well, where do i start... we all know the xA is a huge (or in this case, really small) floater, whilst the xB is about as aerodynamic as a gift card and as fast as dial-up. HOWEVAH! here is a review of the scion tc that i think would enlighten many people as it did myself...


Toyota's youth-oriented Scion brand hasn't offered us much in the form of jewels, lest you believe the doorstop xA and the toolbox xB to be of the precious variety. Sure, they're affordable, practical, and entertaining, but they're not exactly the small cars we leadfeet clamor to redline.

Luckily, Scion—er, Toyota—has been holding in its Japanese mine a diamond in the rough, one whose pressure cooker produced a gem of similar vein nearly two decades ago.

That recently cultivated sparkler is the Scion tC, a sporty hatchback comprising a catalog of standard features that should frighten the competition. As the first vehicle developed exclusively for Scion (the xA and the xB are rebadged Japanese-domestic-market cars), the tC, like its cute siblings, is offered in monospec form and comes more loaded than a frat boy in Cancún. At a low $17,000, the tC is equipped with a panoramic sunroof with front and rear glass panels, the former power retractable; a Pioneer CD player with MP3 and satellite-radio capabilities; dual front airbags and a driver's knee airbag; keyless entry; cruise control; A/C; power up and down windows; and an outside-temperature gauge. The only factory-installed options are front-seat-mounted side airbags and curtain airbags ($650) and a four-speed automatic transmission ($800).

Although the tC's options list is short, its dealer-accessories list is long. Scion believes in allowing its patrons to customize their vehicles, so the tC can be fitted with a variety of add-ons. Our test car came with such items as a ground effects kit ($995) and an interior light kit ($250) that casts blue Luxaura light under the dash and in the cup holders.

That feature aside, the tC is decked out with a smart, upscale interior with rich fabrics, plastics, and metallic-look accents, and the large HVAC knob actually is aluminum. The three-gauge cluster is straightforward and pleasant to eyeball, and although the silver-colored center stack is easy on the eyes, its silver-colored buttons are not always easy to decipher, especially if glare is coming through the sunroof. The 60/40 split rear seats are roomy and comfy for two, despite the presence of three seatbelts, and headroom is lacking due to the glass ceiling and long, sleek hatch. At least the back seats recline and fold flat, a feat the fronts can perform, too, assuming you slide them all the way forward and remove the headrests. Scion claims an 8.5-foot surfboard can fit in the tC. What you can't fit is a ton of gear. With the back seats up, the tC has just 13 cubic feet of cargo space, whereas the Honda Civic Si has 16 and the Mazda 3 five-door wagon has 17.

The tC shares its platform with the Avensis, a sedan Toyota sells in Europe and one whose Euro flavor has rubbed off on the Scion in the styling department. From the front, save for the BMW 7-series-like "eyebrows" that accentuate the headlights, the tC bears a striking resemblance to the latest Volvo S40, especially in the rectangular grille and raised hoodlines. In profile and from the rear, the tC becomes more Asian, showing cues from the Acura RSX and Hyundai Tiburon. Overall, we like the tC's sophisticated look and assertive stance, accentuated by short overhangs and a lengthy 106.3-inch wheelbase—6.7 inches longer than the Tiburon's.

In addition to the Avensis, the tC borrows readily from another, more familiar Toyota product. Powering the tC is the Camry's 2AZ-FE 2.4-liter four-cylinder, a sophisticated engine with an aluminum block, a magnesium cam cover, electronic throttle control, and variable intake-valve timing. Hooked to a low-restriction, two-way muffler, the 2.4 generates 160 horsepower and 163 pound-feet of torque. The Civic Si and the Mazda 3 s have as much horsepower, but they can't match the tC's twist, mustering 31 and 13 fewer pound-feet, respectively. The Camry also donates to the tC its buttery five-speed manual, albeit with a revised linkage and shorter gear ratios and the optional four-speed auto. Disc brakes are standard at every corner and feature ABS with electronic brake-force distribution.

The tC's suspension setup is similar to the Civic Si's—McPherson struts up front and multilink in back—but the tC wears larger 17-inch split-spoke alloys shod with Z-rated 215/45R-17 Bridgestone Potenza RE92 tires, the same spec rubber used on some Lexus IS300s.

