of power, but they were actually pretty objective (they've been surprising me a lot lately after losing their fanboyism for BMW by giving recent nods to the S4 and RS6 over the M3 and M5 respectively).

I loved my 1.8t, and had no problems with it till someone drilled my car and it hasn't been the same since.

In my year+ of frequenting vwvortex I saw way too many people characterize their car this way. It was always funny to then see the same people in other threads say "yeah I had my window regs fixed, under warranty". Did you honestly never have any problems with your 1.8T?

I had all the common ones with my '02.5 Jetta 1.8T GLS:

door/dash rattles
driver side window dropped in the door
coil packs
Monsoon radio re-wire
doors leaked grease on hot days (this one was particularly funny, no matter how many other people and/or the dealer claimed this was "normal", I've never heard of another car doing this, ever)

I guess I'm lucky that I got the Tiptronic, otherwise I might have had the 2nd gear grind problem too :D.

Maybe its just me but VW owners tend to put the smaller problems out of their mind whenever you asked them about how reliable their car is. On the good days my 1.8T was a great car, but on the bad days it was the worst $20K+ purchase I've ever made. And with as common as those problems were (specifically among readers/posters on the 'tex), it surprises me that VW gets any repeat customers...

Im starting to hear more and more about VW reliability - quite sad I guess cause I really like the GTI 1.8T and its aftermarket support. Second, I'm coming from a more unusual ride, something that isnt really comparative - a 1957 Ford F100 pickup w/ around 400 horse and matching torque. Resale is important to me as well as build quality, but most of all it has to be fun to drive.

What is the powerband like on the freeway? RPM's / at 70MPH? Are there any aftermarket options for a HP boost thus far, other than the usual intake and exhaust?

-Tyler

The power is ok, it's the gearing that sucks. This car needs a 6speed! Although 4th and 5th are overdriven the motor still buzzes on the highway.

As far as the tC goes... i think its definelty better than the RSX... Going to Ocean City MD, 2 weeks ago... i got into it with an RSX... and beat him... not by much at all, but i stayed at least a 3/4 cars length in front of him. And i know this car has some serious potential. My buddy has the 25th Anniversary Edition Golf GTI... and he has a little engine work done, ie bigger blow-off, Intake. And him and I can run neck and neck til late into 3rd gear, then his turbo lays into me. So i can honeslty say for how the tC is set up now, in comparison too some other compact sport cars, it definetly has the pep, and potential to do great things... just needs some additional ponies, and it will be a serious competitor.

The gearing is very odd. I would say on the Highway there is plenty of power. Once you are above 3K RPM the power is there. It is odd though to be going 85 and almost be at 4K RPM. It has taken some getting used to... so on the highway you are nearly always over 3K.

As far as off the line and driving, it is weak if you are just going to be casual. I have not downshifted hard since i only have 1K miles. But when i shift down and it's in the 2K range, flooring it will get you no where. It is fun for what it is. First gear feels like it's strictly to get you going. Nothing more. Hope this helps.

Thats kinda dissapointing to hear that the RPM level on the freeway is so high. I guess though, if its comfortable at 3,500 RPM's around 80MPH thats pretty good. Is that pretty much the general concesus? Haha, it needs a sixth gear?

Has anyone driven both the TC and GTI, and if so can you compare the power?

-Tyler

No, 3500 on the highway is not good. The extra rpm's is just using more gas, and causing extra wear on the engine. I feel a 6th gear or numericaly lower final drive ratio would benefit this car a bunch. It has enough torque to keep it moving along at highway speeds. It seems scion really didn't do their research on this one. By the way, does anybody know if the the 6-speed is interchangable with the 2.4? Like bolt pattern, mounting points? Hell, the Celica and Corolla has it why not the TC?

