I am hoping that there are some new headlines soon. I am especially curious to see the driver reviews. Especially gas mileage? I am thinking its going to be pretty poor. Probably like 23-24 mpg

Remember that the EPA is finally updating the mileage system so ALL 2008 cars will take a considerable hit, especially small and/or hybrid cars. With that in mind, I would imagine that it will be about 20city/28hwy or so. Something to keep in mind also is the gearing. If Scion goes with the Camry's taller gears instead of the tC's shorter gears, it'll get a little bit better mileage.

I would hope they go with the camry gears. I would be very dissapointed if they dropped the gas mileage for a little extra horsepower. Who needs that !

They could of just kept the same engine. With the price of gas soaring, and the success of the oirignal box, I'm surprised at them going bigger.

With its extra size (and weight) the 1.5L wouldn't have kept up with any of the competition, so a larger engine was needed. With that said, is the 2.4L a better choice than the 1.8L? Who knows. All I know is that it's going to be a fun box (albeit softer one) to drive. Anytime you give a vehicle 55% more power, there is a considerable difference, I just hope they kept the weight down.

...I just hope they kept the weight down.

Weight has been published, 3085 lb for the xB2 w/ auto trans.

It went bigger because it's the American way. All our cars get bigger because we keep getting fatter and fatter.

...I just hope they kept the weight down.

Weight has been published, 3085 lb for the xB2 w/ auto trans.

Mind if I ask where that came from? I would like the link as it probably has other info that I am unaware of. PM me if you'd like. Thanks.

As for the weight, it's a bit high, but considering the Camry/RAV4/Highlander are all well over 3000lb, I'm sure it'll be a lot of fun to drive.

600 extra pounds to deal with :doh: . Too bad, it was fun telling customers that the xB was lighter than a new Mazda MX-5.

Toyota, I expect a 5-star rating out of this thing. Between the new safety features and larger size/added weight, it should excel in one of the only areas the last gen didn't.

safety!

safety!The first gen xB was plenty safe. It just didn't have all the sideairbag crap. What a waste of money. :no:
The new xB should be about as quick as the 1st gens. with all that extra weight added on. :lalala:

sumo size weight!

yeah, it's too bad, it goes against the whole scion name and what you imagined when you heard the word scion...just my $0.02, i bought my box a month ago new, i wondered why there were only a handful on the lot...they were leftover 06 models.didn't even know until i signed the papers!lol.point is i'm glad i got a first and the last of a true "city car".If Honda brings a small box though I'm goin back home...

...I just hope they kept the weight down.

Weight has been published, 3085 lb for the xB2 w/ auto trans.

Mind if I ask where that came from? I would like the link as it probably has other info that I am unaware of. PM me if you'd like. Thanks.

This thread:

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=163737

Specifically, my post here:

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2429108#2429108

Which was taken from the latest brochure.

Hopefully this link will help all of you out!

http://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=168678

safety!The first gen xB was plenty safe. It just didn't have all the sideairbag crap. What a waste of money. :no:
The new xB should be about as quick as the 1st gens. with all that extra weight added on. :lalala:

The 1st xB was plenty safe, but it certainly didn't excel in the area. Side bags are not a waste of money by any means and will be standard in all vehicles before we know it.

In terms of performance, it's getting a 20% bump in wieght, but a 55% increase in power. I love my 1st gen, but it will be nothing in comparison to the new model. Also, keep in mind that the Camry (3200lb+) RAV4 (3300lb+) and the Highlander (3500lb+) all have much better performance times than the 1st gen xB, so the car will perform with respect.

3000lb is not a bad thing by any means, it just won't have the tossable feel that we all loved about the 1st gen model.

Boomster and Max, thanks for the links!

Guess we will wait and see. It is true that every american car eventually gets bigger and fatter. I guess thats because like BB2NER said everyone in this country seems to be moving the same way.

I like think I like the new body style.

But Toyota is really screwing up by going larger, heavier and less efficient.

New xB = Current Element :eyebrow:

Just go to Honda and get their spec sheet on the Element, it will tell us all we need to know about the 08 xB

Expect real world sub 20 mpg from the 08.

It is unheard of in automotive history to take a wildly successful model and ruin it so completely. I don't think Honda would ruin the civic line by doubling the size of its engine and building next years model on the Accord frame.