0408_scion_interior.jpgSpeaking of the Lexus IS, the tC is nearly as quick as its 215-hp luxury cousin. The sporty Scion scoots from 0 to 60 in 7.4 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 88 mph, only 0.1 and 0.2 second, respectively, behind the IS ("$35,000 Sports Sedans," March 2004). Moreover, because the tC is geared fairly short—final drive is 4.24—its 30-to-50-mph top-gear time of 8.5 seconds is a 10th quicker than the six-cylinder IS's. Talk about "hardly shabby." Against its natural rivals, the tC is equally competitive. To 60, it is quicker than the Civic Si (8.0) and the Mini Cooper (8.3). It's even with the Mazda 3 s and just 0.4 slower than the supercharged Cooper S, which is the only one of the group to outgun the tC to the quarter-mile, nipping it by 0.2 second. And remember, the blown Mini starts at $20,449.

Under normal driving conditions, the tC is a satisfyingly quick and fun-to-drive hatch. The engine is a refined unit that revs willingly—and quickly—to its 6200-rpm redline, making the slick, short-throw shifter a busy partner. Not a bad thing, considering it operates with the effortless action of a Global sashimi knife slicing through a chunk of toro. But should you not feel like the next Iron Chef, no big deal—the engine creates enough torque not to require frequent shifting.

In the screeching-halt department, the disc brakes offer up direct response and reassuring performance. From 70 to standstill, the tC needs 179 feet of asphalt, 10 more feet than the Cooper S and 3 s but 25 less than the Si. The culprit for the tC's otherwise estimable performance is weight. At 3016 pounds, the tC is a portly lad that makes everything else in its class look like Calista Flockhart. A Cooper S weighs 249 fewer pounds and an Si, 276. The Mazda 3 s is the only car that comes close, but it still tips the scales at 59 fewer pounds. Obviously, Scion engineers fed the tC a carb-rich diet in the form of three additional floorpan braces, three steel door beams, and the glass roof that's supported by a full welded steel structure. The upside to all the structural enhancements is that the tC feels like a vault—solid and safe.

The tC's lack of a Subway diet also affects its handling, but more objectively than subjectively. On the skidpad, it pulled 0.81 g—less grip than the Si (0.84), Cooper S (0.85), and 3 s (0.87)—yet on our 10Best handling loop, it gave the impression it could deliver much more than that. From low-speed hairpins to high-speed sweepers, the tC displayed minimal understeer and moderate body roll and an eagerness to be pushed harder. The power-assisted rack-and-pinion steering plays a big role here. Its action is light and direct, its sense responsive. The faster you go, the better it feels.

Over Michigan's rough stuff, the tC demonstrated a supple and compliant ride that still felt sporty and firm. The independent suspension soaked up bumps and divots with a level of composure that's rare in the tC's stratum, never crashing and never unsettling the car. In light of its level of amusement through the curves, we can't recall a $16,000 sport hatch that offered such an excellent compromise between ride and handling.

By the time you read this, Scion's rollout will be in full swing—escalating from 23 states to nationwide—headlined by the introduction of the tC. It's sort of like a rock band touring on the heels of an album release, just different.

If the $10,000 Corolla GT-S were touring today, it would cost about $18,000. Seeing that the tC undercuts that by about $1500, and offers modern-day quickness, safety, and refinement, think of it as "not shabby at all."

                               -car and driver


now heres some specs you might find interesting,

ACCELERATION, Seconds
Zero to 30 mph: 2.4
40 mph: 3.8
50 mph: 5.3
60 mph: 7.4
70 mph: 9.7
80 mph: 12.6
90 mph: 16.4
100 mph: 20.9
110 mph: 28.4
Street start, 5-60 mph: 8.0
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 8.5
50-70 mph: 9.0
Standing 1/4-mile: 15.7 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 127 mph

BRAKING
70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 179 ft

HANDLING
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g
Understeer: minimal moderate excessive

FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving: 22 mpg
EPA highway driving: 30 mpg
C/D-observed: 24 mpg

INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
Idle: 39 dBA
Full-throttle acceleration: 75 dBA
70-mph cruising: 71 dBA

ENGINE
Type: inline-4, aluminum block and head
Bore x stroke: 3.48 x 3.78 in, 88.5 x 96.0mm
Displacement: 144 cu in, 2362cc
Compression ratio: 9.6:1
Fuel-delivery system: port injection
Valve gear: chain-driven double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake-valve timing
Power (SAE net): 160 bhp @ 5700 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 163 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline: 6200 rpm

DRIVETRAIN Transmission: 5-speed manual
Final-drive ratio: 4.24:1
Gear, Ratio, Mph/1000 rpm, Max test speed
I, 3.54, 4.7, 29 mph (6200 rpm)
II, 2.05, 8.2, 51 mph (6200 rpm)
III, 1.33, 12.6, 78 mph (6200 rpm)
IV, 0.97, 17.2, 107 mph (6200 rpm)
V, 0.78, 21.6, 127 mph (5900 rpm)

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 106.3 in
Track, front/rear: 59.3/59.3 in
Length/width/height: 174.0/69.1/55.7 in
Ground clearance: 5.2 in
Drag area, Cd (0.32) x frontal area (24.2 sq ft, est): 7.70 sq ft
Curb weight: 3016 lb
Weight distribution, F/R: 58.5/41.5%
Curb weight per horsepower: 18.9 lb
Fuel capacity: 14.5 gal

CHASSIS/BODY
Type: unit construction
Body material: welded steel stampings

INTERIOR
SAE volume, front seat: 49 cu ft
rear seat: 36 cu ft
luggage: 13 cu ft
Front-seat adjustments: fore-and-aft, seatback angle; driver only: height
Restraint systems, front: manual 3-point belts, driver and passenger front airbags; driver only: knee airbag
rear: manual 3-point belts

SUSPENSION
Front: ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar
Rear: ind; 1 control arm, 1 lateral link, and 1 toe-control link per side; coil springs; anti-roll bar

STEERING
Type: rack-and-pinion with power assist
Steering ratio: 17.7:1
Turns lock-to-lock: 3.2
Turning circle curb-to-curb: 36.1 ft

BRAKES
Type: hydraulic with vacuum power assist and anti-lock control
Front: 10.8 x 1.0-in vented disc
Rear: 10.6 x 0.4-in disc

WHEELS AND TIRES
Wheel size/type: 7.0 x 17 in/cast aluminum
Tires: Bridgestone Potenza RE92, P215/45ZR-17 M+S
Test inflation pressures, F/R: 32/29 psi
Spare: high-pressure compact on steel wheel  

Booo for goveners!! and in that case find some NA 3000gt's to play around with. Will be a farely close race.. close enough for driver to make the difference between win and loss.  

Damn dude, pretty comprehensive post. I like your enthusiasm, don't know if I spelled that right. Any way, you forgot to mention Kenny Trans' Tc. It boasts a whopping 739wHP. How can any one forget to mention that?!
Unfortunately, I saw it on another magazine that Primemedia doesn't publish. But, It's all good!! All in the name of tuning!!! And for Xx3kgtxX, Get real with the 3000gt, dude. That mid engine piece of poop is so heavy that any tuning gets wasted on trying to make it nimble enough to take turns on a track. Don't get me wrong, It has some potential, but, that Chrysler/Mitsubishi crossover is not a cheetah by any means. I raced a 6cyl. 3000gt in "98" when my "87" 200sx was still stock with the ca20e engine... at a miserable 115hp... and I beat it by three car lengths on the track. I, unfortunately, got the car as the prize and, durring my ownership of it, was greatly dissastisfied with the cars lack of power. Shoot, when I was able to get 250hp out of the ca20e, the 3000gt still was not worthy enough! I don't know about you, but, that is one car that lost its chance to truely become some thing. Again, I'm not ragging on the car, just lighting the way to better things for you. To each his own, I always say.  

No offense taken. Reason i said that is due to the fact that the 0-60 times and stock 1/4 mile times are extremely close.  And i know my land yacht is far from nimble lol. Getting an mr2 turbo as a daily now.. And starting a vr4 project to have as a weekend monster..  