Its a turbo engine. When the tubo is matched right to the engine you gain a great deal of low end power but somewhat at the cost of large amounts of high end power. I would trade off for lots of low end seeing thats where I drive at compared to a engine with no low end & lots of lag before you get into the high end

well, seeing as how the peak tq is at 1850, i'd have to disagree, i don't think anyone spends much time below 2k rpm. i'd also have to disagree with the turbos make more power at low rpm, they are running off the exhaust, so therfore the more exhaust coming out the more hp and tq it will put out...no? i don't know to much about all this stuff, but that's how i thought it worked. a supercharged engine makes more hp and tq in the low end...well thats what i thought anyways.

Its a turbo engine. When the tubo is matched right to the engine you gain a great deal of low end power but somewhat at the cost of large amounts of high end power. I would trade off for lots of low end seeing thats where I drive at compared to a engine with no low end & lots of lag before you get into the high end

well, seeing as how the peak tq is at 1850, i'd have to disagree, i don't think anyone spends much time below 2k rpm. i'd also have to disagree with the turbos make more power at low rpm, they are running off the exhaust, so therfore the more exhaust coming out the more hp and tq it will put out...no? i don't know to much about all this stuff, but that's how i thought it worked. a supercharged engine makes more hp and tq in the low end...well thats what i thought anyways.

Thats true some what. What really makes the power from the turbo? The amount of boost it can produce. So if you put a somewhat small turbo onto a big engine the turbo could put out full boost as low as 1,500rpm but would not offer a killer amount of top end because if its small size it would flow less CFM of air then a large turbo. Now a large turbo has a bigger turbine so it takes longer to get going (turbo lag) but once it nails full boost you can fell it. Yes a supercharge might put out more power down low but if the turbo is the right size it would be a good match. Also I cant recall the exact # but horse power tv said for every 100HP made by a supercharger it takes I think like 20hp from the engine to drive it? I cant recall the exact number they said though so im guessing on 20.

Edit: http://www.mivec.co.uk/performancedata/index.htm that page has a good talk on Torque & Horsepower. Its related to a Mitsubishi FTO but most of the stuff said would work for all cars.

well, i wouldn't call a 1.8L VW engine a big engine. but, i understand the whole turbo spool thing and the parisitic losses that both a turbocharger and a supercharger suffer. ideally speaking, i don't think that having your peak tq at 1850 rpm is going to help you in day to day driving. if anything i would think that it hurts. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that the gti is slow or anything, cause i've never driven it...just pointing out that it doesn't seem like the turbo is matched right to the engine. but, i guess you can't argue with results.

well, i wouldn't call a 1.8L VW engine a big engine. but, i understand the whole turbo spool thing and the parisitic losses that both a turbocharger and a supercharger suffer. ideally speaking, i don't think that having your peak tq at 1850 rpm is going to help you in day to day driving. if anything i would think that it hurts. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that the gti is slow or anything, cause i've never driven it...just pointing out that it doesn't seem like the turbo is matched right to the engine. but, i guess you can't argue with results.

Thats true. Also that site I listed is a good read. It is better to make your peak torque in a higher RPM because you can take advantage of gearing then. The site goes into great detail about all this stuff. Now the gti might make its peak at 1850 but what torque is it putting out around redline? If I did the math right its still making 171LB-Ft while its peak is 173.

Edit: This is based on info from the VW web site. Peak HP 180@5,500 Peak TQ 173@1950-5000rpm. So its a flat torque curve which is good.

Edit again: Lets compare here. The celica GT-S makes HP 180@7600rpm & TQ 130@6800rpm. Both engines are same size just that the VW makes power at a much more normal driven RPM. I dont know about you but when I drive manuals I dont take it over 2,300rpm unless I need to get to speed then its only 3,000rpm for the first 2 or 3 gears then back to my normal rpm shifting. I would find the GTi engine better for my every day driving then the celica. Just my $.02