Why not make the xB a 4x4 and totally make Scion like everything else

:loser: :loser:

Well, it uses the same engine as the tC so expect similar MPGs.. nuff said

I don't know what happened to the MPG "craze". I owned a 1992 Honda Civic CX and consistantly got mid 40's with it and on long trips i got over 50 MPG!!! Now we have "fuel efficient" hybrids costing twice as much and still not achieving 50 MPG. America needs to be marketing/making smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. And we are certainly capable of winding up our own windows and dealing with a little extra road noise for even more miles per gallon. I'm a little disappointed in the American public for not DEMANDING these things from our automakers. Bigger is not always better, just glance down at our expanding waistlines. Ok, OK, rant over, resume daily grind.

I like think I like the new body style.

But Toyota is really screwing up by going larger, heavier and less efficient.

New xB = Current Element :eyebrow:

Just go to Honda and get their spec sheet on the Element, it will tell us all we need to know about the 08 xB

Expect real world sub 20 mpg from the 08.

It is unheard of in automotive history to take a wildly successful model and ruin it so completely. I don't think Honda would ruin the civic line by doubling the size of its engine and building next years model on the Accord frame.

Why not make the xB a 4x4 and totally make Scion like everything else

:loser: :loser:

Newsflash:

The Honda Civic was 1st imported into the US as a 1972 model with a 2 cylinder air cooled engine 50 (yes, fifty) HP engine and was 138 inches in length. By 1974, it had been upgraded to a whopping 52 HP engine :rofl:

The 2007 Civic had grown to 174.8 inches and packs a 140 HP engine.

Honda must be a bunch of morons as they made the car grow by 3 feet and the engine is over 2.5 bigger! WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS!

While the 2007 is 5 star rated for safety, the 1970s models would been "0 stars" rated from what I remember, if the test had been in effect. The cars earned the "Not Recommended" due to safety concerns by Consumers Reports.

Change is not always a bad thing.

BTW, as info, the 2007 Element has reported problems with rear-end sliding out on hard turns (per Consumer Reports testing) and I sure hope that Toyota's not copied that. Otherwise, we would have already bought one of the new Elements instead of waiting for Scion to drag out the intro of their new model.

Remember that the EPA is finally updating the mileage system so ALL 2008 cars will take a considerable hit, especially small and/or hybrid cars. With that in mind, I would imagine that it will be about 20city/28hwy or so. Something to keep in mind also is the gearing. If Scion goes with the Camry's taller gears instead of the tC's shorter gears, it'll get a little bit better mileage.

Its about time that the EPA Gas Mileage Estimates are more accurately stated. In the past, they have been, for the most part, a joke due to the fact they did not reflect anything other than what a car did in "ideal" lab test conditions. The last revision was in 1984 and the EPA says that the ratings were adjusted down 10% for city and 22% for highway (for details see: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ )

When the estimates were started, its no big secret that the "Big 3" were getting better mileage by changing ratios to achieve better mileage with a hit on acceleration in addition to other methods. Toyota and, by extension, Scion are well aware of this and with the larger / more powerful engine, changing the ratios of gearing should help keep the mileage good as this is not being marketed as a "performance car."

Mickie3 thanks for the newsflash! very helpful

I think it should be pointed out that the Honda Civic has gone through 8 generation changes. So the "Morons" at Honda have steadily increased the size of the car and engine. They have also introduced more efficient engine technologies.

My point was that the typical civic we all know and love from the 80's and 90's was generally a 1.5 litre. The civic DX 2007 is a 1.8 litre.

The Mazda Miata was originally a 1.5 and in the second generation became a 1.8

why do we need a 2.3 in the Box?? :tap:

I can't wait for the 3rd generation 4000 lb V6 Hybrid xB for $30,000, I'll take the leather option with 2 DVD screens for my fat kids


:rofl:

Here are some numbers. The Camry, tC and RAV-4 all use the same engine/tranny with different tunes and gearing. The Camry is about 300 lbs more than the new xB, the RAV-4 is also about 300 lbs more, and the tC is 100 lbs lighter than the new xB. Converted to the new, 2008 standards, here are some comparison cars:

2006 xB manual= 26/30
2007 Camry manual= 21/30
2007 tC manual= 20/28
2007 RAV-4 automatic= 21/28

REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE CONVERTED TO THE 2008 RATING USING THE EPA SITE.

