Scion sibling rivalry, FR-S vs tC

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by zootramp

Have you driven a stock TC?

I have taken the 2011 out for a couple of test drives and it feels like my wife's 4 cylinder Rav4. It just is NOT fun to drive.

Were any reviewers giving it a 10 out of 10 for driving pleasure?

I expect a lot more pep and fun from the FRS.

Well it practically IS the 4 cylinder from a Rav4 (well 2.5L from the Camry, but thats also pretty much the same engine lol). And yes it is far from a sporty engine. It has good power, but its a VERY LAZY engine.

One car is a sports car, the other car is a sporty car.

[titusdrake]

I used to own a Release Series 2.0 tC, i sold it because

A. It is not fast, It is not sporty, no matter how hard you try it IS NOT SPORTY/SPORTS CAR/FAST i had all kinds of mods on it, exhaust, intake, short throw, tower bar..just..not..sporty..its a practical college car.

B. I dont fit in it, the mandatory sunroof, while awesome cuts down headroom.

FR-S is in a different league. price IS 2,000 more than what it should be, but Toyota wants to make money on their 4 year endeavor

[colHolm]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

No. No way a salesperson is going to talk a prospective tC buyer into a car $5k+ more.

Agreed, but how many people that come in to see the FR-S will walk out with a tC?

[brufleth]

"The second-generation tC is built from the third-generation Toyota Avensis platform."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scion_TC#Second_generation

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I first got into a tC. They're a damn fine car and if I were still right out of college I'd probably strongly consider one. They aren't a sports car though. They're a modified family car made to look more appealing to a different group of people. Nothing wrong with that but as others have stated, sort of an apples to oranges comparison.

[titusdrake]

Originally Posted by brufleth

"The second-generation tC is built from the third-generation Toyota Avensis platform."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scion_TC#Second_generation

I was actually pleasantly surprised when I first got into a tC. They're a damn fine car and if I were still right out of college I'd probably strongly consider one. They aren't a sports car though. They're a modified family car made to look more appealing to a different group of people. Nothing wrong with that but as others have stated, sort of an apples to oranges comparison.

/thread

[NERO]

To me, I don't even see the two cars in the same category and I doubt Scion does either. The tC is a true 2+2, while the FR-S is not (at least not to me, sat in the BRZ yesterday and that back seat is not usable unless the person driving is 5' tall). RWD is a true sports car platform, FWD is obviously not. Development of a brand new motor, chassis, new seat designed for the car, etc. There was a ton of engineering that went into this vehicle that can't be ignored. I think all judgement should be reserved until you get to drive it.

[neutron256]

Originally Posted by NERO

To me, I don't even see the two cars in the same category and I doubt Scion does either. The tC is a true 2+2, while the FR-S is not (at least not to me, sat in the BRZ yesterday and that back seat is not usable unless the person driving is 5' tall). RWD is a true sports car platform, FWD is obviously not. Development of a brand new motor, chassis, new seat designed for the car, etc. There was a ton of engineering that went into this vehicle that can't be ignored. I think all judgement should be reserved until you get to drive it.

Don't confuse 2+2 seating with 4 seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2B2_(car_body_style)

2+2 means the back seats are small and not meant for regular use. The tC is a four seat coupe.

[Dimman]

The dynamics difference I completely understand. But the do the dollar figures really make sense?

Toyota puts tons of development into NVH abolishing to make their other cars more appliance-like, so that isn't it. And they both share components with mass-produced siblings.

Plus the tC has bigger rims and tires and the glass roof. We are talking about $5k for nominal mechanical differences. On a split-development cost car.

And the BRZ guys are also already hearing $1k-$5k dealer mark-ups.

Something to think about if you see 'market adjustment' pricing.

I wonder how much the FR-S in the showroom will enhance tC sales, too.

[andcas7]

I've thought about this same topic, and compared, but honestly I think the FR-S looks a lot better, and comparing it to the 2012 TC, it just can't be compared when it comes to "sporty".

