Change "slightly higher reliability" to significantly higher reliability and I will let that pass. But I would still prefer the tC with the better looks, better reliability, and better interior. To each his own however...

 

Whoa, that's alot of weight to lug around. 2900lbs?! I've been waiting patiently for a car to meet my needs. Waiting almost 3 years for the CTR but they still wont bring it. Then I see the tC and fall in love. Perfect in every way, 200HP to boot! But the weight! What the heck is in this thing. The Celica is 2600lb, the RSX is 2750 and is only 1 inch smaller in every direction. WRX is 3085 and has all wheel drive. Something must be wrong. I also noticed a new trend.
Saturn Ion Redline - 2.0L 200HP S/C
Chevy Cobalt - 2.0L 200HP S/C
Scion tC - 2.4L 200HP S/C
RSC Type S - 2.0L 200HP

Granted the Ion and Cobalt use the same engine, why does the Scion need .4L more and a S/C to meet the HP of the others? Honda of course doesn't need anything to make that kind of power.

Don't get me wrong, the car is gorgeous, but after seeing the weight, I now have serious doubts. And at $23k, it is exactly at the price of a new RSX and WRX, and more than a SRT-4, Ion Redline and Cobalt. You can cross off the american cars for reliability issues if you wish, but pricing around the RSX is dangerous. And what is with the foot long gear shift lever. Not sporting at all. 23k puts you in a new Solara 3.3L v6 also.

My predictions: tC accelerates to 60 in 7.9 (8.0 would be too slow to call it a sporty car) Celica is dropped, Supra arrives, Scion tC is a success due to it's looks and a comparo in C&D/MT between the Ion/Cobalt/tC results in the tC taking 2nd place behind the Cobalt because of lackluster acceleration times compared to the competition. Beats the Ion because everyone hates the dash.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as an auto research hobbyist, I could use a little more detail on the 2.4L engine. What is the redline, how flexible is this engine, does the rpm float when let off the gas (RX-8 has this problem), how snick-snick is the shifter? Anyone with a 2.4L 5-speed camry on this board? How quick is it with its 3200lb weight?

Jinx32

 

patience my young padawan

 

camry engine + glass roof + porky weight = chick car.

sorry, but patience or not, some of us are dissapointed that scion decided to go for sporty "looks" rather then actually building a sporty car. patience isn't gonna make 400lbs disappear from the tC, or give it an actual performance engine.

obviously there will be tons of people that buy the tC (girls, people that bought preludes and v6 eclipses), but for those of us that actually want bang for buck, we're not gonna be fooled into buying a car that is all show and no go; it just won't hold up against others in the price range when it comes to performance.

Jinx32 and myself represent a LARGE percenage of scion's target market that was lost with this decision to make a chick car.

i'm just glad there's little guys like subaru making cars for people who want to drive, forcing other car makers to actually make affordable performance cars.

 

I agree with Jinx32 completely. 2928lbs, a camry engine, and a near camry weight (about 140 lbs lighter than a camry 5 speed manual)... this car is more about looks than performance. This car will be adequately peppy, but never fast.

Thats all there is to it. Buy the tC for style, and know that's what you're buying it for. Toyota has not been synonomous with performance since the mid 90s, and they aren't starting again with the tC.

 

I don't disagree compleatly, but I know that you don't have to be a chick to like a car that looks this good, and has enough power for spirited highway/freeway driving, plus it has Toyota's reliability behind it. I see a lot of guys driving Corollas, and I would say that the Corolla is much more of a chick car.

Besides, not all of us are ricers / 2F2F racers... and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Chick Car Quiz. When I first got my car in 1995, it only came in 3 colors, lipstick red, black and a new deep hunter green. I had more than one person come up to me and state my car was a "chick car". I had done much research before my purchase and knew what this car could really do. Little did anyone know that what was under the hood. An engine called by many (though not by me) as the small block Chevy engine of the 90's. What was it, and would you really call it a chick car today?

Jinx32

 

What precisely denotes a "chick car" and who exactly came up with this definition? Don't see one in Webster's or Brittanica.....

I mean, my ex -GF (ex-model, Masters in Biology, UF)is trading in her Focus Zx3 for an SVT version.

My current GF (Duke, UM Law, attorney) is trading in her Lebaron Convertible for an Infiniti G35 6sp. It was between that, a John Works Mini Cooper, a 330I w/ Performance package, or a Lancer EVO. She'dve gotten the EVO if she'd been willing to wait 3 months. Not a patient lady. Same reason she didn't go for the Tc.
She wants her supercharger NOW, thanks very much.