Now worst case scenario, it uses the tC tune and gearing, and since it weighs more and is less aerodynamic, it could be as low as 19/27.

I am pretty sure it uses the Camry tune (check HP/tq), and because of the decreased ratings, they will do everything they can to bring the mileage up. Being lighter than the Camry/RAV4 and a little more aerodynamic than the RAV4, I see the best case as being 22/29.

This means a combined cycle drop of between 2.5 and 5 mpg compared to the 2006 manual.

Of course, its toyota, so they could pull something out of their butt and get like 26/32....but not likely.

how about some real world numbers

Echo 05 - 37mpg

Xb 06 - 30mpg

Camry 25mpg

TC 25mpg

Rav4 23mpg

Element 23mpg

Here we go: The Echo is light, aero, good gearing and a 1.5

The xB 06 is heavier, square, low gearing but a 1.5 so it gets -7mpg

The xB2 is even heavier, basically as square, will likely have higher gearing and is 2.4

I agree that it will be likely EPA rated at 22/29

but the real world will be 23mpg (06 is 30mpg)

so that is a 7mpg difference. or about 25% less fuel economy.

The MPG difference between the 06 and the 08 will be narrowest on the highway at 5mpg
but about 8mpg difference in the city.
:yawn:

Since it has the Camry engine I'm thinking the MPG will be close to that of the Camry.

keep in mind what they said in the xb brochure:

"This new powerplant not only makes the xb more powerful, but also delivers great fuel efficiency with excellent accelaration in both urban and highway conditions.

-vvt-i optimises engine efficiency and power by adjusting the intake valve timing using sensors that measure cam and crankshift position, engine rpm and the load placement on the engine

- vvt-i helps maximize engine power and fuel economy throughout the rev range"

It will be 26-29

Sure I believe the brochure. thank goodness they finally put vvti in the xB.

That should save alot of fuel!

forget comparing to the Camry. Does the 06 xB compare to the echo or the yaris? :nope:

I have to assume the people that are posting with the fantasy that the new xB will be fuel efficient have an xB on order and are not very objective and realistic about that fact that the new xB will not outperform the Honda Element or the Rav4 when it comes to fuel economy. Scion stopped manufacturing fuel efficient xB in December. Get the original or the Honda Fit. :clap:

how about some real world numbers

Echo 05 - 37mpg

Xb 06 - 30mpg

Camry 25mpg

TC 25mpg

Rav4 23mpg

Element 23mpg

Here we go: The Echo is light, aero, good gearing and a 1.5

The xB 06 is heavier, square, low gearing but a 1.5 so it gets -7mpg

The xB2 is even heavier, basically as square, will likely have higher gearing and is 2.4

I agree that it will be likely EPA rated at 22/29

but the real world will be 23mpg (06 is 30mpg)

so that is a 7mpg difference. or about 25% less fuel economy.

The MPG difference between the 06 and the 08 will be narrowest on the highway at 5mpg
but about 8mpg difference in the city.
:yawn:

Ok...you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. While I agree that epa mileage does not agree with real world mileage, EPA mileage IS accurate for comparison.

If there is a 2-5 to 5 mpg difference in the combined mpg, generally you will get 2.5 to 5 mpg less in the real world. The only time you would really see a 7mpg difference is in 100% metro driving, as in never above ~ 30 mph with lots of stops and idling. A 7 mpg difference could be overcome by driving the first gen hard and driving the gen2 like a grandma...it really isn't that big a difference.

My primary point is that a 3 mpg difference between two vehicles in the EPA cycle DOES NOT equal a 7 mpg difference between 2 vehicles in real life.

I will outperform a rav4 unless it is geared very short, it has a lower coeff of drag and has 300 less pounds to lug with the same engine/tranny.

how about some real world numbers

Echo 05 - 37mpg

Xb 06 - 30mpg

Camry 25mpg

TC 25mpg

Rav4 23mpg

Element 23mpg

Here we go: The Echo is light, aero, good gearing and a 1.5

The xB 06 is heavier, square, low gearing but a 1.5 so it gets -7mpg

The xB2 is even heavier, basically as square, will likely have higher gearing and is 2.4

I agree that it will be likely EPA rated at 22/29

but the real world will be 23mpg (06 is 30mpg)

so that is a 7mpg difference. or about 25% less fuel economy.