Glad to hear it. The MR2 is a good little sleeping monster in sheeps clothing... what about building that? There is more in upgradeable parts available for it and I know that there are plenty of companies out there that make racing blocks and heads to match, you should try to google it on your search bar. I would love to see what that little monster is capable of in the track. Just a thought.  

NA 3000 are not fast by any means but arent as heavy as everyone makes them out to be and how the hell you beat one by 3 car lengths with a 115hp car is beyond me.  

Part skill and part cojones!!! There is more to racing than what's under your hood. Even though more horses alway makes it a little easier. I purchased the car in 1996, 2nd hand at a dealer and 3rd hand if you count the dealer, and in 1998 I began messing with the body weight and was able to get it down to a little over 2000lb. this is where power to weight comes in... any way, when you have shaved some weight the engine actually performs much better. My little monster to be has come a long way and soon will be getting a heart transplant this summer. Understand now how physics works? That's how you beat a relatively heavy car like a 3000gt with 115hp on track!!  

The tC is a splendid little car, and Toyota hit their target market pretty danm well with it’s Scion brand. I am not part of that market and I wouldn't get one, but I do really respect the car and Toyota for creating it.

The tC was a perfect answer to the Civic, and if I had to choose today between the two, I would most definitely pick the Scion.

It will be interesting to see how the aftermarket, tuner, and racer crown will develop the tC. In this last decade or so, "street racing" was the fad and it brought forth plenty of insanely quick drag civics and other Hondas, but also an innumerable amount of ricer, neonglow, and fart-can tuner boys appeared out of nowhere like a cancer. Remember when Kragen Auto started carrying APC Altezzas and mufflers? Ya, those were the "Street" days.

Today we are in the "canyon & Drift” age thanks mostly to Initial-D and the whole competitive drift phenomenon, and it will be interesting to see where this goes, especially with the tC.  There are many other less expensive cars out there that offer better handling, power, and simplicity, so IMO I don’t think there will be too many serious tCs out there in the foreseable future. Most people who get a tC will either keep it bone stock or tune it mildly and use it as their daily driver.  Granted, there will be some serious ones out there in scarce numbers, but it will be interesting to see if the tC ever becomes a major force to reckon with in the canyons or the track. I don’t believe so.

But really, the most important thing is that the tC keep delivering (like it has been) on what its designed for, and then some. With the mild tuners and daily drivers (which are the current majority and will be for the foreseeable future) driving happy, everything’s good. The tuning aspect will sort itself out. What do you guys think?  

"Standing 1/4-mile: 15.7 sec @ 88 mph"

WOOO IMPRESSIVE!

Ha ha ha.. Just kidding. I'll agree that the scions are awesome entry-level economy cars, I don't ever see myself in one. It's hard to argue with a write-up like this.

The only thing I can really give the tC a thumbs up on, is the moon roof. I love the design and wish that they would've considered using a similar application on my Si. Sure they weigh down the car, but it's not like either car is that fast to begin with.  

The tc is a pretty good platform for horse power gains! You just need some know how and some decent amount of money. If every one thought that way about tuning there wouldn't be crazy turboed 3 cylinders pushing 300hp and tandem rotary engines and the sort. Thanks to the crazy ingenuity of the racers of Puerto Rico @ Salinas race track!! Too much attention is being given to car brand and wether or not it can be built or if it came purpose made... just have fun with what you have and if you want to build it for more horses... DO IT!! TO EACH HIS OWN!! If any one complains about that then I guess we live in a whiney, wet behind the ears world.  
 

I'm sorry to resurrect and hijack your thread Sleeper, but I cannot allow such misinformation to be spread about the 3000gt.
_________

Blackmonkey, I'm afraid I have to question your story. You say you won and for a brief time actually owned a 3000GT - did you ever open the hood? Unless you can't tell the difference between the spare-tire and the engine,  how you possibly think the car is mid-engined? ROFL.  

