Scion sibling rivalry, FR-S vs tC
 

Thought I'd throw this up out of interest due to the speculated $24.2k pricing thread. Doesn't apply too much to the RWD focused buyers, but wonder how it would look to Joe Average or Suzy Secretary. Also, if the $24.2k price is legit, is it justified?

tC
$19.3k
2+2 Coupe
FWD
2.5L
180 hp @ 6000
173 lb-ft @ 4100
6M or 6A
Vented disc/solid disc brakes f/r
Electric power steering
MacPherson strut front suspension
Double Wishbone rear suspension
18" rims
225/45R18 tires
'Normal' Injection
23/31 MPG city/hwy
3060 lbs manual
Strong aftermarket support


FR-S
$24.2k ???
2+2ish Coupe
RWD
2.0L
200 hp @ 7000 rpm
151 lb-ft @ 6600 rpm
6M or 6A
Vented disc/Vented disc brakes f/r
Electric power steering
MacPherson strut front suspension
Double Wishbone rear suspension
17" rims
215/45R17 tires
D4-S port/direct combination injection
20-something/30-something MPG
~2700 lbs
Will have strong aftermarket support.

So not counting the weight and RWD, very similar cars. But if the $24.2k is correct, that's ~25% more money for a rather similar car.

Both cars are somewhat 'parts bin' in nature, but the FR-S had an associate company contributing to the development and manufacturing costs.

Is the apparent 'proper execution' really worth a 25% premium from a purely financial standpoint (rear LSD diff, driveshaft and 4 extra injectors worth ~$5k) ? How much is 'passion' worth in dollars?

On a side note, the pricing may keep this car more available to the enthusiasts, as the 'sporty coupe' buyers may be dissuaded by sticker shock, and just opt for the much cheaper tC instead.

Thoughts?

Scion sales department thoughts on this would be interesting as well. How do they sell the two cars?

Funny from that breakdown I it doesn't look at all like they aren't very similar. The FR-S seems to be a little better in just about every category which adds up to a lot better over all.

Also the Tc would generally be considered 4 seats. The FR-S is pretty much the definition of 2+2 seating.

Really? They trade about 20 hp for 20 lb-ft, suspension same, transmissions same, FR-S smaller wheels and tires. tC has super fancy glass roof, that I forgot to mention...

Looking at it without the 'hype goggles' would an average buyer say that the price difference is justified?

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

From a casual glance using the lens of John Q Public, it doesn't make sense why one 2-door costs 4k less when the other 2-door still has 4 cylinders, a smaller backseat, and barely more hp. Bet the tC has more cup holders too.

So if mechanics:dollars Joe Average would have a tough time justifying the difference, why don't we?

Passion is expensive...

:word:

It really is interesting. Although not a drivers car per say, the TC is a far better value for your money...

Well for one thing, a car is sorta like a fashion statement of sorts, and a tC loses by a long shot in the looks department :P

Other than that, you're right, very hard to justify the purchase.

Yup as a daily-driver, practical coupe, you wouldn't give the FRS a second look. There is no value in it over the tC, from that point of view...

...that said I've never given Scion a second look before the FRS :-)

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.

(sorry tC owners) The tC can be the girl's car, and the FRS the boy's car... Tada.. RWD, low engine with wishbone suspension and a lower sportier looking car for about $5k more is fine. Only $3k would have been better

:happy0180:

Dimman's post is still interesting if you really think about it and take any subjective preference/fanboy favoritism out of the equation. Makes you wonder where those extra $5k goes? RWD layout? Boxer engine? Engine being lower and further back?

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.

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

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

"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

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.

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.

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 :thumbup:

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)?

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...

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

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

the TC rev hangs? Did not know that, does it occur in the camry as well then?

confused on why people keep saying 200 hp when it had only 170 something whp on dynos?

dyno is wheel horse power and factors in drivetrain loss.

the 200hp is the crank rating and what manufacturers list for their cars

yes but its bad that they market it at 200hp when its not really that. whp is what matters. What makes it to the wheels. not figurative hp that is not being wasted.

Crank rating is more reliable since it is regulated/standardized. It is well known in tuning circles that different chassis dyno manufacturers get different whp results. Plus independent shops each have their own testing procedure. Some shops even play with correction factors to make their customer cars look better...

But since every manufacturer follows the same regs comparing their figures is more reliable.

New to cars?

not new i just don't like how manufactures use a sly tactic to say this car has this much hp, when people care about whp, and it clearly does not have that whp.

Also on the dyno testing it does not matter the manufacture knew that it made that at the crank and could of easily said what it really made in whp with out a dyno.

It's the best indicator of engine performance because that is all it is measuring. Drivetrain losses are much more difficult to quantify.

When tuning an engine an engine dyno is best. Chassis dyno can then be used to evaluate different gear oil parasitic losses or reciprocating mass reductions for example.

Since it is the most consistent way there is nothing 'sly' about it.

lol

^ What he said. You can think of it like retail prices. Prices here in the US are advertised without tax, because it's going to vary depending on location. WHP is going to depend on various things, BHP (200hp) is what everyone can use as a constant.

Yesterday I wanted to say that the best way to truly evaluate whether the engine is overrated from the factory or not would be put one, out of a production car sold blindly, on an engine dyno and then back into the car and onto a chassis dyno. I figured your average tuning house won't have that kind of equipment though, only the larger ones.

Back OT:

I know a few people who can't understand the sportscar "thing" even though they are of the demographic that might be interested in one, and generally like cars. They'd likely be more inclined to go for the tC (if it looked better!). I wonder if in some cases it is because these guys have never had the experience of driving a first-rate communicative sportscar or even sports coupe/sedan like a BMW 328. I don't know that I would have any real interest in buying this car myself if I had not driven my father's 911 regularly as a teen - it was such an amazing experience I was hooked, and I am hoping the Toyobaru gives me a good chunk of that feeling.

I'm not sure about your age but I can say in my age group (early-mid 20's), very few people I know are really interested in cars. I guess they just never really got any experience outside of playing Gran Turismo 1 for a few weeks till they got bored of it. These are the people who would go for a tC.