The MPG difference between the 06 and the 08 will be narrowest on the highway at 5mpg
but about 8mpg difference in the city.
:yawn:

Ok...you obviously have NO idea what you are talking about. While I agree that epa mileage does not agree with real world mileage, EPA mileage IS accurate for comparison.

If there is a 2-5 to 5 mpg difference in the combined mpg, generally you will get 2.5 to 5 mpg less in the real world. The only time you would really see a 7mpg difference is in 100% metro driving, as in never above ~ 30 mph with lots of stops and idling. A 7 mpg difference could be overcome by driving the first gen hard and driving the gen2 like a grandma...it really isn't that big a difference.

My primary point is that a 3 mpg difference between two vehicles in the EPA cycle DOES NOT equal a 7 mpg difference between 2 vehicles in real life.

I will outperform a rav4 unless it is geared very short, it has a lower coeff of drag and has 300 less pounds to lug with the same engine/tranny.

600 pounds, almost 1 litre more engine = a 3mpg difference :rofl: :rofl:
please explain to me why the 05 Echo and the 06 xB don't have the same gas MPGs
since I don't know what I'm talking about and you are an expert. :pray:

With the right gearing, yes. It is already in the EPA numbers. The camry has 900 more pounds and .9 l more engine, and gets 2.5 mpg less combined. EPA tests are basically a graph of speeds the vehicle follows, with numerous accelerations and decelerations, done on a dyno that simulates the weight of the vehicle and the aerodynamic drag, amongst other factors.

The Chevy corvette gets 17/27 with a 6 liter v8...4 times the engine of the orig xb. It weighs 800 lbs more. With a bigger engine, it doesn't always consume a lot more fuel because it doesn't have to work as hard. With 103 hp in an xb, you prolly get close to full throttle pretty often, but a 400 hp vette is just above idle to get the same accel.

FYI, I am a recent grad(almost...finishing a thesis project with current employer, but done with classes) of Kettering University (formerly General Motors Institute) in mechanical engineering, specializing in automotive powertrain design. I have personally administered the EPA city cycle to a Chevy Cobalt in one of my powertrain classes. I have had co-ops/internships at Dana Corp, Air International, and PSMi, all GM suppliers.

Where did you even get your numbers? Do you own all of those vehicles?

The echo gets 30/39 converted to 2008 tests. That is a 6.5 mpg combined cycle difference. (huh...thats weird...even in your "real world numbers" you claimed a 7mpg difference...is 6.5 close to 7? I can't remember... Is it possible that differences in EPA mileage directly correspond to differences in real world mileage?) It kicks the crap out of the gen 1 xB in mileage because the xB weighs 400 lbs more and is NOWHERE NEAR as aerodynamic, but it still has the same weak engine. The fuel efficiency goes down because you have to use more throttle more often. More throttle to accel 400 extra pounds, more throttle to keep a flying brick at 70 mph.

If you put the 1.5 liter in a Tundra, it would probably get about 14 real world mpg( or less), because you would be at full throttle 80% of the time.

The only reason you would see a difference in mileage much greater than the EPA difference is because a bigger engine CAN use more fuel. In the vette, pedal to the medal at 170+, it will get like 3mpg, whereas the echo, flat out at 110 will get 10 mpg...i am just guessing, but it is to illustrate my point.

FYI - I'm an automotive designer in a Magna company

my real world figures are from www.fueleconomy.gov

recent grad = you still have alot to learn

do you own an xB? - yes I do

I have owned almost 20 cars in my life. Everything from a crap Jeep to an Audi TT

good luck getting 30mpg on you new xB :silly:

one last question professor - you believe the new xB will get better fuel economy than the Honda Element. Please explain? They are almost identical (2wd version) in spec. :nails:

thank you for claiming I don't know what I'm talking about - very mature

Wait, so because you are older, I am wrong?

Where did I say the new xB would get 30 mpg? I think it will in a constant 70 mph cruise, but lots of cars do.

All I said is that it will get between 2.5 and 5 mpg less than a first gen in mixed driving.

xB2 and Element 2wd almost identical in spec? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Compared to the xB2, the Element is
2" longer
7" taller
2" wider
400 lbs heavier (manual transmissions, 2wd compared)

It's EPA 2008 score will be:

19/23 (again, manual transmission, 2wd)

Do I think the xB2 will get better mileage than a 2wd Element? Absolutely. There is no way that a vehicle rated 19/23 will match the mileage of a vehicle rated 22/29 (the numbers your agreed with, my best case scenario) or even worst case at 19/27.

