I am somewhat predisposed to like dinky cars. OK, not even somewhat. I like the things. The B-class takeover of the lower end of the market was something I looked forward to and continue to look forward to with every new model that comes out.
I appreciate efficiency, especially if it can come attached to fun. A go-kart is the best example of that. So when I first saw a multicolored fleet of Scion iQs hanging on the wall above the Toyota stand at the Tokyo motor show two years ago--or was it Frankfurt 2007? Geneva 2008? Is it Tuesday? Is this Belgium?-- I thought, hey, those things look cool.
I still think they look cool, and though the 2012 Scion iQ has many good things going for it, unfortunately being fun to drive is not one of them. Sure, you could easily blame the CVT, which could suck the life out of a Ferrari. When it's bolted into the drivetrain of a 1.3-liter I4 driving the front wheels, that awfulness is only exaggerated. Granted, the 94 hp has only 2,127 pounds to pull around, so the weight-to-power ratio sits at a lugubrious 22.5 pounds per hp. Add a driver and passenger of skinny proportions, and that figure leaps to almost 26 pounds per hp. Then when you add the CVT to that burden, it just makes you want to take the bus. A couple of 0-to-60-mph launches on an empty street yielded 10.7 seconds, which is not really sporty.
The MacPherson-strut front and torsion-beam rear also don't preclude a fun drive but didn't seem to bring the iQ to life in my hands as it does other B-class cars that are bigger. Scion lists the turning circle at 25.8 feet, about five feet shorter than your average "car," though when I measured it myself on the outside of the front tires, I got 27 feet, 2 inches. Combined with the car's clownlike 78.7-inch wheelbase, I found myself falling off curbs a lot when backing out of driveways. I haven't had such an awkward time maneuvering since high school.
Braking was similarly weird. While the pedal feel and linear stopping felt perfectly normal, when I suction-cupped the Racelogic test gear to the windshield and tried braking from 60 mph on the same piece of flat pavement, I got 131.2 feet, 116.7 feet and 126.4 feet. So either the test equipment is screwy or the car is screwy. Or me. Could be any of the three.
The EPA rates this at 36 mpg city/37 mpg highway/37 mpg combined, which is good but not the spectacular figure you'd expect given all of the size you give up with this. I got one fill up of 3.011 gallons after 118.5 miles for 39.4 mpg of mostly freeway driving. But you can get 40 mpg in all kinds of cars that have more room, cost the same or even less, have a real back seat and are more fun to drive.
Scion officially calls this a 3+1 or a 3.5-seater. That's a clever way of saying, "Adios, legs" if you sit in the back seat. With a normal-size driver in front, the back seat is for bags of groceries only. So if you have a family of four with two small children, even they will not be happy in back.
On Los Angeles' notoriously bumpy freeways the ride was choppy. The short wheelbase combined with what feels like a stiffer setup to counter the tall car's lean makes it bounce all over the place.
This car is not as bad as the obvious competitor, the Smart Fortwo, which is the worst car on the market bar none, but the iQ is not as good as it could be. Put in a manual transmission and most of the iQ's sins could be forgiven.
For $16,000, there are any number of alternatives that are fun to drive and far more practical. The Chevrolet Sonic with a turbo and a manual and the Hyundai Accent manual wagon come to mind. Scion says this is for young urban dwellers. Maybe stylish urbanites will like it? I hope so, because if the iQ sticks around for a few model years, maybe they'll put a manual transmission in it. Or an electric drivetrain, which is coming next year but for fleet sales only.
I would like Scion to fix this car so it's fun to drive and maybe even a little less expensive. Sounds like I'm asking too much, but so might the market.
