GRM Review: Scion iQ

I don't see how modern safety laws would dictate a high, upright package, though. A longer and lower car would also give more room for crumple zones. I wasn't suggesting copying any of the structural design from these cars, but just fitting a modern design into a similar overall outline. The Smart and IQ seem to have had a constraint imposed on their overall length that forced them into a blocky, upright shape, and this seems to have been more an attempt to conserve parking space or build a car for very cramped streets than put on it by crash requirements.

I have no interest in this car, but I did wonder about one thing - why are people so concerned with cruise control in a runabout city car?

MadScientistMatt wrote: I don't see how modern safety laws would dictate a high, upright package, though. A longer and lower car would also give more room for crumple zones. I wasn't suggesting copying any of the structural design from these cars, but just fitting a modern design into a similar overall outline. The Smart and IQ seem to have had a constraint imposed on their overall length that forced them into a blocky, upright shape, and this seems to have been more an attempt to conserve parking space or build a car for very cramped streets than put on it by crash requirements.

In the Smart's case at least that's true, they were building a city car for Europe, not a fuel miser for the US and not a sports car. The upright shape allowed them to maximize interior room and still build a fairly safe car for it's size.

While we all love little sports cars here we are not the mass market, the mass market cannot see having an only car which doesnt have the space to carry their groceries or luggage for more than a weekend. I can carry much more (insert crap of your choice here) in my Smart than I can in my miata. It's actually a pretty practical little car, as long as 2 seats works for you.

Proving that point was the Smart roadser, a pretty little car that we all claim we'd love to own, but the mass market said "meh" and the sales were dismal, meanwhile, in the european marktet at least, the "ugly" little fortwo keeps on selling.

Otto Maddox wrote: - why are people so concerned with cruise control in a runabout city car?

That puzzled me as well.

ditchdigger wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: - why are people so concerned with cruise control in a runabout city car?

That puzzled me as well.

Because we drove it on the highway quite a bit and were surprised that it's not even available on a car so expensive (relatively speaking). The lack of cruise also likely contributed in some part to the poor highway fuel economy.

Tallness allows things like engines and intruding tires and other objects (like car bumpers) to miss the passengers for the most part. Hence the tall profile. The smart roadster couldn't possibly pass modern side impact standards. As neither could a Sprite or Midget.

I like our smart. Lack of a clutch pedal is not a problem. It is a MANUAL despite what the dmv says. Just takes a different approach to shifting.

Sad that the iQ is saddled with a CVT or I would be interested more. I like its looks.

JThw8 wrote: Proving that point was the Smart roadser, a pretty little car that we all claim we'd love to own, but the mass market said "meh" and the sales were dismal, meanwhile, in the european marktet at least, the "ugly" little fortwo keeps on selling.

I blame the abysmal transmission that isn't fit for a golf cart, let alone a sports car for the tepid sales.

smart built a roadster that wasn't just the "sedan" with it's top chopped off. I don't buy the argument that building a small car means it has to look like a 'phone booth" on casters.

What I see is the "problem", is that the iQ and smart were built for crowded cities...MUCH more crowded than those in the U.S. That, and building something like a smaller scale Miata would result in smaller sales and smaller profit margins.

Like the smart, the iQ is a dumb idea for the U.S. Will it sell? Look at how many brain dead idiots (redundant?) think Camrys are cars....it will sell, at first.

If Toyota made it a plug-in / electric car at the same price, THEN it would be worth looking at. But those MPGs at the MSRP? No sale here.

For those saying the iQ is tall and goofy....it is actually lower than a Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, Chevy Sonic, and a Fiat 500. And is the same width as a Fit and Yaris.

If you want to read a thorough review of the iQ, hit up Car and Driver. They actually played around a bit with the CVT, and discovered that "B" mode would actually hold revs during spirited driving. I confirmed this when I drove one. It held 6300rpm when I lifted, didn't try to "upshift" when I was on the brakes, and was right at 6300rpm on corner exit when I got back on the throttle. One of the better CVTs I've driven in terms of spirited use.

subrew wrote: One of the better CVTs I've driven in terms of spirited use.

That is like saying crabs. The best of the STDs.

JThw8 wrote: Proving that point was the Smart roadser, a pretty little car that we all claim we'd love to own, but the mass market said "meh" and the sales were dismal, meanwhile, in the european marktet at least, the "ugly" little fortwo keeps on selling.

It also wasn't sold in the US, and arguably the mass market said "meh" to the Fortwo here as well. I have to wonder if they'd brought the roadster to the US as well as the Fortwo, which would have sold better. (I'm not certain at all.)

