Motorweek: 2014 Scion TC > FRS

[Timmy_Jones]

The TC is a great car for someone who isn't an enthusiast and lives in a snowy climate where everyone is going to tell them; RWD=Death.

In my completely non-professional opinion, the only car which I thought could be better than my FR-S was a Fiesta ST. And only some of the time, not all of the time.

The TC is is another category, not worth the comparison. Even if I do like how it looks.

[peri.Laynz]

I would.... go to jail for a RWD tC.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The kind of person considering a TC isn't going to care about aerodynamics or fitting four tires in the back (which I'm sure the TC can do as well), they want a something sportier than a corolla/civic, something slightly different, and reliable/economical, and that's the point of the review.

Exactly! So why would you even bring up the FRS in a TC review? Why not a Fiesta? Why not a Mazda 3? Why not a Prius? Why not a Land Cruiser or a Bentley? How about a GT3?? But oh yeah, pulling the FRS out of one's ass to compare to a TC just makes so much sense! Especially when the specific criticism mentioned is completely WRONG.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Timmy_Jones

The TC is a great car for someone who isn't an enthusiast and lives in a snowy climate where everyone is going to tell them; RWD=Death.

Subaru Impreza

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Exactly!

[TylerLieberman]

Lol people in here are so biased. Act as though the FRS is the absolute greatest car money can buy. It's good but it's aimed towards a specific market. There are loads of other cars out there that give more bang for the buck and cater to the masses better.

At this price range, I can think of numerous cars that are better all around. I bought an FRS though cause it had something SPECIFIC I wanted from a car.

Motorweek's review is pretty spot on. The TC is a more appealing every day car for the average buyer.

It's not like you're being forced to trade the FRS in for a TC cause motor week said they liked it better.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

Motorweek's review is pretty spot on.

Sure. If you don't believe in math.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Sure. If you don't believe in math.

Ok, let's use math.

For the same price as the FRS you can have:
Subaru wrx
Focus st
VW GTI
Genesis coupe
Mustang v6

So, since all of those cars are straight line faster, they are better....right?

Don't take what I say and use it out of context. Motor week says the tc is an all around more attractive package for the average buyer. I would agree. How many people come on here claiming they want an FRS and list the things they want in a car just to be told by forum members that the FRS isn't the right car for them?

The FRS and BRZ has an appeal to a certain type of individual. The car is attractive in the driving experience, something that CANNOT BE MEASURED BY NUMBERS-as everybody likes to say. For the same money, you can have a much more usable or much faster car. However, people choose the FRS because they specifically want what it has to offer.

I had a stage 2 2011 wrx that I traded away for an FRS, simply because I wanted a fun FR layout car to drift with again. Nothing else. If it weren't for that, I'd have the wrx still because as an all around car, it's just better. I actually had a 2012 tc that I traded in for the wrx too. It was fine as an everyday car. Lots more space than the FRS, but it left a lot to be desired in the fun factor category.

Everybody here says that the FRS is not for everybody, and the instant a car reviewer says that and suggests something else, people want to get their panties in a bundle. Who cares? We aren't communists. You can still keep your car even though a reviewer prefers another one..

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

Ok, let's use math.

For the same price as the FRS you can have:
Subaru wrx
Focus st
VW GTI
Genesis coupe
Mustang v6

So, since all of those cars are straight line faster, they are better....right?

Don't take what I say and use it out of context. Motor week says the tc is an all around more attractive package for the average buyer. I would agree. How many people come on here claiming they want an FRS and list the things they want in a car just to be told by forum members that the FRS isn't the right car for them?

The FRS and BRZ has an appeal to a certain type of individual. The car is attractive in the driving experience, something that CANNOT BE MEASURED BY NUMBERS-as everybody likes to say. For the same money, you can have a much more usable or much faster car. However, people choose the FRS because they specifically want what it has to offer.

I had a stage 2 2011 wrx that I traded away for an FRS, simply because I wanted a fun FR layout car to drift with again. Nothing else. If it weren't for that, I'd have the wrx still because as an all around car, it's just better. I actually had a 2012 tc that I traded in for the wrx too. It was fine as an everyday car. Lots more space than the FRS, but it left a lot to be desired in the fun factor category.