Interesting fact, the Element is 400 lbs heavier and less aerodynamic than the xB (I think, no coeff of drag yet listed for xB2). The original xb was 400 lbs heavier than the echo and was less aerodynamic (admittedly, the aero diff between the echo/xB1 is bigger than between the xB2/Element). By your numbers the diff between the echo and xB1 was 7 real world mpg. You claim that the difference between the xB2 and Element will be 0 mpg?

Mr Fieroman: now we are getting somewhere. I don't totally disagree with you, I just think that your worst case scenario is likely your most accurate. Sure the Element is taller and 400lbs heavier (I think it is silly to point out that it is 2" longer and 2" wider) but the Element is 95% the same vehicle that the 08 xB is. Please don't try to tell me that the new xB will significantly more efficient than the Element. Is the 7" of height worth 6mpg (highway)? Certainly the 400lbs is not a significant factor on the highway. You and I both know the Element and xB will be close in drag. If the Element is 19/23 the xB will be very similar. If Toyota offers the new xB with low gearing then the highway will suffer. If a typical Element gets 23mpg real world then expect the xB to get 23 - 25. If the xB gets 2 extra mpg that equals 10% (roughly) better fuel economy. 10% better for very little design difference. I believe that you are claiming the xB will be over 20% more efficient on the highway. I don't think your numbers add up.

Wider makes a difference in frontal area. Drag resistance is coeff of drag times frontal area. I also think the xB will have a better coefficient of drag, in addition to the smaller frontal area. I do think there could be up to a 6 mpg (depending on gearing/tune) diff highway, as the Element has lots more area and prolly a higher coeff.

I never said it would be significantly more efficient than the Element, but if the Element gets 23 mpg real world mixed, I expect 25+ real world mixed depending on Scion gearing/tune.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree until the numbers come out, because it looks at this point that we have both run out of hard data and are now speculating.

I stand by my prediction of somewhere between 19/27 and 22/29, using 2008 tests. We will see for sure when the numbers are released.

Lets not forget about all the parasite drag (antenna) on the ne Xb!

Seriously... it's easy to get good MPG's on the highway. VVT, aero design including clean undercarraige, smart gearing choices, etc..

I used to be fooled by the allure of good highway mileage. I was proud of the fact that my 1995 Ford E-350 15 passanger van got 17MPG on a trip to Florida!!!! The problem was that 99% of the time I was driving around town in stop and go traffic. 9 MPG was common!! With a 32 Gallon tank and a low fuel light on, it would cost me about $48.00 to fill at $1.60/gallon. Today it would be $78!!!

For most people, the local mileage is critical. Even if I drive 5 miles a day on highway, it doesn't matter because of the fuel it takes to get up to speed.

Anyway, if the local mileage of the new Xb suffers more that 2MPG published/converted(apples-to-apples) then it will be a tough sell for me.

I hope that the "camry" engine is de-tuned for low end efficiency and the M-tran is geared to maximize the MPG's. That may save the MPG issue and get the box 28-29 MPG local.

I predict 28-32 MPG in 07 speak..don't know what that is is 08 speak?!?!?!?!

Please advise....

PS: I drive my 06 rs3.0 hard 70% of the time and mostly local. I get 24.5 to 27.1 MPG. I got 31 once and once only. My first tank!

Real world city mileage, (never above 40 or so) I would expect 25 if driven very softly and 22 if driven like a normal person. Driven "hard" (remember, it will be a good bit faster than the old one) I would not expect much beyond 19-20 mpg. I know my Fiero is capable of 19 mpg city but I usually get ~12 because I fly in that thing.

You say you drive "hard" a lot of the time. The mpg split for you will probably be ~5 mpg or maybe more unless Toyota really pulls something out of their butt.

Interesting conversation between the two of you, so thanks for the entertainment. I still think that the xB mileage will be very close to what the Camry is rated at, since what it lacks in aerodynamics it makes up for in weight.

Just a side note... I can't believe that the Echo was lighter than my MR2 Spyder. I even looked it up because I didn't believe it. Sure enough, 2000-2100lb (www.caranddriver.com). AMAZING!