Point being, Chicks, like us, like ANYONE, drive what they like, regardless of race, education, looks, or profession. It's like sex; you go with what looks and feels good to you. (and in some cases, what you can afford, but that's another website. ) So, let's put the stereotypes out to pasture, and let's get back to the business of talking about cars, perfomance, and mods. How about that?

 

ConnerrySE01 - good points and i'm glad your girlfriend has superior taste in cars in comparison to most girls OR boys... but i would say that is an uncommon thing. i believe stereotypes are sterotypes for a reason - that is to say more often then not they apply. i did not mean for it to be a blanket statement that covers all "chicks". what i did mean was that most of the time women care more about how something looks, then how it performs (whether that be cars or men). obviously guys can be the same way (especially when it comes to women) but i am pretty certain that there is a much larger percentage of men that car about numbers and specs then just how good the aero kit on your celica looks.

however, gender is besides the point as you said so i apologize and will now use the "sporty car" monkier instead of "chick car".
so now to get to my whole point. there are "sporty cars" and there are "sports cars".
i think an excellent test to see if you prefer "sporty" or "sports" cars is this:
which would you buy?
STI or TT
the STI is butt ugly, has gold rims, no heated seats, and some of the ugliest apendages ever (hello jumbo jet hood scoop) but IS one of the most capable drivers car on the road.
the TT is a design dream, has beautifuly crafted rims, heated seats, and even fun to drive, but is porky, the steering feels like butter and could never hang with real sports cars.

the point is there are those of us that choose performance over looks (who else would buy an STI or EVO?) and there are those of us that choose looks over performance (hello TT or even RX-8 ).

it's very rare that both come together - lambo, ferrari, porsche - and it almost always comes at a cost that most of us cannot afford.

i think it's pretty obvious which group the tC caters towards, and there's nothing wrong with that. but it shouldn't be surprising that there are those of us that would give up glass sunroofs, euro styling and "toyota" reliabilty for an actual performance car at the same price (can you say srt4?).

 

There you go Cowboy... "Sporty car" vs. "Sports car" ... you hit the nail on the head... I'm for the "sporty car" group, that's why I wan't a tC without a S/C, my second choice is a Mazda3 hatchback, and third is a N/A Mini Cooper.

Those who expected a sports car should either go elsewhere (toyota doesn't have one currently) looking for it, or wait for the revival of the supra.

 

Um, this is all I have to say:

1.) I am a die-hard Toyota fan who would cut off my right hand before even sitting in a vehicle made by Dodge.
2.) The SRT-4 or Neon or whatever you want to call it, well, just plain sucks as a car. I don't care if it's good at autoX. If you're totally cash-strapped and need to win competitions, then go with the SRT-4. Nobody is going to autoX the tC. The ONLY things the SRT-4 has going for it are 0-60, 70-0, and skidpad G's. You've gotta be an idiot if you try to say that the Dodge is in some way a well-balanced or decent daily-driver/all-around car.
3.) Performance? So what if the SRT-4 out-brakes (probably by a small margin), out-grips, and out-drags the tC? There's more to it than that. Keep reading.
4.) Style? The SRT-4 will look like a terrible reminder of the F&F era in a few years. The tC has style, inside and out.
5.) Comfort? That's a joke, right? The interior is where people spend the most time while, well, driving their car. I really don't need to say who flat-out wins in this department, right?
6.) Quality? Hahahahaha...
7.) Safety? Check out the EURONCAP test for the Avensis and then check the IIHS rating for the Neon. Enough said.
8.) Image? Going fast doesn't mean everything. How often do you need the SRT-4's handling advantage in daily driving? Do carboard obstacles just pop out of the road at you for no reason?

Listen, I could go on, just give the word. The only reason anyone would ever pick an SRT-4 over a tC is because they need a cheap, loud, tasteless, and obnoxious way to get where they're going-- fast.

I have no respect for Dodge, and that pretty much goes for all American makes. American car companies always like to say they can make cars go fast and maybe even handle well. And there's more to it than that. There are tons and tons of statistics out there (sales, reliability & satisfaction, etc.) that prove otherwise.

Oh, and please excuse me for so passionately expressing my opinion. :D

 

Great response, Cowboy. Much respect. And the sporty car, vs. sport car comparison is damn near note perfect.

