Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Scion tC
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Real good chance that once they are on the ground and start getting mentioned, sales could pick up protty quick.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
FAR OUT! It's heavy, the shift is smooth (I found the clutch a little stiff but I think that's more me than the car). The 6'4" dealer was in the back seat with room to spare. It's bigger in person than the pictures make it look. The door width coupled with the space the seats can give when pushed forward make it SO easy to get in and out of the back, it's remarkable. It's not all what I expected -but that's not a slam, that's a really wonderful surprise. I like it even better than the pix! It rides like a charm. All in all I'd say this is the smartest buy I've ever made in a car.
But probably the funniest part was meeting a cop at a four way stop. I thought he was gonna break his neck looking at the car as he drove past! Ordinarily I might be paranoid about that sort of behavior, then I realized what he was really looking at!!!!
http://www1.getauto.com/cardetail.html?vin=JTKDE177250002909
I guess the boat is working it's way north. Supposed to hit port (Newark, NJ) on the 26th. Dealer hopes to have it to me (about 75 miles south of the port) by the end of the month, meaning the middle of next week.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I'd also like to see how the crash test results come out.
The styling and (base) pricing are good, so I think many people will ignore the fuel economy issue for now.
: )
Mackabee
I assume the tC was geared a little shorter, for better performance, so it might be revving a little higher on the highway than the Camry. As long as it isn't too much higher, should be OK.
The EPA tests are kinda goofy anyway. Some cars do better than they will in the real world, and some do worse. I think it is reasonable to assume that the tC (at least the manual) will do better. I'm hoping for about 25 around town mixed use, and low 30's on the highway, which will be fine on regular gas, given the expected performance level.
If you want better mileage, get a Corolla. You just won't get 160+ HP with it.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I still haven't seen mpg for an automatic tc printed anywhere. The brochure from the dealer still says TBD.
Scion tC:
Mileage Estimates (MPG City / Highway)
Manual 22/29
Automatic 23/30
Corolla XRS:
Mileage Estimates (mpg city/highway)
Manual 25/32
Auto n/a on XRS
But, as soon as someone here finally gets one onto the road, we will find out. I'll even volunteer to take a road trip to test it out.
And, I think the XRS requires premium, so $/MPG will be higher. It almost seems that regular is a luxury these days on any car with sporting pretenses.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But, as stickguy said, folks buying these cars probably aren't concerned with mpg anyway - I know I wasn't. After all, they're sport(y) cars! If I want great mpg from a gas engine, I'd stick with a Corolla. I think the tc delivers very decent mpg plus great looks, unbeatable dependability (based on Toyota's legacy), and all the speed I need to get out from underneath the suv clogged roads!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
If it was really quick and powerful, then the mileage could be justified.
I seem to recall posts on the TSX threads that people were getting better than the EPA numbers on the stick model for instance.
Anyway, mid 20s overall around town, and low 30ish highway for a 5 speed seems plausible, and certainly reasonable on regular gas.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Torque is higher? Yes. The Camry LE 4-cyl is rated at 162 ftlbs @ 4000rpm. The Scion Tc is rated at 163 ftlbs @ 4200rpm.
1 ft lb. BFD.
Heavy? Yes, compared to other 2-dr coupes. But, again, the curious comparison is to the 4-cyl Camry. The Camry tips the scales at 3086 lbs and the Scion Tc at 2905 lbs.
The Camry is 181 lbs heavier with 1 (that's ONE) ft-lb less torque. I don't think 'torque' is the reason the Scion is rated a couple of mpg down from the Camry.
I'm betting the Camry mileage is either slightly overrated (need to get their bread'n'butter car over the magic 30 mpg mark) or the Scion mileage is slightly underrated. Or both.
Given that Camry and Tc shares the same drive train, the engine is a negligible factor, regardless of the gearing (this only matters for force needed for acceleration)
Tc is lighter than Camry which results in good city (stop & go) mileage. However, the highway (cruising) mileage is ~10% worse. Since there is not acceleration/deceleration, the vehicle weight is not a factor here.
Therefore, the main culprit for lower mileage in tc is its coefficient of drag (CD) and tire resistance. Tire resistance is obvious given that toyota put in IS300 high performance grip tires. As far as CD goes, Toyota might have reduced the vehicle development cycle down to 13 months with some sacrifice to the vehicle aerodynamics.
Except that the Tc is rated 2 mpg less than the Camry (22 vs. 24, ~10%) in the city (stop & go), yet it is nearly 200 lbs lighter. You would think that the lighter car would have an advantage in stop and go driving. And aero doesn't have much impact on the EPA's city test.
And highway rolling resistance is definitely also a function of vehicle weight. You can see this by rolling an empty wheelbarrow and then a loaded wheelbarrow. According to your logic, since the tire is the same, they should both be equally easy to push on a level surface. The last time I was shlepping concrete around, I can tell you that adding weight definitely increases rolling resistance.
Engine is negligible regardless of gearing??? Really?? If I drive all day long in 5th on the highway in my GTS, I'm fairly certain I will get worse mileage than if I would upshift into 6th. I'm not sure how you can say since they both have the same drivetrain, the gearing won't have any effect on mileage.
I'll stick to my hypothesis; the Camry is overrated on mileage, the Tc is underrated, and/or the Tc has a lower final drive (higher numerically).
Again, we will soon see in the real world, but I am curious to see a comparison of gearing. I'm guessing the Camry is ~2400 rpm @60, and the tC might be 2700 or so?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Interesting note about the tires - their impact never occurred to me.
stickguy, seems I read last night that the tc comes in at 2600 rpm. But, I could be wrong. I saw it compared to three other cars, all of which escape me at this moment.