Not to get too far off topic but when gas peaked at $3.30 in this area, i offered to fill my wife's suburban for her. Nearly FOURTY gallons later and $125 bucks i was floored!! i got out the owner's manual and found that it has a 44 gallon tank! She had like 6 gallons on the tank but the gauge still read empty. I haven't really complained about gas since!

^^^ And I thought it was bad when I had to put $30 in my Spyder :P

Went to the autoshow today and got the scion brochure. What I find funny, strange, and odd at the same time is the fact that the xd's mpg is listed but the xb's isn't which doesn't make sense considering how the xd won't be out for awhile.

In case ur wondering the xd is listed 32/37mpg with a 5spd and 30/34 with the auto.

xb automatic weights in at 3,085lbs. and has a 14 gallon tank. my guess 22/32mpg automatic and 24/30 5spd.

Do you know if the mileage listed was under the EPA 2008 standards? Assuming it is, that is much better than the Corrola. Wonder if the Dual VVT-i has that much of an impact over the traditional VVT-i. What does the broshure look like?

Do you know if the mileage listed was under the EPA 2008 standards? Assuming it is, that is much better than the Corrola. Wonder if the Dual VVT-i has that much of an impact over the traditional VVT-i. What does the broshure look like?

The one my local dealer sent me the day of the official announcement is kind of strange. On the one hand, it has the 2006 xB & 2007 tC on the outside of the brochure and when you unfold the thing, it has the specs for the new 2008 xB & xD on the inside.

Nowhere that I could see any MPG figures on that brochure, strangely not on any of the vehicles.

My guess is that this is a regionally published brochure and that each may have the same basic info on it, but none will be the same. IMO, Toyota is screwed up like that, each distributor (they call it region) is different on lots of things.

Will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with the actual rated numbers before they hit the lots.

I am betting the new xB will be lucky to get 20 MPG in the real world, and just wait till all the tuners get their turbos and superchargers on...Less than 15? IMO this is exactly what everyone was asking for with all the complaints with the xB being too small, too slow, no storage, etc...there are still going to be a lot of disappointed people in the performance and mileage numbers with the new, heavier, longer, wider, more expensive, not as energy efficient xB. This is the American Way.

The below is copy pasted from another thread because it is more on-topic here. It is in response to DriverXa's post about 32/37 for the manual xD:


I am beginning to doubt the numbers in that book, Driver. Those numbers have to be in the 2008 EPA standard as it is a 2008 model. They cannot post 2007 numbers for a 2008, and Mickie3 is correct in saying that they cannot advertise anything other than EPA certified numbers. (Toyota actually wanted to advertize lower numbers for it's Prius so that customers would not be disppointed, but it was/is illegal)

The Yaris, on which that car is based, gets 29/36 in the new test (with a manual transmission). How could the xD get better mileage than the Yaris being on the same platform and being heavier, worse areodynamically, and having a bigger engine?

The Matrix, which prolly weighs about the same or at most 200 lbs more than the new xD, has similar aero, and has the same engine/tranny gets 26/33 in the new tests.

Actually, I am pretty sure the Yaris is the third most fuel efficient gasoline vehicle sold in the US, behind the Civic hybrid and the Prius. If those numbers are correct, the xD will be taking the crown as the most fuel efficient non-diesel, non-hybrid vehicle availible.

^^^ To respond to that post... I think that the xD being based on the Yaris while utilizing the larger 1.8L is what brings in those higher numbers. I am very skeptical about the claimed xD figures, however, I would imagine that it is possible. The Matrix' platform is much larger and heavier. You also have to keep in mind that the xD's 1.8L has the DUAL VVT-i, which will help its efficiancy as well.

The Yaris weighs 2326lbs. The matrix is 2679. I always assumed the Matrix was 3000+. but it really isn't as heavy as I thought. I think the switch to the xD on the Yaris platform will add 200-300 lbs (echo to xA was 285 lb increase). As such, I think the xD will be pretty close to the matrix weight, probably within 100-200 lbs.

It's official. 22/28 for both trannies!

www.scion.com

Wow, thats 2 mpg city more than the tC!

(Using 2008 conversion)

Wow!!

EPS FTW!!!

Looks like it was right in my range, which was 19/27 to 22/29.

