By CL member request, a static-review of the 2012 Scion iQ minicar.

http://www.scion.com/cars/iQ/

IN A NUTSHELL: A Smarter Smart.



















I got a few CL-member requests some time ago for a Scion iQ review, but, unfortunately, it has taken Scion some time to release this car for sale outside of its Western region (it's still not available here for sale yet). So, folks, sorry for the delay for the MM-Review, but, of course, the auto-press and media have made a number of reviews and test-drives, and they are available on the Internet and in magazines. I did get to do a static-review, though.......read on.

The idea of producing true minicars for the American market, of course, has not been popular over the years, but is not unheard of by any means. But, as most of you know, few if any of them were ultimately successful. And, of course, by minicar, I'm not talking about cars in the old VW Beetle/Datsun F10/Renault-LeCar class, but at least one size-class below that. Subaru released its 360 minicar here in 1969 (to the non-endearment of Consumer Reports), and quickly pulled it back...even its later 90s-vintage Justy was not successful here either. England's brilliant and space-efficient Mini of the 1960s was also tried here, with a small but loyal following and limited success. A few battery/electric minicars have been introduced here in recent years (such as the Corbin Sparrow), but have likewise not gone very far (no pun intended) because of cruising-range and safety-problems. Americans, for a number of reasons, just haven't gravitated much to true minicars, and the Detroit automakers, of course, have found little or no economic incentive or profit to build them, even with ever-tightening, government-demanded CAFE gas-mileage and emission requirements.

And, given the unique driving conditions on many American Interstates, with 80,000-lb., 18-wheel semi-trucks barrelling along at high speeds, almost everybody else in cars of at least compact-sub-compact size or greater at 2500-3000 lbs, people yakking away on cellphones behind the wheel and not paying attention, and relatively few drivers obeying posted speed-limits, can you actually BLAME most Americans for not wanting to venture out in little 9 and 10-feet-long buzz-mobiles that weigh only 2000 lbs or less and offer little structure around the occupants for safety? While cars of this type, with their super-short turning radius/manuverability and ability to park almost anywhere, are probably nice to have in a crowded big city (if the potholes don't eat them up), many people that actually do live in big cities (New York/Manhattan is a prime example) simply take a taxi or bus/subway route to where they want to go and forget cars altogether.

But that does not mean that the true minicar has NO acceptance by the American public. No one, for example, can dispute the relative sales-success of the Mercedes-designed Smart-for-Two (I reviewed one several years ago, when it first debuted in the D.C. area). The Smart, here in the U.S, was not imported by Mercedes itself, but by successful race-team owner Roger Penske's Auto Group. Even trying to be objective in my reviews, though, I could find little to praise in the Smart. It has some solid interior/door-hardware, a Mecedes-designed safety-roll-cage, and dent-corrosion-resistent thermo-plastic body-panels that are easily detached for accident-repair or a body-color change (if desired) but that's just about it. It is loud, has no back seat, tipsy, leans like Humpty-Dumpty while cornering (I had to be careful not to flip it), sluggish, burns premium gas instead of regular, and has what is arguably the worst-shifting auto-manual transmission on the market. In the lower gears, the transmission makes the whole car buck back and forth like a rocking-horse while shifting. Worse, to add insult to injury, Penske would not offer a full 4/50 Mercedes-warranty with it, but limited everything (even the unrefined drivetrain) to only 2/24 (that will reportedly be addressed when Mercedes itself soon takes over the next-generation Smart's importation and sales).

OK, so the Smart wasn't the planet's most sophisticated car. But, perhaps for the first time in many decades, a fair number of Americans actually bought a car like that. The safety-roll-cage was heavily advertised, and had some effect on the car's sales. And, of course, other automakers took notice and decided that there may be a potential market in the U.S. for a somewhat better, improved Smart....which brings us to the subject of this review, the Scion iQ.