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wMzk5NjYzNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg

heres a link from vw vortex, its a dyno from a stock 2002 gti 1.8t. i guess i was wrong, as far as to the wheels, cause peak is at 3000 rpm....at the tC training they said it was at 1850, maybe thats at the crank. bleh. shouldn't believe everything people tell you i guess. but, yeah, you can see the torque drop off. it ain't to bad though.

damn, you edited :P , not my point was, that if peak torque was at 1850, you wouldn't be using it. but, yeah you're right, cause vw engines have a reputation for flat torque curves, never thought about that. but, then why do you need gobs of torque for city driving? :P

Got my tC on Friday night, and I'm quite satisfied with the powerband. I commute, and while it doesn't take off @ 75 mph without downshifting, it does move much better than my wife's Corolla. I'm very happy with it.

damn, you edited :P , not my point was, that if peak torque was at 1850, you wouldn't be using it. but, yeah you're right, cause vw engines have a reputation for flat torque curves, never thought about that. but, then why do you need gobs of torque for city driving? :P

:twisted: For those times when a guy in a honda that has a exhaust louder then his radio thinks he is fast. :twisted:. Also around here the elevation changes from around 5,300-5,500 so there is some good size hills to go up & it aint fun needing to down shift to get up them.

I believe the original question involved whether the auto tC was a good representation of the pep the motor has.....

I test drove an automatic and my stick feels like it has a different engine. Granted, I have the exhaust and a K&N drop in filter, so the engine is a lot noisier (it's louder, so I must be going fast right? :wink: ) along with a few horsies stronger.....

The stick is snappy enough. I like many people on this forum pine for another cog on the highway, but the powerband is lovely. The motor is nice, it's not a screamer, but in most situations on legal roads, it is fast enough to make you smile and fast enough to get you into trouble. The powerband feels more robust than the numbers and I have no complaints about the power. It (the powerband) is way more useful than my other rides (boxster and cbr 600), which isn't saying much.

The delivery is quite smooth and it has the gusto when you really get on it. In a country road spirited run, I was able to keep up with my buddy's modded WRX (easy people, we weren't really racing) which was running about 80% (the tC was prolly more like 90%). Moral of the story: it's fast enough (esp for the price)

All in all, the stick is _way_ more fun and feels a lot faster than the auto. I hope that you (original poster) will be as pleasantly surprised as I was when I picked mine up.

sidebar: my favorite motorcycle shop has a small cardboard box on the top shelf behind the counter, with these words written in black marker on the side: "POWER BANDS, 2 and 4 stroke, all makes and models" It always gives me a good laugh, and apparently customers sometimes ask for them.... :P

Both the RSX and the TC being at 160HP, how would those of you who have driven both compare? I have driven a RSX and a GTI 1.8T and the GTI was way smoother. As well as just plain faster.

Could someoone compare the RSX w/ the TC in terms of power and torque?

Thanks for the feedback thus far guys...

-Tyler
Well, I used to own the Civic Si (2002) which is the exact same car as the RSX except with a bigger hatchback and a nicer shift knob, and a much uglier outside lol.

And I've had plenty of experience with the engine in the tC except in my 2003 Camry which I replaced the Civic with, and I also used to drive my parents' 2001 Camry before I drove the Civic so I've used the 2.4L before the 2.0L iVtec and then switched back to the 2.4L vvti...

So while my experience with the Camry might not be exactly like the Scion, since it's the same engine I feel like I can give some insight to the differences?

The RSX' engine is actually decently torquey, although the power doesn't REALLY start kicking in until the 3-4K range when you start seeing serious pickup...I'd say around 3500 was when you really started to feel pickup power.

On the 2.4L engine in the Camry/tC usable power is tappable in the 2K range...much lower than the RSX would have power.

While both engines are very smooth in delivering power and not overly peaky, the 2.4L seems to just be a much calmer engine with much smoother power...

Heh I wouldn't mind my Camry being a few pounds lighter like the tC though...I'm really waiting on that supercharger to get out so I can pop it into the Camry (which is incidentally why I'm on this Scion forum)