To reiterate, the old manual transmission car only managed 26/30 using the 2008 standards, so expect 4 less city/2 less highway than the old box. That is only 3 mpg in mixed driving for a much faster/bigger/heavier box, seems like an excellent trade to me!

It's official. 22/28 for both trannies!

www.scion.com
Where did you find the info on the new site?
I looked at the .pdf spec sheet and it's still the same.

It's official. 22/28 for both trannies!

www.scion.com
Where did you find the info on the new site?
I looked at the .pdf spec sheet and it's still the same.
Try this link to see if it gets you to the right place.
http://www.scion.com/#xBPerformance

I am very impressed with the new mileage. I was afraid that they would drop down below 20.

I am very impressed with the new mileage. I was afraid that they would drop down below 20.
Yeah I like it.

My vehicle I plan to replace with a 2008 xB is a 2005 Mazda 3 2.3 liter that shows 21 city and 26 highway under the new 2008 rules. That means I may do slightly better with the xB.

In real world terms with the 3 I usually get around 24-25 city and have done as well as 32 highway. That makes me think it might be possible to get 30 or better on the highway under the right conditions with the xB. That would be very nice.

Not bad.

It'll take awhile to get used to seeing REALISTIC mileage numbers, but just think how bad it'll be for a lot of other vehicles. It could be a lot worse.

My rule of thumb with the old standards were:

Highway rating = usually accurate or even a touch low depending upon gearing.
City rating = mixed driving in the real world
Actual expected city mileage = rated city mileage - 15-20%

Those of us living in areas of the country where the AC was a requirement for much of the year were particularly misled by the old standards.

Ironically though, my old 97 Accord gets its actual rated mileage based on the old standards (23/31.) Every other car I've ever owned though . . . not so much.

Well, I think the city MPG stinks. Its 10 MPG less than the xB1. Thats a lot guys.

Hmm, its almost $18K for a decent automatic xB that gets 22MPG in the city?? Yeah, lemme at it.

No offense, but in that price range, there are TONS of other vehicles that offer more. xB just jumped the shark.

Well, I think the city MPG stinks. Its 10 MPG less than the xB1. Thats a lot guys.

Hmm, its almost $18K for a decent automatic xB that gets 22MPG in the city?? Yeah, lemme at it.

No offense, but in that price range, there are TONS of other vehicles that offer more. xB just jumped the shark.

10? umm..what? Even if you use the much higher 2007 numbers for the old car and the much stricter 2008 numbers for the new car, which is like comparing centigrade to Fahrenheit, mind you,, there is an 8 mpg difference. If you convert the old car's numbers to the 2008 scale that the new car is measured on, you will get 26/30, which is a 4 mpg difference in the city.

How do you get "almost $18k" for the new auto...it is $17,180 INCLUDING destination.

Once again you have proved yourself to be nothing more than an ignorant basher with nothing better to do than try to make the vastly improved new xb look bad. I am sorry you feel so jealous, but I am sure you would get a decent trade in on your old car for a sweet new 2008!

I said $18K for a "decent" automatic. Thats with a wing, cargo net & a few other minor extras, nothing major. You're quoting the bare bones base model. I never said that, so read a bit.

And all I know is that my automatic xB1 usually gets around 30-32MPG in the city whereas the new one gets 22MPG, so yeah dude, thats 10 less. Even if its 8, thats still significant.

And trust me, dude. Im not jealous or ignorant. The numbers dont lie, do they?? Am I just pulling stuff outta my arse here?? No. The mileage IS bad compared to the last. The price IS quite a bit more than the last. At that price range, there ARE lots of other choices that make more sense for a lot of people, especially the "youth" market.

Sounds like you just dont wanna accept the truth. Thats fine, I really could care less. I hope the xB2 is a success, its just disappointing to lots of people, especially 1st genners who were looking for a natural progression from the last in terms of concept. Enjoy your new SUV, er xB.

Since you only want to compare apples and oranges (your personal numbers against the new method EPA numbers) with no real interest in the new xB, please slide on back to the first gen xB forum and do your bashing over there. You add nothing to the content here.

I said $18K for a "decent" automatic. Thats with a wing, cargo net & a few other minor extras, nothing major. You're quoting the bare bones base model. I never said that, so read a bit.

And all I know is that my automatic xB1 usually gets around 30-32MPG in the city whereas the new one gets 22MPG, so yeah dude, thats 10 less. Even if its 8, thats still significant.