Having been introduced in 2009, the iQ, of course, has been sold overseas as the Toyota iQ for a few years now (with Scion being a strictly American division). According to Toyota, the "i" stands for "individuality" "innovation" and "intelligence", while the "Q" stands for "quality" and points to the iQ's "cubic" shape. While this is strictly my opinion (and not necessarily fact), my guess is that the term 'iQ" had something to do with its "Smart" competitor, as IQ is a measure of brain-power. The iQ, of course, will be Scion's entry-level model in both price and size, though its 16K price (including freight) is virtually the same as that of the substantially larger Scion xD.

For 2012, only one iQ version/trim-level will be offered in the U.S. It comes with FWD, a 1.3L VVT-i in-line four with 94 HP and 89 ft-lbs.of torque, and a CVT (continuously-variable) transmission. No conventional manual transmission is offered, which is odd for a gas-powered, non-hybrid car of this class (several press-reviews have commented on that). Scion planned a multi-step (and, IMO, unnecessary) sales-introduction for the iQ, starting on the West Coast in late 2011 and the rest of the country in the spring of 2012. With the exception iof a number of different stereo/NAV packages available, it offers much fewer dealer/factory accessories than other Scions, which is odd, considering that Scion primarily markets to young buyers that like to customize their cars. Many of those young buyers also like a conventional manual transmission, which, of course, the American-market iQ currently lacks.

Other automakers will also soon be introducing vehicles this size to the American market, such as the upcoming Chevrolet Spark and Suzuki A-Star (if Suzuki doesn't give up soon and leave the American-market). Like it or not, Americans, especially in dense-traffic urban areas and with currently (by American-standards) rather exensive gas prices, are gradually downsizing into smaller vehicles, though, for many, cars of this size are still a hard sell. People who have been driving full-size Buicks, Mercurys/Lincolns, and Cadillacs, and who like their ride-comfort and isolation, probably aren't going to convert to cars like the Smart and iQ overnight.

A few of you have asked for a full-iQ review, but it will not be available in this area for sales or test-drives for a month or two yet (it is already on sale in the West Coast/Alaska region). However, Scion brought two of them to the Washington, D.C. Auto Show (where I spent much of last week), with one of them on the floor, unlocked. So, I decided, while I had the chance, to do a static-review of one inside and out. Unfortunately, while Toyota had several new models available at the show for a brief test-drive circuit around the local city-streets, Scion didn't. But, even with the crowds at the show, I did get a chance to thoroughly inspect the car inside and out, so I'll write it up now......with the option of test-driving it later and updating the review.



MODEL REVIEWED: 2012 Scion iQ.

BASE PRICE: $15,995


OPTIONS:


DESTINATION/FREIGHT: N/A

LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: (None.....Washington, D.C. show-display model)


EXTERIOR COLOR: Black Currant Metallic

INTERIOR: Gray/Black cloth


DRIVETRAIN: FWD, Transverse-mounted 1.3L VVT-i in-line four, 94 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque, 89 Ft-lbs. @ 4400 RPM, CVT (continuously-variable) transmission.




EPA MILEAGE RATING: 36 City / 37 Highway




PLUSSES:


Can be parked almost anywhere.

Easy-deal, no-haggle, Saturn-style pricing eliminates bargaining at the dealership (and, of course, mark-ups).

Superb turning-circle/tight-space manuverability.

Excellent EPA city-MPG rating.

Burns regular fuel, unlike the Smart-for-Two.

Has a full Toyota/Scion warranty, not just two years like the Smart.

Good exterior body sheet-metal and hardware.

Excellent paint job.

Classy, attractive (IMO) Black Currant Metallic paint-color.

Standard side-mirror turn-signals.

Simple, non-nonsense dash/controls.

Front seat room adequate for most adults.

Superb underhood layout.

(Likely) Toyota/Scion reliability.

TRD suspension-parts available.




