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?

 

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.

 

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/we...MXk1NDE%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 , 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?

 

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.

 

: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? ) 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....

 

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 ****, 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)