Anyone else notice that the xA turning radius is pretty mediocre?

Or was my '96 Civic's that good?

What gives? Is it just that they made it so the wheels can't go very far to either side, or does it have to do with the car's "stance", or what?

 

What are you talking about my turning radius is great!

 

I dunno, but I'm pretty sure my Civic was making U-turns that the Scion xA has to turrn, stop, reverse,stop, go.

 

yeah, the scions have a little less turning radius, but, i think it's because they made it so we can fit 19 inch wheels.....

 

Consumer Reports, August 2004 Issue, Pages 58 - 59, lists turning radius tests for six tested 'Small Cars.'

TESTED:
Scion xB: 40 feet
Scion xA: 38
Mazda 3: 36
Chevrolet Aveo: 35
Kia Spectra: 37
Suzuki Forenza: 36

The article faulted the xB for its high turning radius; but did not mention the xA's turning radius... apparently considering it acceptable. RPM

 

Thats when you start pulling the ebrake.

 

You seem to be able to get that information good. For a compare what would be the turning radius of a mini? Thats a real small car. So if that ranks up near the 34 range then the xA & xB are good. The xB seems a little odd. I think a F-150 might be able to do it in the same distance maybe less? Not sure, I know I have seen some truck have it stated under a 40ft range.

 

Well I can definately attest to the fact that the xB has a noticeably larger turning radius than my CRX and 91 Civic before that. Actually, I was just talking to Stylis about this last Friday. About the only good thing is that it does allow us bigger wheels just like Empleh said. I always bust out the UHaul driving method when I'm making u-turns and such. :?

 

:?: Do you mean larger then the CRX & Civic? I know a CRX should be shorter then the xB, so I would think it has a tighter turning radius. Also on how you say you need to drive it like a u-haul makes me thing you ment larger?

 

According to Consumer Reports testing, Oct. 2002 issue, page 35, Mini Cooper gets 36 feet, turning circle. RPM

 

Yeah, my bad, the xB definitely has a LARGER turning radius. I'm going to edit my original post. I'm so silly... :oops:

 

Huh, I wonder what the radius is for a '96 civic hatchback...

 

I was unable to find data on the 1996 model.

The closest I found was the 2001 'redesigned' Honda Civic.

According to Consumer Reports testing, Feb. 2001 issue, page 58, Civic gets 39 feet, turning circle. RPM

 

How short do you need the turning radius to be?
I've done U-turns on tiny little 1.5 lane streets with room to spare (and no 3 point manuvre either). Unless you are going to take the xA on a rallye course thru Italy or something, I'd say that if you can bust a U from a turn lane on a busy street you got nothing to worry about.

 

I'm not the best parallel parker in the world but it seems tougher in the Scion than it did in the Civic Hatchback...and there are definately some turns I know the Civic woulda made in one and that take a stop or two in the xA...

 

I'm usually afraid of my turning radius because I don't realize the front wheels are practically where my feet are. The xA has a short front - but I think it feels longer.

Get it?... So I stop in a U-turn even though I could'a made it.

I think longer wheelbase makes your turn radius bigger too. You get other pluses with a longer wheelbase though, like more stability.

So finally, I stepped out of the car and checked just exactly where my front wheels are so I would know better if I can make a U-turn or not.

 

The turning radius is fine. . . but the thing is that because it's such a small car, you'd think the turning radius would be better, but what we got does teh job perfectly. A few feet less would always be nice, but then again, those who want big wheels may not be so happy.