MINUSES:


Zig-zag transmission shifter (I prefer a fore/aft pattern)

Odd-looking front-seat upholstery on some versions.

No manual transmission for the American market.

Drum rear brakes.

No significant cargo-space with rear-seat up.

No standard body-side-mouldings (but they are a dealer-accessory).

Nationwide release-date, IMO, was delayed too long (except for the West Coast)

EPA Highway-MPG not particularly good for a car this size.

Rather plain-looking monotone body lacks some bright trim.

Rear seat (as expected) unsuitable for many adults.

Hard-to-use, undersized, under-seat tray replaces traditional glove-box.



EXTERIOR:

On the first-glance of the exterior, from its basic shape, there's little question that this car is aimed directly at the Smart-for-Two, although the Toyota/Scion parentage in the grille and front-end, IMO, is obvious. Its length and width are a little longer and wider (but not that much) than the Smart-for-Two (which probably adds to stability), and the body-panels are conventional sheet-metal and paint instead of the Smart's pre-painted, clip-on thermoplastic panels (which does give the Smart one its few advantages over the iQ...easier accident-repair and panel-replacement). Overall, the iQ offers seven exterior paint-colors (some of the usual shades, of course), and I liked at least a few of them. There were two iQs at the Washington, D.C. Auto Show this year, and the one I static-reviewed for this report (it was out on the floor, unlocked) was painted a Black Currant Metallic, a gorgeous (IMO) medium-to-dark brownish-purple color. Ordinarily, I don't care for dull colors, but I usually like almost anything with at least some purple in it, and this color was close to one of my favorite shades......Amythist. The other iQ was aso public-accessable but locked....it was white. Both cars, of course, being official show-models, had been buffed/polished and detailed to perfection. Every few minutes, show-floor employees would come by with Instant-Wax brushes and wipe off all the fingerprints the public (including myself) left.....out of courtesy, I sometimes wiped them off myself. All of the exterior trim and hardware, was well-attached and seemed of good quality, and the twin-outside mirrors snap-swiveled and locked smoothly and firmly. The side-mirrors had standard integral turn-signal-indicators, unusual in this class. The doors and rear-hatch-lid, especially with the windows open, closed with a solid, quality-sounding thunk, and, especially for the car's small size, didn't feel or sound tinny.

There were a couple of things I didn't care for, though, on the exterior. One, a common and ever-increasing problem with many new cars was a lack of traditional body-side mouldings to help ward off parking-lot dings. At the auto show, the product-representatives from some companies tried to pass this off as simply "new styling trends". The more honest (and knowledgeable) ones, of course, admitted what it actually is....simple penny-pitching and cost-cutting. However, unlike on some some other new cars, they are available as an extra-cost dealer-accessory. Another was the noted lack of chrome or bright-trim...even the twin Scion-logos on the grille and rear-hatch were more of a muted, brushed-metal finish than chrome. This, IMO, made the body look rather dull, except for the attractive paint-color. Another one (and a problem shared with the Smart), is that the ultra-short, droop-down front-end, from the drivers' seat, made it hard to gauge where the end of the car was for parking.....though the car's diminutive size, of course, ensures that it will fit into many small spaces that other cars can't.


UNDERHOOD:

Open up the tiny hood, and it is, of course, braced by a manual prop-rod, which you would more-or-less expect in this price/size-class (Still, I'd like to see struts or springs standard on all vehicles). Even with steel sheet metal of a decent thickness, the hood itself is still rather light because of its small size. I don't recall seeing an underhood insulation-pad, either. Unlike on the Smart cars, the iQ's engine is up front, under the hood, and, oriented transversely, drives the front wheels. Despite the small engine-compartment and its limited space, the small 1.3L in-line four fits in quite well, and has no annoying plastic covers on it anywhere. Access to many of the engine-components is excellent. The battery, just to the right, is also very-easily accessed, as is just about everything else under the hood, including filler-caps, dipsticks, and fluid-reservoirs.