Yeah, and you would pay ~16,300 for a "decent" automatic 1st gen xB, as the price is about $1700 different. Keep in mind, it now includes things like 6 airbags, EBD, BA, EPS, cruise control, projetcors, 16" wheels, bigger front brakes with rear disks, sequential automatic, and 50% more horsepower. It isn't like the next gen is $3k+ more expensive.

Once again you don't understand the numbers. Your car is rated 26 city in the 2008 tests. If you get 32, congratulations; as you are beating the rating by 6 points. But you are being obtuse if you think you will get 6 mpg better than the standardized test mileage in one car and exactly the standardized test mileage in another car on the same route, same driver, etc.

That is exactly what the EPA tests are, just a line graph of vehicle speed. It accellerates and decelerates at controlled rates, and the weight and aero of the vehicle are simulated with a dyno. It is very similar to driving the same route to work every day in 2 different cars, except on the drive to work there are other variables like weather and traffic. What this means is that if you drove a 2nd gen EXACTLY like you drove your first gen, you would get 4 mpg less.

Borrow a 2nd gen, break in the engine, and drive EXACTLY the same as you drive your gen 1 (aka, no exploiting the 55 additional HP) and then compare the numbers. Until then, what you get in your car on your route has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the EPA numbers for the new xB. You could coast down a mountain for your drive and average 70 mpg even if you drove a Hummer, it all depends on conditions

Somebody is speaking some logic here.


And looking at the range of speeds in the 2008 economy ratings test, I would suspect you'll be hearing about 2008 xB owners getting 35+ mpg when driving at a constant 55 to 60mph w/o air conditioning in freeflow traffic conditions.

I once drove my car at 55mph constant (no a/c) for an hour and I achieved 34mpg on my 1998 Olds Intrigue even better than the old EPA ratings of 30mpg (hwy), but with my normal 55 to 75mph driving with some city driving with a/c on brings that down to 23mpg overall.
I am looking forward to the first owners reporting their constant 60mph (no a/c) fuel economy with the new fuel computer on board. The electric power steering should help compared to the tC. With the new sequential transmission, one can upshift at the optimum point fuel for economy in city driving. The drag coefficient of 0.32 is better than the old xB (0.35), so I should expect to see certain speeds at which the 2008 xB beats the old xB. At above 75 mph I would suspect the old xB fuel economy falls off faster than with the new xB.

Stop and go driving will hurt the new xB granted, but constant high speed driving will compete very well with the old xB's fuel economy and 75mph is a realistic speed on many of today's highways when traffic is in freeflow conditions (which is 95% of the interstate lane miles)

Somebody is speaking some logic here.


And looking at the range of speeds in the 2008 economy ratings test, I would suspect you'll be hearing about 2008 xB owners getting 35+ mpg when driving at a constant 55 to 60mph w/o air conditioning in freeflow traffic conditions.

I once drove my car at 55mph constant (no a/c) for an hour and I achieved 34mpg on my 1998 Olds Intrigue even better than the old EPA ratings of 30mpg (hwy), but with my normal 55 to 75mph driving with some city driving with a/c on brings that down to 23mpg overall.
I am looking forward to the first owners reporting their constant 60mph (no a/c) fuel economy with the new fuel computer on board. The electric power steering should help compared to the tC. With the new sequential transmission, one can upshift at the optimum point fuel for economy in city driving. The drag coefficient of 0.32 is better than the old xB (0.35), so I should expect to see certain speeds at which the 2008 xB beats the old xB. At above 75 mph I would suspect the old xB fuel economy falls off faster than with the new xB.

Stop and go driving will hurt the new xB granted, but constant high speed driving will compete very well with the old xB's fuel economy and 75mph is a realistic speed on many of today's highways when traffic is in freeflow conditions (which is 95% of the interstate lane miles)

You are absolutely right about the mileage varying. My 1988 fiero has achived as high as 35.2 mpg at a constant 70 mph cruse...using the 2008 standards, it is only rated at 22mpg highway.

Even with the newer, more accurate ratings, the numbers listed probably won't correspond to the actual performance of the vehicle. Fuel economy numbers are generally only good for comparing 2 cars, as the numbers offer a good, solid relative comparison between vehicles. Something rated 22 city will likely get around 4 mpg less than something rated 26 city, even if the real world numbers are 28 and 32.