While I'm not sure if it required any exotic materials to pass crash standards or just because it was a Lotus, the Elise / Exige is arguably a good example of how something small and low can still pass US crash standards. It may not be as small as a Beat or Cappacino, but I still wonder if a longer, lower form factor would both be better for gas mileage and US sales compared to an upright, stubby design.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

JThw8 wrote: Proving that point was the Smart roadser, a pretty little car that we all claim we'd love to own, but the mass market said "meh" and the sales were dismal, meanwhile, in the european marktet at least, the "ugly" little fortwo keeps on selling.

It also wasn't sold in the US, and arguably the mass market said "meh" to the Fortwo here as well. I have to wonder if they'd brought the roadster to the US as well as the Fortwo, which would have sold better. (I'm not certain at all.)

I was a bit curious too so just for giggles I took a look at U.S. sales figures for the ForTwo vs the Miata the closest thing we have to the smart roadster and a good indicator IMO of the appetite for 2 seat roadsters in the US.

The numbers are kind of surprising

Year Smart Miata

2008 24,622 10,977

2009 14,595 7917

2010 5927 6370

2011 5208 5674

(sales numbers taken from http://www.goodcarbadcar.net)

So the result is the appetite for the 2 is about the same (inital numbers surge on the smart discounted for novelty factor on release) and considering the desire for the smart has been "meh" it seems that the same drivetrain in a less practical 2 seat roadster would be double meh.

It also shows that as a niche car/toy which both fall squarely into, the smart is holding its own in the US. The big difference is Mazda has other products, low sales figures on a single model are ok when you can afford to have a niche market car. When you have all your eggs in one basked like smart, you're hosed.

I just love how everyone balks at the highway miliage... on a car that was not designed to get good highway numbers.. yet never even smile at the city MPGs.. This is a car (like the smart) that is designed to spend it's life doing less than 40mph.. in stop and go traffic.. and still get good miliage and move it's occupants in some degree of comfort and safety.

As for CC.. I do not know. I use you mine all the time.. even at speeds as low as 25mph.. great for keeping it at the limit on longer rural lanes with high traffic cop presence

What is the point of such a vehicle unless you live on a caribbean island or a crowded european city where nose-in parking is permitted? I see no point, just as I see no point for the Smart.

Funny part is a girl I work with has a Smart. She commutes 40 miles each way, all highway, and parks in a standard-size garage spot at work. She lives in the suburbs. The only reason she bought the car was for "cute" factor I guess, because I can't see any other advantage to it in her situation.

and non-sequitur internet numbers comparison IQ: 94 HP, 2100lbs 1985 318i: 99 HP, 2200lbs (in stripper form) But an e30 can seat 4 comfortably, and fit the iQ in it's giant trunk to boot.

In this day of high-tech lightweight materials, I can't see why a midget clown car needs to weigh as much as a midsize sedan. And don't say "airbags" because airbags weigh a couple lbs each at most.

I read everyone's reviews and comments, and I still don't know how it ~ drives~. Lots about value proposition, market positioning, and the interior, but:

• Is the CVT as bad as it should be? deal breaker?

• How does it turn in, brake, go?

• Neutral, understeer, massive howling understeer? snap oversteer?

Seeing as a well maintained NA Miata returns in the 30s and is cheap, I don't get it.

Screw it - I'll buy a new Abarth 500 Fiat when they stop charging a premium.

motomoron wrote: Seeing as a well maintained NA Miata returns in the 30s and is cheap, I don't get it.

What NA Miata have you been driving? You can squeeze 30 highway out of one, but I wouldn't say they return in the 30s.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/scion/iq - 35 mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/mx-5%20miata - 25-27mpg

I'm not a fan of the IQ, but this seems like a silly comparison.

The IQ is new.
The IQ seats 4.
The IQ is EPA rated at 36/37
The IQ has reasonable space to hold stuff.
The NA miata is old.
The NA miata seats 2.
The NA miata is EPA rated at 22/28 (1.6) and 21/27 (1.8)
The NA miata has very little space to hold stuff

i would buy the Aston Version for my next commuter if

A: They renamed it the DB.07

and

B: It folded into a briefcase when the Great Gazoo and I got to work.

Wally:

I realize you are kidding, but in the U.K. the Cygnet(sp?) sells for about 2 and 1/2 to nearly 3 times the cost of the iQ.

JThw8 wrote: The Smart and now the iQ show you what the packaging (and fuel economy) look like when you try to package all modern safety requirements into a small car. Something's got to give in that scenario.

The fuel economy doesn't have to be that bad. The Smart cars we have here get incredible fuel economy.

I don't understand what this car is supposed to be. It sounds like it doesn't really serve any purpose. I'm a small car guy, but small for the sake of being small makes no sense. Even in my small town and nearby small city, I see smarts all over the place, but I doubt this thing will sell.