INTERIOR:

The interior is simple and basic, though fairly well-finished for this size and price-class. Although Scion markets it as the "World's Smallest Four-Seater", consider the rear-seat a package-shelf or, at best, for children...especially if there are large adults up front with their seats adjusted-back some. Still, the fact that there is a rear-seat at all puts it a step ahead of the Smart-for-Two...and, in the Smart, the engine/transmission are back just under the seats, not up-front behind the firewall and isolated like in the iQ. There is decent headroom in back (though not leg room) if you DO shoehorn an average-sized adult back there....but it had better be just for a quick ride to the store, not a long trip. The engine's rather paltry 89 ft-lbs. of torque, though, probably isn't enough spunk to haul four big adults, however, even if they COULD fit....and, by the specs, the car might technically be overloaded.

Up front, there is good room for even two big adults like me, mostly because of the car's somewhat high, conservative roofline and reasonable width. The seats are fairly comfortable, though the lower-cushions, like many Toyota-sourced vehicles, are a little short for good thigh-support. the front-seat upholstery-pattern (not shared with the rear seats) is quite unusual.....the lower-cushions are a series of two-tone gray dots, while the seat-backs are solid-black cloth. I've never seen something like that on a production-car (unless a separate seat-cover is used) and even the Scion reps there couldn't give a reason for it, except just a unusual design. The rear seat, in contrast, is all-black-cloth. The three-spoke steering wheel is nicely-designed and comfortable to hold. Dash and door-panel material trim-quality both seem OK for a car of this class, though it's obvious that you are not in a luxury-car. Instrumentation on the dash is minimal, with a largish speedometer and a smaller tach ocupying a plastic, teardrop-shaped housing right behind the wheel that points to the right....the rest of the electronic-readouts occupy the area to the left of the housing or, along with some *****, in a separate shiny-black, cheap-feeling plastic housing that sticks up above the middle of the dash. The three major climate-control *****, like on the Toyota Yaris, are arranged vertically on the lower-center of the dash, above the console. They look fairly nice, and feel and operate smoothly...a step above some of those on other Toyota/Scion products. One of the major shortcomings of the interior is the complete lack of a conventional, in-dash globebox. Instead, one has to make do with a small, flimsy, thin-plastic tray, tucked under the passengers' seat, that is difficult to reach, and even MORE difficult to pull out or push back in, because it has a tendency to jam up on its side-rails. Look for (probably) some customer-complaints on this design.

I didn't get to listen to the stereo to judge sound-quality, even though this floor-display-car had power hooked up to it....I hope to do that on the
test-drive.



CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:

A car this size, of course, is not expected to have much cargo-space in back...after all, you're not buying a full-size wagon or SUV. And, with the small rear-seat in the up-position, there indeed is practically none, although the car's rather conservative high rear-roofline and squarish-styling does help some. The rear-glass panels wrap-around into both C-pillars, but only the part with the hatch-lid actually goes up and down. Drop the rear seats, and, though they don't quite fold into a flat-floor, it does offer some useful cargo-space....but you still aren't going to carry a whole lot. The cargo area itself is finished fairly well in some decent materials and fabric/carpets, but its very small size precludes even the use of a small donut-spare tire. Instead, under the floor, (and in a couple of useful under-floor cubbies), you'll find a portable air-compressor (the type that plugs into the cigarette lighter/plug-outlet) and a bottle of Fix-a-Flat.




ON THE ROAD:

Delayed, of course, until I can get an adequate test-drive.



THE VERDICT:

I'll also leave most of this blank until after the test-drive, but in general, otherwise, it seems to be a MUCH easier car to live with as a daily-driver than the Smart.

And, as always......Happy Car Shopping.