Everybody here says that the FRS is not for everybody, and the instant a car reviewer says that and suggests something else, people want to get their panties in a bundle. Who cares? We aren't communists. You can still keep your car even though a reviewer prefers another one..

Blah blah blah, nothing new here that hasn't been said already here and in 20 other threads on the forum. Don't take what I said out of context! Stop being self righteous and pay the frick attention to what they said, we said and you are saying.

They said don't buy the FRS over the TC because it lacks power. Math = FRS>TC in both horsepower and power/weight ratio. Spot on? GTFO.

Another reason their review sucks and is not spot on? About a million other cars that perform better than the TC using the same criteria, and are actually in a comparable class of vehicle that has nothing to do with the FRS. The comparison is stupid which makes the review far from spot on and hardly accurate as I pointed out. Saying it's 'spot on' is insinuating the review actually has some value in the comparison. I suppose if I compared a Dodge RAM Cummins Diesel to a Mini Cooper which is cheaper and more practical you'd say 'SPOT ON'! Cuz, you know, you need Motorweek to figure that shit out for you. Problem is it's an idiotic comparison to begin with thus has zero value.

The reason people are upset is because of completely false and inaccurate statements and a nonsensical comparison reeks of a less than honorable motive or just pure stupidity which has been a common theme with Motorweek for ages now. Sorry, but you've missed the nuance of this thread and instead just labelled every 86 owner here as a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. No.

Next time read the actual thread before jumping in and generalizing everyone's comments so you can formulate an informed response.

[MVJ1975]

I dumped my tC because it was too practical. I had these backseats and this cargo room, and I found I almost never used them. I was sacrificing driving fun and performance for dead space.

ETA: My FR-S on winter tires vs. my tC on all-seasons, it's not close for winter driveability. I've plowed off the road and gotten stuck with the tC, and the FR-S has gone uphill through a river of slush nearly up to the fenders and kept on going. Get season-appropriate tires and RWD is just fine in the winter.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Blah blah blah, nothing new here that hasn't been said already here and in 20 other threads on the forum. Don't take what I said out of context! Stop being self righteous and pay the frick attention to what they said, we said and you are saying.

They said don't buy the FRS over the TC because it lacks power. Math = FRS>TC in both horsepower and power/weight ratio. Spot on? GTFO.

Another reason their review sucks and is not spot on? About a million other cars that perform better than the TC using the same criteria, and are actually in a comparable class of vehicle that has nothing to do with the FRS. The comparison is stupid which makes the review far from spot on and hardly accurate as I pointed out. Saying it's 'spot on' is insinuating the review actually has some value in the comparison. I suppose if I compared a Dodge RAM Cummins Diesel to a Mini Cooper which is cheaper and more practical you'd say 'SPOT ON'! Cuz, you know, you need Motorweek to figure that shit out for you. Problem is it's an idiotic comparison to begin with thus has zero value.

The reason people are upset is because of completely false and inaccurate statements and a nonsensical comparison reeks of a less than honorable motive or just pure stupidity which has been a common theme with Motorweek for ages now. Sorry, but you've missed the nuance of this thread and instead just labelled every 86 owner here as a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. No.

Next time read the actual thread before jumping in and generalizing everyone's comments so you can formulate an informed response.

Self righteous? I don't think so.

The reason people get upset is because somebody has an opinion that isn't the same as their own.

I did read the the thread. I didn't miss much of anything. It's a bunch of back and forth on the credibility of their reviews and how they agree/disagree with what was said. Again, I said who cares if they have a certain opinion on the car. Not like it actually makes a difference to ones ownership experience.

Keep getting mad at shit that doesn't matter though.

[Erci]

It's important to remember than any motoring show / magazine > Motorweek

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

Keep getting mad at shit that doesn't matter though.

Lol, keep posting about shit you don't care about. Take your own advice.


You didn't fully read the thread, I pointed that out to you. People get upset at other people or programs that talk out of their ass.