I bet the Camry is in that range, which probably accounts for a chunk of the lost MPG.
But, it should have great pick-up at highway speeds without downshifting.
If I did my math right, 70 will be about 3000 -3050, so not too bad. 75 at 3200ish.
Actually, those numbers are just about spot on to my Maxima.
So, geared for performance more so than quiet highway cruising. Guess thats to be expected.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The vehicle efficiency is determined by efficiency of the drive train and total resistance encountered by the vehicle as it travels.
Since drive train is very similar between Camry and tc, we can assume that its effect is negligible and focus on resistant forces (energy wasted to move the car)
Resistant Forces in order of importance are
1) Air Reistance
2) Rolling resistance tire to ground
3) Rolling resistance wheel bearings
4) Vehicle Innertia (only for stop & go)
1) Air resistance from car moving through air is:
0.5 * Coefficient of drag* Frontal area * air density* (vehicle speed + wind speed)^2
Since the air density and the test speed are the same, only CD and frontal area matters. tc is a smaller and lower car, therefore, its frontal area is smaller. Poor CD is the main cause for loss efficiency.
2) Rolling Resistance
cos(road slope)* car weight* tire rolling resistance
Since road slope is same. Tc weight less, therefore, it must have a tire with higher rolling resistance.
3) Rolling Resistance (bearing)
No information available on the bearing. I am going to assume that same bearing is used in Camry and tc
4) Inertia Resistance
car mass * vehicle acceleration
Since tc is lower in weight, its inertia resistance is lower.
Based on above information. This explain why Tc is comparable to Camry in city (stop & go). tc has less inertia resistance but higher air &rolling resistances.
But as vehicle cruises at constant speed, there is little acceleration/deceleration (inertia reistance is negligible). Air and rolling resistance becomes the dominat factors.
I put down the deposit 2 weeks ago for a Super White tc. Not sure when I will get one shipped.
where is your local dealership?
Perhaps you could use your expertise to add solar cells to the panorama roof to power the AC system, taking a load off the engine, and give us back our missing 10% gas mileage.
8^)
: )
Mackabee
you make an incorrect assumption. you assume because other frictional losses must be the same, it must be aerodynamic differences.
frictional losses due to increased rpm's of the motor (you remember from physics class, how beyond the initial friction being higher from standstill, it increases with speed). so, the increased ratio for the final drive gears being a likelihood, as sports type cars or those with really weak motors are frequently equipped with to increase torque to the wheels at expense of engine rpm. The increased rpm and friction usually reduce mpg. yes, we are ignoring pumping efficiencies here too. and combustion chamber and swirl and camshaft / port velocities differing at the different rpms. so reducing engine rpms to reduce friction could actually reduce milage in real world tests instead of increase it in very rare cases. e.g. if the camshaft overlap caused a significant decrease in compression during the combustion phase due to reversion past the valves. and we know how lower compression reduces combustion efficiency, even tho the mechanical loss of the increased compression and adiabatic heating are working against us there. yes, we could speak of adiabatic heating and thermal losses too. but that would probably be beyond the scope here. or of spark and fuel timing maps being usually different per vehicle application. again to lean towards the stociametic values of 14 something to one for theoretical maximum milage (tho in practice due to incomplete combustion actual values of 15 to 1 frequently yield more mpg). or was it tuned for more power towards the 12 to one gas vapor to air ratio?
of course reducing the resistance across the potentiometer on the dash will draw more amps requireing more power from the alternator and will put a corresponding drag on the motor, aka turning up the volume on the stereo. but again we can assume that will be only 1/10s of mpgs at the worst... did you consider if they were driving with the windows up or down : )
MIne is supposed to be in port (Newark) today or tomorrow. Either your salesman didn't knwo what he was talking about, was blowing smoke, or they aren't getting one from the first allocation as a demo.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
front seats very comfortable with plenty of adjustments to get comfortable. even with front seats all the way back, theres plenty of leg room in the back seat. now, for those worried about head room that has been a discussion before. front seats have enough adjustments so a 6' person will be comfortable. but there isn't much head room in the back (my head had about an inch or two), or if you raise the seat height up in the front. for reference, i'm 5'10". the rest of the interior is really nice and surprisingly spacious. love the sunroof, love it (although i can see how a full glass roof might be a little much). stereo has been a concern for some. it actually sounds pretty good. i don't really like the presets that come with it, for instance the ssp for an xB sounded a little better than for the tc, go figure. and i'm trying to figure out what kind of speakers they use to decide if an upgrade is necessary (probably would help, bass reproduction can get distorted at higher volumes). really now, i'm rambling so on to the exterior.
compact (not small), smooth, athletic, enough said.
and finally, the most important part, the driving. clutch is kind of long, but i'm still feeling it out. shifting is really easy and smooth, and power is immediate. the guys at the dealer estimated 0-60 in 7. flat. so under 8 should be easy with a manual. its really easy to sail past the speed limit. at low rpm, engine noise is nearly non existant. and at higher rpm, it really isn't that loud either. haven't taken it on the highway yet though. in turns, its pretty stable, and i felt like i could push it a lot harder. still a lot to explore and figure out.
so thats an early impression on my new tc. i absolutely love it. and for those who are curious about the s/c, it should be closer to $3000 than 4, from what they said. so i'll do a full review soon, and hope what i said helps people make a decision.