Toyota Plans Scion Overhaul as Youth Brand Hits Adolescence - Polidicks

The way I see it, just raise your price double and gamble with an Audi TT.

imo they should axe scion completely and just sell everything under toyota like they do everywhere else

[QUOTE=MR2;44596873]You only wheel-spin in a turbo'd 86 if you don't know how to drive.[/quote] Yeah but to alot of people 147kW is enough. As I said, if you want to make it faster, modify it yourself. Speed isn't everything. Why do you need a turbocharged car for the street, when the 86 will take you up to 110kph no worries? And if you take it to the track constantly, sure go ahead and give it a turbo. All you'd look like is a wanker who takes things too seriously. It's already a fast car as is. [Quote]The thing is, it's a bit too expensive for what it is. I mean, for more or less a thousand dollars more you can get an STI.[/QUOTE] So what, alot of people seem to justify the price of the 86, I see significantly more 86s on the road than even just WRXs. The STI is a completely different car, an AWD compact sedan that flies when you put your foot down. Maybe people don't want that, maybe they want a laid back GT-esque RWD coupe. Not to forget that due to permit licence restrictions here, everyone under the age of 20 can't drive a car with a turbocharged/supercharged petrol or anything with more than six cylinders.

[QUOTE=n0cturni;44598972]imo they should axe scion completely and just sell everything under toyota like they do everywhere else[/QUOTE] Well, the Scion brand carries with it something else: Flat pricing. Essentially, they created it to cater to millenials who are used to a no-haggling, hassle-free approach to buying things. So they sell them with built-in overhead, but a constant sticker price. You can buy an FR-S for the same price in Florida as you can in California. It's really pretty smart, honestly, and I think it's the way car buying will go in a few years, at least in the states. Haggling is an old-fashioned idea, it doesn't have much of a place in a modern, interconnected world. The reason you don't see the Scion brand in other places is because, depending on your market, haggling is either nonexistent or deeply-ingrained in the culture. It's a solution for a problem that's only really an issue here, so the idea wouldn't work elsewhere. Also, marketing.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44593230]Seriously underpowered? For a naturally aspirated 2.0L street car it's very powerful.[/QUOTE] That's the problem. Who drives a naturally aspirated 2.0L and calls it a performance car? Who drives a turbo charged 2.0L and calls it a performance car? The fact that an equally priced and/or cheaper v6 mustang beats it in every conceivable way is proof enough that it's absolute shit. They blew it. [QUOTE=Alec W;44594461] Like the 86 before it, it's supposed to be a driver's car, very much like a miata.[/QUOTE] My hairdresser loves her miata!

