Why Scion FR-S Sales Have Plunged

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

It is so true and I am as guilty as the next person. The Twins are for some reason fated to be "damned with faint praise".

When people approach me to ask about the car, I have never blurted out "It is fucking Awesome"; for some reason it goes " I really enjoy it BUT" .

This car has been an interesting study in the psyche of the automotive enthusiast.

It was no fun this morning as you can imagine with the freezing rain covering the car.

Ran it for half an hour before even trying to touch the ice. All worked well after I scraped though.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

The ONLY reason the twins have a back seat is for insurance purposes. Because of the target market, insurance costs needed to be low.

Eh, I think there's some very valuable practicality added by allowing for the space back there, a full set of tires in the back, enough tools to disassemble the car and put it back together, roadtrips for 2 (I've done 3 people from SoCal to NorCal, ~7 hours on the road) and four adults is not an impossibility for me.

There's a reason Toyobaru sold 60k+ of these things and Mazda didn't see a 60k increase in Miata sales (actually <17k over the same period).

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Eh, I think there's some very valuable practicality added by allowing for the space back there, a full set of tires in the back, enough tools to disassemble the car and put it back together, roadtrips for 2 (I've done 3 people from SoCal to NorCal, ~7 hours on the road) and four adults is not an impossibility for me.

There's a reason Toyobaru sold 60k+ of these things and Mazda didn't see a 60k increase in Miata sales (actually <17k over the same period).

Hence the fold down seats.

That space would have still been there w/o a back seat.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

I'll be that guy.

If you bought a twin because you needed something to take your kid around in. You bought the wrong car period.
If you are a soccer dad, be a soccer dad. Don't turn your nose up at a sports car because you can't fit your kid in it.

You are absolutely right. People looking to spend 50k on a car, probably didn't cross shop with a 25-30k car. Definitely not for a family car.

The ONLY reason the twins have a back seat is for insurance purposes. Because of the target market, insurance costs needed to be low.

However; people shopping for a sports car. Did cross shop the twin with many other sports car. Potentially ones that were beyond the 50k price tag.

Those guys wanted a track car, a weekend toy. Granted a twin doesn't have the performance #s of those more expensive cars, but the driving feel is there w/o the 50K+ price tag.

The kid is in the car two days a week. We also have a specific family car for family outings. I only have one kid and that is all that we are planning to have. The FR-S is just big enough for my occasional use.

My basic point is that some of the compromises I'm willing to deal with in a $25k car are not something I'd be willing to deal with in a $40k car. I'm not turning my nose up at them. Those cars just don't have a place in my personal situation at that price.

I don't buy into the back seat helping for insurance purposes by an appreciable amount. As soon as people start crashing them, they will have sky high rates like the WRX. Maybe the first year, rates were low, but I bet it is considered a higher risk car like the WRX now.


Sent from Tandy 400

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Hence the fold down seats.

That space would have still been there w/o a back seat.

You think they'd miss the opportunity to shorten the wheelbase? Toyota went out of house to get a motor with a lower c.g. and gave up a lot of technical knowledge to get it, I have a hunch the seats were a low cost opportunity, not a compromise, tires are a squeeze after all, barely enough room for a small set of tools, helmet and duffel:




@Quentin My insurance rates have dropped every year of ownership, given that I'm about to hit the 25 year old mark I expect them to drop again for me this year, even if there's an uptick in risk for the car.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You think they'd miss the opportunity to shorten the wheelbase? Toyota went out of house to get a motor with a lower c.g. and gave up a lot of technical knowledge to get it, I have a hunch the seats were a low cost opportunity, not a compromise, tires are a squeeze after all, barely enough room for a small set of tools, helmet and duffel:




@Quentin My insurance rates have dropped every year of ownership, given that I'm about to hit the 25 year old mark I expect them to drop again for me this year, even if there's an uptick in risk for the car.

Target market. They were making a sports car for a target market.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Target market. They were making a sports car for a target market.

So you agree that the rear seats were not for insurance purposes only?

That's kind of my only argument.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

So you agree that the rear seats were not for insurance purposes only?

That's kind of my only argument.

No.. not at all.

Its quite comical that you are trying to say "The car has back seats so you can fold them down! (ehem, not use them)"

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

No.. not at all.

Its quite comical that you are trying to say "The car has back seats so you can fold them down! (ehem, not use them)"

But that's the thing, I have them folded up most of the time for storage space (helmet, laptop, bags in the rear passenger seats) and taking 3+ people places.