It is also not "that" heavy. Sure it is much more massive than a 200sx or Integra, but you must compare it to cars of the same type (muscle cars and grand touring cars). Compared to them it is on the heavy side, but not "immensely overweight". In fact, it is not even the heaviest of the few I could think of off the top of my head, and even the Camaro, the lightest of the examples, is only 300 lbs lighter (that's not even an 8% difference).

3400 lbs = Chevy Camaro Z28 (Gen 4)
3450 lbs = Nizzan 300ZX Turbo (z32)
3525 lbs = Toyota Supra Turbo (mark IV)
3675 lbs = Ford Mustang Cobra (my03)
3700 lbs = Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
3725 lbs = Pontiac GTO (new)

The 3000GT is also not at all under powered as you claim. The VR4's twin turbo 3.0 liter V6 engine makes 320 BHP @ 6000 rpm and 315 ft-lbs @ 2500 rpm. Yes, at 2500 rpm the turbos are fully spooled and the engine is making maximum torque, it has a much flatter torque-curve than any of the other turbocharged cars listed above. FYI redline is 7300 rpm. A healthy VR4 will run 13.5 @ 102 mph in the quarter-mile and with a good all-wheel drive launch will hit 60 mph in less than 5 seconds. Stock v stock, its a very good match for any of the cars listed above (except the Cobra) and can also hang with the Evo VIII and Scubi STI, especially from stop. Furthermore, the VR4 is just as easily modified as any good turbo car. A VR4 can make up to 430 BHP with under $2000 in parts invested (bc, dp + cat + cb exhaust, cam gears, udp). In this form, the car will pull mid-12s at about 110 mph.

The base model 3000GT made 220 BHP and 215 ft-lbs of torque, but with no AWD system they only weigh about 3250 lbs. The non-turbo probably is a good match for the Scion TC - I believe with a manual trans the non-turbo 3000GT will run about 15.0-15.2 in the quarter. The automatic versions probably run high 15s. Actually, from 1997 to 1999 Mitsu made a few base 3000GTs with an even weaker engine that only made 160 hp / 180 lb-ft (car = 3100 lbs)... the Scion TC should be able to take these, but they are pretty rare.
_________

On a track, nearly anything is possible... So I believe you could have taken a 3000GT on a track if you were a significantly superior driver; but to say that the 3000GT is incapable or more difficult to tune and race than an 87 200SX is just plain wrong. There is just no way you are faster with a stock 200SX than you would be in a stock VR4.
_________

Xx3kgtxX - I would actually not recommend a 3000GT to someone that is not totally in love with it (same goes for the Supra and 300ZX). I bought my 92 VR4 when I as 19, and boy was I wrong about my ability to afford it. The sticker price is not your only concern. Reliability is OK, but even small mechanical problems cost you immensely. Mods are expensive and stock Mitsubishi replacement parts are just outrageous ($1750 for an ecu, WTF?). I got mine for $12k back in 2000, but probably spent $10k on it just in repairs and labor. Even with the cash, repairing the thing is also a pain... it is very difficult to find a mechanic qualified to fix such cars, and they are much more difficult to personally work on than an American muscle car or sport compact import. As such, I would wholeheartedly recommend you look into one of those, both are easy to mod, and even more importantly, easy and cheap to repair. Do not assume you can afford the car, just because you have the money to buy it!!! One two occasions mine had to just sit around for more than a year because I couldn't afford to fix it.
_________

Alex - 92 BPU VR4  

You're absolutely correct, Telionis. If it weren't for the fact that the 3000gt I raced against wasn't in such poor shape to begin with. I'm sure that there are well built ones all over... I've seen them as well, mind you! It is a taste thing. Shortly after I played a while with it I tuned it, restored a lot of what was not right with it and sold it. I don't truely thing that they are crap or any thing like that. I think that for the money you could go with a lighter body style than that one and play with some horses to make a serious monster like my now upgraded RB powered, all wheel drive 200sx with a tubular frame and removeable rear cage to switch from drift application to drag application! A lot af man hours have been put into it so far and I still have a few more things that need done and have no time for while my ribs are still healing. It will eventually go to Puerto Rico for a match heat when its done! Any way, you are right about that, though. I didn't mean to offend any one. Sorry.