MM

 

I think its an oversight by ToMoCo not offering this car with a traditional manual. A manual would help you get every last horse out of that tiny engine as apposed to the power robbing automatic

 

I think the main reason we don't see a traditional three-pedal manual is the (primarily) urban, big-city use this car is obviously intended for. Added to that, of course, is the noted efficiency of CVTs, which usually means minimal power-draw from the engine, though I'll admit that, even with the excellent 36-City-MPG rating, the 37-Highway figure is not impressive for a car of this size and weight.

 

What a horrible interior. I just don't know why anyone in the u.s. would want one.

 

I can find a NICE used Prius at 16k before taxes. More roomy and better fuel economy. I fail to see the purpose of said cars in America.

Also that interior looks pretty 'bare/cheap' to me at 16k.

 

Well, they're buying up Smart cars (at least in this D.C. area), which, IMO, are considerably worse.

 

The iQ, though, like the Smart for Two, can park and manuver in spaces much smaller than any Prius......even the smaller 1Gen Prius models. It is obviously designed for big-city-use and very tight parking-spots.


Granted, it's not a luxury-car inside, but as far as the trim-level inside goes, I've seen lots worse. The biggest problem inside, IMO, is the ridiculous, flimsy pull-out tray unde the passengers' seat that is a PITA to use. IMO, they should have done a conventional glove-box. There appears to be room for both that and the dash air-bag, although the designers chose instead to use the lower-dash-space normally-allocated to a glove-box for knee-air-bags.

 

iQ is built on higher standards than Yaris, with nicer interior equipment and pretty much everything.
I guess you could call it tiny premium Corolla.

Also 3rd seat behind the passanger, is completely usable... I am 220lbs and 3 of me could comfortably sit in the car. This is why there is no glovebox as you sit more up front than the driver.

as a premium tiny corolla should, it also drives a lot better than Yaris, despite short wheelbase, with really nice and expensive feeling damping to the suspension.

 

nice review! Great photos

 

Agreed, at least to an extent. The interior is rather plain, but, in general, uses good materials. The paint-job is first-rate, particularly in the Black-Currant color. And the sheet-metal, doors, and exterior hardware seem solid as well. Except for the vaunted Mercedes safety-roll-cage on the Smart-for-Two, the iQ simply blows the Smart away.


You must be shorter than I am (I'm 6' 2" and 280)...and you're probably also thinner. It was difficult (but not impossible) for me to climb in and out of the back seat....fortunately, my back and legs are in pretty good shape for a person my age.

I could stand sitting back there only if the front seat was moved way forward...and then, (probably) only for relatively short time-periods. The rear-headroom, though, wasn't bad...the tall, conservative roofline certainly helps.


Have you driven one? I hope to get a chance to in a month or two, when it is formally-released here on the East Coast. I'll, of course, update the review when I do.

 

Thanks for the review MM.

But IMO, thats one fugly gauge cluster and those HVAC controls look exactly like the last gen Yaris's if im not mistaken.

 

Sure...anytime. I'll update it with a test-drive as soon as I can.

Several new small sub-compacts have unusual or controversial dash/gauge clusters. The Chevy Sonic's is another classic example.

 

I just don't see who is going to buy this outside of some city dwellers, especially for that price. I wish them luck. I am a huge huge fan of the engineering that made this car possible, it really is a good read for those interested.

Thanks Mike

 

Totally agree.....this is a classic urban, big-city car. I don't expect to see many of them on Interstate coast-to-coast runs.

I'm also willing to predict (though, of course, only time will verify it right or wrong), that a goodly amount of Smart owners will trade-in for a new iQ. However, the fact that Mercedes itself will now be importing and supporting the Smart, instead of the Penske Group and its insultingly-short two 2/24 warranty, may help the Smart's reputation a little, despite the fact that it has to burn premium-gas to the iQ's regular.

BTW, there's an Aston shop near my house. I might just, if they have one, sample the Aston-Martin (Cygnet) version of the iQ for comparison, though it will obviously cost a lot more.....and it is unclear if the American market will get any.

 

LOL how cute