If they were eliminated completely I contend that the logical step would be to make the car smaller, sacrificing storage space, something they didn't want to do.

The rear seats are a there based on the space required for Toyota's target market, not a compromise to 'reduce insurance rates'. Just like 911's, Mustangs, BMW M3 etc.

Insurance rate for the 'four seater' Scion was higher (first three, ~$250/mo) than the 'two seater' Miata (second three, ~$200/mo), wouldn't your logic dictate the opposite as the Miata is the less responsible car to own? (Prices based on 2013 model, 20 y.o. driver, high mileage commute, with a clean record, in a high traffic area and el-cheapo insurance companies that aren't the best bargain, just wanted quick baseline comparison)

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

But that's the thing, I have them folded up most of the time for storage space (helmet, laptop, bags in the rear passenger seats) and taking 3+ people places.

If they were eliminated completely I contend that the logical step would be to make the car smaller, sacrificing storage space, something they didn't want to do.

The rear seats are a there based on the space required for Toyota's target market, not a compromise to 'reduce insurance rates'. Just like 911's, Mustangs, BMW M3 etc.

Insurance rate for the 'four seater' Scion was higher (first three, ~$250/mo) than the 'two seater' Miata (second three, ~$200/mo), wouldn't your logic dictate the opposite as the Miata is the less responsible car to own? (Prices based on 2013 model, 20 y.o. driver, high mileage commute, with a clean record, in a high traffic area and el-cheapo insurance companies that aren't the best bargain, just wanted quick baseline comparison)

Engine displacement, # of air-bags, A ROOF, crash test ratings, ALL of these things are considered when calculating insurance rates.

Are you SHOCKED that your 2 door hardtop is cheaper than a 2 seater roadster?

Edit: I apologize, I mis-read.

Now, that is against the norm, but like I said, a lot of things are considered like: engine displacement, power ratings, the average age of owners...

[tahdizzle]

Let me break it down like this. Insurance companies feel that cars with only 2 seats are all sports cars.

Being a sports car, insurance companies feel you are more likely to get yourself into trouble.

If the engine discplacement is small and it gets good gas mileage as well as having 4 seats. Guess what, its no longer a "sports car" but an econobox like a Civic Si.

Now I feel that I have to explain how insurance rates affect the target market.
based on an average of $200/$10,000 financed, **** and Jane are probably spending about 600 dollars on their ft86.
BUT their ft86 only has 2 seats and when they get their insurance quote, its $2,000/6 mos because its a sports car.

Now this middle-class family who loves their twin is spending close to $1,000 dollars a month on their little 200hp ft86.

Let me ask you, if their target market is joe blow 25 year old making ~50k a year, or less depending on thier situation, do you think they are meeting the demand of their target market buy saying "This car will only cost you $1,000 a month to own!"?

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

Engine displacement, # of air-bags, A ROOF, crash test ratings, ALL of these things are considered when calculating insurance rates.

Are you SHOCKED that your 2 door hardtop is cheaper than a 2 seater roadster?

I think you need to re-read my post... The two seater sports car is cheaper to insure than the four seater 'econo-box' FRS...

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I think you need to re-read my post... The two seater sports car is cheaper to insure than the four seater 'econo-box' FRS...

Yup, it really comes down to how often it is wrecked and how much it costs to right things (fix the car, pay the medical bills, damages, etc.). Cars driven by people that regularly wreck, spectacularly, get higher rates. The capability of the car is maybe considered for the base rates, but the rates are quickly pulled into matching the actual condition once the insurance companies get some data. If we all drove the speed limit, wore our seatbelts, and somehow got hypnotized into thinking more like women as far as our risk taking, twin rates would be no different than any other $25k car. 😄

To be perfectly honest, I was a safer driver in our Prius v, Rav4, or 4Runner. The temptation to take risks wasn't there.

Sent from Tandy 400

[paulca]

Originally Posted by Quentin

To be perfectly honest, I was a safer driver in our Prius v, Rav4, or 4Runner. The temptation to take risks wasn't there.

For the most part I found that the GT86 slowed me down. Same when I bought the Honda CBF1000. It seemed there was no longer anything to prove to myself or otherwise and high speed was so readily available it wasn't a challenge anymore and stopped being as much fun or having as much appeal.

In the GT86 I find myself slowing down more for corners so I can accelerate through them without breaking the limit.

Odd, but there you have it.