What you've stated is also on the money; Toyota hasn't dropped a sports car since arguably the Celica GT-S, (which IMHO, would've been the true working man's Ferrari if it had even 10 ft lbs of torque more starting at 4000 rpm, but I digress), which is why I'd previously stated that the Tc is more inline with the Mercedes Benz C230 Coupe/hatch than anything else...they're just not SAYING that.
They're also NOT claiming that the Tc is a flat out performance car; they're touting tons-o'-stuff for the price. Also if the whole point of the Scion line is a vehicle platform that's affordable, with lots for the money, yet specifically designed for upgrades, then this is one hell of a platform for you to BUILD your own personal working man's luxury coupe, is it not?
I mean, look at the pictures; this thing is BEGGING for 18 inch wheels; how many cars have you seen that make 17's look like the doughnut spare from certain angles? Don't sleep on these guys yet, and keep in mind, we're all speculating on a vehicle that no one's even driven yet outside of Toyota's engineering department.
MY take is they know what they're doing with this car, and the selling point will be how you feel about what you paid for, the potential for making it perform better that it already does, and the satisfaction of smoking the twit next to you paying $10-$15 k more for a badge rather than a practial vehicle. Keep in mind the precevied value of a car is set in your mind because you're TOLD that by the seller, not neccessarily because it really IS worth that $$.

And uhh, I'd take the STI. But that's just me.

 

No excuses necessary, especially when you make sense. I'm with you.

I beleive I'm quoting many a poster when I reiterate that Dodge in the dictionary is defined as "avoid."

 

just remember that as diehard as you are a toyota fan, there are others that feel just as passionately about their dodges. they'd probably say toyotas are slow, fat, overpriced, underperforming, middle aged mom cars... and some of that is true.
of course many of the things you say about dodge is true too. but there are plus and minuses to everything, and i think ConnerrySE01 said it best: "Point being, Chicks, like us, like ANYONE, drive what they like, regardless of race, education, looks, or profession."
last time i checked, liking different things doesn't make you an "idiot".

now personally i applaud dodge for going out and taking what they have (a very poorly constructed slow neon) and making it BY FAR the best performing near 20k. obviously dodge and all american auto companies need to work on their quality and fit&finish - and i won't buy one until they address those issues. but if they can challenge the car industry as a whole to make cheaper better performing cars... then thats good for everyone. you need competition to encourage advancement. why was the SRT-4 built? because of the SVT focus. now the cobalt is coming, redline, maybe a turbo next-gen focus RS and the SC tc (whether or not it actually compares performance wise). and i'm sure the next generation neon will be made better and have better fit&finish because of the competitors like the tC.

 

I'll make this clear. I'm still not a Dodge fan.

HOWEVER...check this out.


http://www.srtforums.com/forums/show...threadid=33778

I'll be the bigger man and state for the record.....that's....that's impressive.

 

the tC and srt4 are different cars. toyotas numbers are not whp while the srt4 puts more hp to the wheels then dodges claims. there is a big difference. i am a toyota fan, but the srt4 is built a lot better then the standard neon.

 

I don't care. I don't go to other boards and extoll the virtues of Toyota. And driving a FWD turbo is like masturbating...It might be fun, until you release that you're just f___ing yourself. I don't see how any enthusiast can be impressed by a FWD turbo churning out tons of HP. There's a reason why Ferrari, Porsche, and BMW don't do FWD.

 

I think the tC combines both looks and performance. 160 hp and 160 ft-lbs is pretty peppy and 200 hp and 200 ft-lbs is definately nothing to snicker at. Of course I'd be the first one to vote for a perfomance package of a metal roof & manual seats to reduce weight, a small spoiler and the SC.

Reliabilty is certainly a "sports" trait. One should be driving, not waiting for repairs. [/b]

 

well i'm glad to hear you keep your Toyota virtue extoling to it's respective boards. i prefer to get/give input on ALL brands and make an informed decision based on a combination of that information and my needs.

... and i'd agree with you about the FWD a couple of years ago; however after the mini cooper S (which i believe ran one of -if not THE- quickest slalom times ever) and the SRT-4, there is a good group of people that would include them as a "sport car" not just "sporty".
so for now we'll have to agree to disagree... nothing wrong with that.

 

Just for the record, the Evo has set the new record for the slalom this year beating all Ferrari's and Porsches. Hard to believe but Car and Driver not only wrote it, but showed it on speed-tv.