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602837]That's the problem. Who drives a naturally aspirated 2.0L and calls it a performance car? Who drives a turbo charged 2.0L and calls it a performance car? It's like they wanted to sell a car to my car-loving grandmother. The fact that an equally priced and/or cheaper v6 mustang beats it in every conceivable way is proof enough that it's absolute shit. They blew it. My hairdresser loves her miata![/QUOTE] Yeah, because performance cars must have inefficient V6s and V8s. Nope, impossible for one to have an I4. I really hate to be 'that guy' but have you ever heard of Honda? Let's face it, V6s and V8s were great in the days of carburetors where no one gave a shit about fuel usage or emissions, and where the only way you could increase power was to increase displacement or implement experimental (and at the time, unreliable) fuel injection systems. But I4s with direct injection, variable valve timing and lift, and with assistance from electric motors are becoming sufficient enough for performance cars while providing good fuel economy, and then you have turbocharged I4s which take it a step further. And what the fuck is wrong with the MX-5, it's a great car.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44602860]Yeah, because performance cars must have inefficient V6s and V8s. Nope, impossible for one to have an I4. I really hate to be 'that guy' but have you ever heard of Honda? Let's face it, V6s and V8s were great in the days of carburetors where no one gave a shit about fuel usage or emissions, and where the only way you could increase power was to increase displacement or implement experimental (and at the time, unreliable) fuel injection systems. But I4s are becoming sufficient enough for performance cars while providing good fuel economy, and then you have turbocharged I4s which take it a step further. And what the fuck is wrong with the MX-5, it's a great car.[/QUOTE] Nothing is wrong with the MX-5 besides it being slow and unfun to drive. If you're into that I'm sure it's a good car. Plenty of I-4s are fast, but not some 2.0L joke of an engine. Turbo or not. You can always make more horsepower and more importantly torque with a bigger engine. If you're looking to have fun, gas mileage shouldn't be on your mind. Especially when moving from an I4 to a V6 is only a few MPGs difference with the same displacement. V6s and V8's being "inefficient" is some serious ricer superiority complex, though.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602869]Nothing is wrong with the MX-5 besides it being slow and unfun to drive. If you're into that I'm sure it's a good car. Plenty of I-4s are fast, but not some 2.0L joke of an engine. Turbo or not. You can always make more horsepower and more importantly torque with a bigger engine.[/QUOTE] Bigger engines consume more fuel and in most cases they produce more emissions. And for the third time in this thread, speed isn't everything.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44602878]Bigger engines consume more fuel and in most cases they produce more emissions. And for the third time in this thread, speed isn't everything.[/QUOTE] Is handling? The v6 Mustang (Not praising them at all here) beats the GT-86 on the Nürburgring. Is cost? It's cheaper. Face it, it's a joke.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602869]Nothing is wrong with the MX-5 besides it being slow and unfun to drive. If you're into that I'm sure it's a good car. Plenty of I-4s are fast, but not some 2.0L joke of an engine. Turbo or not. You can always make more horsepower and more importantly torque with a bigger engine. If you're looking to have fun, gas mileage shouldn't be on your mind. Especially when moving from an I4 to a V6 is only a few MPGs difference with the same displacement. V6s and V8's being "inefficient" is some serious ricer superiority complex, though.[/QUOTE] Quoting you again because you edited your post. Not only does MPG, as a measure of fuel efficiency, skew results compared to fuel consumption (L/100km etc), but regardless to that there can still be a significant difference between consumption figures. Especially between an I4 Turbo and n/a V6 of similar output. Yeah, I'm a ricer because I don't like how my car with its 3.5L V6 consumes 11L on average to go 100kms. With rising fuel costs and tighter emissions standards, the days of high displacement V8s are numbered. V6s will be on the chopping block with time.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44602897] Yeah, I'm a ricer because I don't like how my car with its 3.5L V6 consumes 11L on average to go 100kms. With rising fuel costs and tighter emissions standards, the days of high displacement V8s are numbered. V6s will be on the chopping block with time.[/QUOTE] Buy a Prius. They're popular now-a-days. I've got a Supercharged 3.8L V6 on a 3800LB car from the 90s and I still get ~27 MPG (8.7L per 100kms?). There's no reason to stop. Gas mileage is a really moot point unless you're penny pinching.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602886]Is handling? The v6 Mustang (Not praising them at all here) beats the GT-86 on the Nürburgring. Is cost? It's cheaper. Face it, it's a joke.[/QUOTE] The Nurburgring is not a tight circuit. Obviously the Mustang has the advantage there. And cost doesn't matter. The Toyota 86 sells in massive volumes, so obviously people are preferring them over alternatives. And for the fourth time, speed isn't everything. [editline]21st April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602904]Buy a Prius. They're popular now-a-days. I've got a Supercharged 3.8L V6 on a 3800LB car from the 90s and I still get ~27 MPG. There's no reason to stop. Gas mileage is a really moot point unless you're penny pinching.[/QUOTE] I don't want a Prius thanks. I'm looking at getting a Fiesta XR4 or Focus XR5 Turbo though. Mileage won't be much of a moot point with petrol prices rising. The US has it lucky with petrol prices; most garages around here sell 91 octane (our standard) in the $1.60 to $1.70 per litre region, I'm just lucky I live near one that sells it for $1.55 per litre. I'll be fine for the next few years, but in a decade the situation will be different.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44602912] I don't want a Prius thanks. I'm looking at getting a Fiesta XR4 or Focus XR5 Turbo though.[/QUOTE] Good choice! Both are fun cars. Looks like you're paying $5.86 per gallon. We're not far behind. I'm paying $4.21 USD right now for 91.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602869]Nothing is wrong with the MX-5 besides it being slow and unfun to drive. If you're into that I'm sure it's a good car. Plenty of I-4s are fast, but not some 2.0L joke of an engine. Turbo or not. You can always make more horsepower and more importantly torque with a bigger engine. If you're looking to have fun, gas mileage shouldn't be on your mind. Especially when moving from an I4 to a V6 is only a few MPGs difference with the same displacement. V6s and V8's being "inefficient" is some serious ricer superiority complex, though.[/QUOTE] what? The miata is pretty slow, but it is definently fun to drive. Have you even driven an brz/frs? they're smooth as fuck. the gear box is silk, the steering feels like butter, and the suspension is well tuned from the factory.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602837]That's the problem. Who drives a naturally aspirated 2.0L and calls it a performance car? Who drives a turbo charged 2.0L and calls it a performance car? The fact that an equally priced and/or cheaper v6 mustang beats it in every conceivable way is proof enough that it's absolute shit. They blew it. [/QUOTE] The size of the FR-S engine isn't the issue, it's that it isn't built to rev high. A S2000, for example, has a 2.0 liter engine and puts out ~40 more hp, which when combined with the aluminum body meant that it can out-accelerate cars with twice the displacement. Granted, the S2000 was a more expensive car when it came out.

I feel like I am the only person on FP who doesn't care about car models.

I5 master race :V

enjoy your 4-cylinder mustangs europe lel

The only car I like from Scion is, in fact, the FRS. I'm just waiting until they add a Factory Turbo, then I'm probably going to replace my old Supra with it...

[QUOTE=Suitcase;44608708]The only car I like from Scion is, in fact, the FRS. I'm just waiting until they add a Factory Turbo, then I'm probably going to replace my old Supra with it...[/QUOTE] As much as I love Supras, it wouldn't surprise me if a turbo FRS would be more practical, especially if that BRZ STI happens.