In reply to integraguy:

It has to be to keep out the riff raff. I don't want to see some peasant driving around in an Aston, then they wiukdn't be special

I want to like it, but price, CVT, and lack of CC kill it for me. Just because it is meant to be a city car doesn't mean it won't see enough highway mile to make CC not worth it. As for the part about lack of cubby holes, the Yaris is loaded with them. Oh well, living in the hills with a 25 mile commute, I'm not quite the target demographic, so I doubt Toyota cares about my opinion, and I'm fine with that.

Bringing back an old/undead subject, but breaking down my observations of pros and cons.....

Cons

-Seating position is too high (I'm 6'4" and my head scrapes the ceiling although I do have a dealer installed moonroof)

-Initial CVT feel and impression is lackluster at best.

-There's no doubt the vehicle is slow. Motorweek has it at 17.4 @ 80mph and a 0-60mph of 9.6 sec. It's actually faster than a Yaris auto, Fit auto, Prius C, etc. and only a tad slower than a Mazda2 manual (17.2 @ 82mph). This is tested with the CVT as well.

-Room is limited (exfor cargo. realizing and acknowledging this, you'll reaize you can fit at least 60 iphones 4s in the cargo area before you run out of space.

-The P175/60R16 tire size on the stock rims is horrendous. So narrow and tall that you feel everything and are diverted all over the place with the steering if you have even the slightest bit of toe-out.

-Stock air intake sucks warm air in form the engine bay, unlike every car on the road today.

-Driving the car "spiritedly" (I mean foot to the floor everywhere you drive) results in a best of about 30-34mpg mixed driving.

Pros

-Short wheelbase and when the traction control is disabled, it's a HOOT to drive (sometimes scary too as the backend is much more unstable), even with the stock skinny tires.

-With the CVT, the more you play with it, the more you learn how it works best. If you need to pass (passing power is limited) then drop to "B" and hold the throttle down making sure you have time to pass on a two lane road as it IS SLOW. The CVT is only really bad from a standstill, on a roll it work perfectly fine and is very intuitive if driven correctly as a momentum platform. The final drive also goes up as far as 5.403, which is partially why the car feels faster than 94hp/89tq in a 2140lb car.

-The car is essentially a mid engine FF vehicle. The differential is in front of the engine and the engine is set back behind the axles obviously, making the balance better albeit in need of work. Stock caster for the front is 7.5 degrees positive putting it into a very effective range with the differential mounted in the front.

-Swapping wheels and tires is only a paypal away. So far, I've had 225/50/15 front and 205/50/15 rear and the car was able to accommodate the width front and rear lowered on Tein springs (yea I know I need AST/Swift springs instead). This summer I had 205/50/15 Advan Neova tires, mounted on 15x7 TE37's and the extra grip/width this gave showed a more balanced chassis.

-Yaris parts other than front struts are pretty much a quick easy bolt on as most of it was recycled over. I have a Whiteline 22mm Yaris rear sway bar on the rear set on it's softest setting with traction/ESP enabled and on the street it's just about right when you lift off mid corner.

-There are companies that do produce aftermarket parts, however they are few. The biggest one is Air Repair owned by Tsukasa Sangawa. http://www.t-san9.com/.

-The car is insanely easy to work on despite how small it is. I can swap the entire exhaust system, secondary cat backwards in about 15 mins with hand tools. Struts with a pitman arm however take a bit longer because of the engine being slightly tucked under the wiper shroud. However it's all quick and simple.

-Swapping to a manual transmission is less than $1000 in used parts from the UK. Just remember that the 6000rpm redline still exists and you'll be shifting frequently, even more so if you go with the shorter gears available in Japan.

-A 7AFE/4AFE header can be swapped in if the exhaust header flange is cut and flipped and it's even easier if you use a Pacesetter 4-1 style header instead of the 4-2-1 styles.

-If you don't drive it like most of us would, it gets decent mpg. My wife drives it in the Summer and has been averaging 38-41mpg over the Pennsylvania mountains 5 days a week on 87 octane (upping octane to 91, decreases mpg for whatever reason). Car is port injection instead of direct injection with 11.5:1 compression obviously retarding it's DUAL VVT-I in order to run the 87 octane.

-Best part is, with under 50k on the odo, you can probably pick one up as your 3rd beater for under $6-7k.

Just my $.02, for what I've learned over a years worth of ownership. It's not the best chassis for a B class (Like the super handling Mazda2), but it's certainly the best A class car that the USA has atm to my knowledge.

Little video of Sangawa-san of Air Repair....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9x0ar68Y88

Nice review, thanks!

Conspiracy theory: Toyota deliberately made the CVT as awful as possible in order to kill the concept in consumers' minds, since Nissan and Subaru are deep into CVTs and they make CVTs that work extremely well and behave how you'd want a CVT to behave.

chandlerGTi wrote: Nice review, thanks!

Welcome! I'm just glad somebody found my opinion worth reading. Thank you for reading.