The TC definitely has more bang for your buck if what you want is a nice car that not only looks good, but is reliable.

What really does it for me is:
tC has very limited colors (although I prefer their white with glass roof)
tC is a bit too "square" for me
tC has less MPG rating, bigger engine, less power compared to FR-S

Those are the top 3 reasons I would take the FR-S over the tC, but really, I do hope a lot of kids considering the FR-S (and don't know enough about it) will opt out for the tC, which gives us FR-S customers higher chance of getting what we want

Basically ignore what I said and get a tC and leave the FR-S at the dealer :happy0180:

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by andcas7

I've thought about this same topic, and compared, but honestly I think the FR-S looks a lot better, and comparing it to the 2012 TC, it just can't be compared when it comes to "sporty".

The TC definitely has more bang for your buck if what you want is a nice car that not only looks good, but is reliable.

What really does it for me is:
tC has very limited colors (although I prefer their white with glass roof)
tC is a bit too "square" for me
tC has less MPG rating, bigger engine, less power compared to FR-S

Those are the top 3 reasons I would take the FR-S over the tC, but really, I do hope a lot of kids considering the FR-S (and don't know enough about it) will opt out for the tC, which gives us FR-S customers higher chance of getting what we want

Basically ignore what I said and get a tC and leave the FR-S at the dealer :happy0180:

Playing devil's advocate. This is a 'driving experience free' comparison exercise.

Still wonder if the pricing has to do with actively trying to pump up the tCs sales with the FR-S as a halo car. Interesting to think about from a dealer's perspective, too. With a customer eyeing up both, will the sales rep pressure towards the tC in hopes of clinching a quick sale with lower price/payments to the buyer, or towards the FR-S for more money (assuming that's how the commission works, or if there is more $ in the FR-S' price)?

[blur]

I really think you can't compare the two of them, if you don't care for driving experience then what's the point of even considering a sports car? We already know the FR-S/BRZ is overpriced from a statistical point of view; hence why the GC and WRX are always compared to it.

If you take away the sole reason this car was developed on(driving experience), then of course it'll appear as a inferior car.

What's next? Power doesn't matter? You can get a civic DX for 15.5k with 140hp which is arguable a better platform than the tC for modifications, and gets better gas mileage.

Let me ask you; have you ever said to yourself: "the tC looks like a better deal than the FR-S, I might consider it..."? If yes, then the definition of "a better deal" is cheaper commute. If no, then you understand that this car is about smiles/$, not stats and figures.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by blur

I really think you can't compare the two of them, if you don't care for driving experience then what's the point of even considering a sports car? We already know the FR-S/BRZ is overpriced from a statistical point of view; hence why the GC and WRX are always compared to it.

If you take away the sole reason this car was developed on(driving experience), then of course it'll appear as a inferior car.

What's next? Power doesn't matter? You can get a civic DX for 15.5k with 140hp which is arguable a better platform than the tC for modifications, and gets better gas mileage.

Let me ask you; have you ever said to yourself: "the tC looks like a better deal than the FR-S, I might consider it..."? If yes, then the definition of "a better deal" is cheaper commute. If no, then you understand that this car is about smiles/$, not stats and figures.

I think most of the community here sees things as you describe it, but I'm looking at this from an average buyer's point of view and what effect that may have down the road.

Plus trying to keep pricing perspective when we are hearing about markups and such. The dealership doesn't have to pay any more for the driving experience...

[blur]

This car is a niche car; I doubt the average buyer would pay a premium for something he likely doesn't need.

[TylerLieberman]

I own a 2012 TC and hate it. The rev hang, the piss poor steering feel. The soft & flimsy feeling chasis and so much more. It's not bad for a simple DD but if you're looking for me, the TC doesn't compare. I've had mine for about 6 months now and I'm glad it's going this weekend