It's very easy to win the hearts of the youth, just follow a simple formula; Rear-wheel drive, Turbo that goes woosh at every gear change, Lots of electronic gadgets like sunroof etc., Angry headlights.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602837]That's the problem. Who drives a naturally aspirated 2.0L and calls it a performance car? Who drives a turbo charged 2.0L and calls it a performance car? The fact that an equally priced and/or cheaper v6 mustang beats it in every conceivable way is proof enough that it's absolute shit. They blew it. My hairdresser loves her miata![/QUOTE] Wouldn't the joke be that you go to a hairdresser? Anyways...

[QUOTE=The Baconator;44605048]I feel like I am the only person on FP who doesn't care about car models.[/QUOTE] If you drive you should care. Not caring might mean buying a shitbox that consumes too much, is overpriced, is unsafe because it doesn't have enough power (believe it or not you need power in everyday driving, for overtaking and merging etc), is unreliable too expensive to maintain or just plain revolting to drive. The "I don't care what I drive as long as it moves" crowd isn't the brightest. [editline]22nd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;44600997]Yeah but to alot of people 147kW is enough. As I said, if you want to make it faster, modify it yourself. Speed isn't everything. Why do you need a turbocharged car for the street, when the 86 will take you up to 110kph no worries? And if you take it to the track constantly, sure go ahead and give it a turbo. All you'd look like is a wanker who takes things too seriously. It's already a fast car as is. [/QUOTE] Why does wanting to make a car faster make me a wanker who takes things too seriously? Or does taking it to the track make me a wanker who takes things too seriously? I already take my SW20 to the track very often, it's fun. I also don't understand your "Why do you need a turbocharged car for the street, when the 86 will take you up to 110kph no worries?" logic as if 110kph is all a car can physically do off a track. The 86 is underpowered, that's just a fact, and it's literally the only complaint people have about it in car review sites and stuff. If it were cheaper, heck, I'd get one, it seems like it's a blast to drive, but they were forced to nerf it so it doesn't compete with the STI's speed. And so I'd put a turbo in it myself.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;44602886]Is handling? The v6 Mustang (Not praising them at all here) beats the GT-86 on the Nürburgring. Is cost? It's cheaper. Face it, it's a joke.[/QUOTE] Who cares, a Cobalt SS got a better lap-time on the burgerkingring than 911s' and the NSX. Doesn't make the latter a joke does it? I'll take a gt86 over a v6 stang' anyday, same way I'd take a 911 or NSX over the cobalt.

[QUOTE=MR2;44613740]If you drive you should care. Not caring might mean buying a shitbox that consumes too much, is overpriced, is unsafe because it doesn't have enough power (believe it or not you need power in everyday driving, for overtaking and merging etc), is unreliable too expensive to maintain or just plain revolting to drive. The "I don't care what I drive as long as it moves" crowd isn't the brightest.[/quote] Yeah, agreed. [quote]Why does wanting to make a car faster make me a wanker who takes things too seriously? Or does taking it to the track make me a wanker who takes things too seriously? I already take my SW20 to the track very often, it's fun. I also don't understand your "Why do you need a turbocharged car for the street, when the 86 will take you up to 110kph no worries?" logic as if 110kph is all a car can physically do off a track. The 86 is underpowered, that's just a fact, and it's literally the only complaint people have about it in car review sites and stuff. If it were cheaper, heck, I'd get one, it seems like it's a blast to drive, but they were forced to nerf it so it doesn't compete with the STI's speed. And so I'd put a turbo in it myself.[/QUOTE] Well gee if I go to a track I'm not going there to break records, I'm going there to have fun with friends. No fun when you are in a car that blows everything out of the water. However I'm going to withdraw that comment about calling people wankers because that wasn't called for and I apologise. With the 86 I was thinking that they were trying to do something like the AE86, what is was inspired from. A sporty RWD coupe that's not necessarily the fastest car in a straight line, but one you have fun in. I don't think they 'nerfed' it in any sense, that would imply they deliberately made the engine underpowered. But for what it is, it's very powerful. Rather, they just didn't consider giving it a turbocharger or supercharger, and the only other engine configuration they probably could have put in would be a V6, but that doesn't sound as good as a H4 and loses on benefits such as good balance, a low centre of gravity and a low bonnet.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44618539] With the 86 I was thinking that they were trying to do something like the AE86, what is was inspired from. A sporty RWD coupe that's not necessarily the fastest car in a straight line, but one you have fun in. I don't think they 'nerfed' it in any sense, that would imply they deliberately made the engine underpowered. But for what it is, it's very powerful. Rather, they just didn't consider giving it a turbocharger or supercharger, and the only other engine configuration they probably could have put in would be a V6, but that doesn't sound as good as a H4 and loses on benefits such as good balance, a low centre of gravity and a low bonnet.[/QUOTE] Some people do engine swaps and I don't really agree with that because they're taking out the Boxer engine, taking away the lower center of gravity. Personally, giving it a turbo would make it almost flawless in my eyes.