^^^^ agreed 
^^^^ agreed
^You really think that Toyota will release this car at $5k less than a Civic Si?
Can you ask your Doc to provide the same 'scrip for the rest of us? 
In reply to oldeskewltoy:
Who cares about mpg especially at only 197bhp for the engine?
But seriously, in a car that has these design goals, I would value performance over mpg. I mean that's why I'm buying a "sports car" (yes I'm using that VERY loosely) vs just buying a Prius.
Cotton wrote: I hope all you guys that want the low HP engine get it, but I also hope Toyota wakes up and does make an upgraded version for those of us that prefer it.
Buy the base model with all the performance goodies and slap a company made turbocharger bolt on kit onto it. Done and done!
I hate to really keep riding this horse (pun intended)
300 hp 30 mpg, sticker of $24,990 for a Mustang V6 with Performance Pack, just quoted it out on ford.com.
With todays technology and TPS being the industry standard, if they can't get 30+mpg for LESS money from a 4cylinder RWD 2+2 something is seriously wrong.
Cotton wrote: I hope all you guys that want the low HP engine get it, but I also hope Toyota wakes up and does make an upgraded version for those of us that prefer it.
And that's the crux of the issue for me. Many here who state "That's plenty of power" when asked "Will you buy it?"
Say, "Oh no, I don't spend more than 8.4 days worth of tasty cakes and natural light on any car purchase."
Those of us that would, and do actually buy new cars, want more performance for our money. I mean isn't that why we buy new cars, for the amenities AND the performance? So Toyota seems to be building an expensively, slow fashion statement.
If I'm going to give up size/practicality/etc (which I'm willing to do), I'm not doing it for something that is slower than current FWD, 5door hatch I own now.
FlightService wrote: I hate to really keep riding this horse (pun intended) 300 hp 30 mpg, sticker of $24,990 for a Mustang V6 with Performance Pack, just quoted it out on ford.com. With todays technology and TPS being the industry standard, if they can't get 30+mpg for LESS money from a 4cylinder RWD 2+2 something is seriously wrong.
This is really the answer....
Toyota lost me in the 90s anyway when they killed the Supra and the MR2 (MR spyder does not count!)......
z31maniac wrote: Say, "Oh no, I don't spend more than 8.4 days worth of tasty cakes and natural light on any car purchase."
How dare you insult my Natural Light now a can of PBR you might be on to something.
I have purchased a few new ones.
I stopped buying new because, they just aren't worth it. Either they depreciate too fast or they don't have "value" (perception of worth/amount paid)
I can think of a few cars that comes close but very few get there, and a under-powered, low mpg (compared to the other cars in it's displacement and class), heavy car isn't going to make me pay more.
There is a car company that took the best of Toyota and built it into something, but sometimes they also think a little too highly of themselves.
So yes, if it was lighter, priced around $20K had 200hp, fit 4 I would think of throwing the funds, but at $27K?
as far as a slow fashion statement, I think they found their target on that one.
Perhaps, they'll release a turbocharged version the next model year, after they've already sold a car to all the suckers out there.
Javelin wrote: Toyata has already said this car will start in the $25-$27K range, so you are already priced out.
Then they are screwed. At that price, there are many better options to exercise. As Flightservice and other have pointed out, Mustangs, rx-8s, 350/370z cars, Genesis coupes all abound and can be had for decent used prices. I just don't see the value there. The reason I want the less powerful/cheaper car is that is where the hole in the market is. It would get all the mazda 3, koup and civic si guys that want want something rwd. That is my market.
Cotton wrote:FlightService wrote: I hate to really keep riding this horse (pun intended) 300 hp 30 mpg, sticker of $24,990 for a Mustang V6 with Performance Pack, just quoted it out on ford.com. With todays technology and TPS being the industry standard, if they can't get 30+mpg for LESS money from a 4cylinder RWD 2+2 something is seriously wrong.This is really the answer.... Toyota lost me in the 90s anyway when they killed the Supra and the MR2 (MR spyder does not count!)......
STOP THE PRESSES!!! GRM IS OUT OF BUISNESS! MIATA ISN'T THE ANSWER! 
Sorry couldn't help myself.
sanman wrote:Javelin wrote: Toyata has already said this car will start in the $25-$27K range, so you are already priced out.Then they are screwed. At that price, there are many better options to exercise. As Flightservice and other have pointed out, Mustangs, rx-8s, 350/370z cars, Genesis coupes all abound and can be had for decent used prices. I just don't see the value there. The reason I want the less powerful/cheaper car is that is where the hole in the market is. It would get all the mazda 3, koup and civic si guys that want want something rwd. That is my market.
Exactly.
Assuming that I'm in the new-car-buying position that I'm aiming for, I will strongly consider the purchase of a <2600 lb ~200hp RWD 2+2 hardtop w/LSD for <$24k out-the-door. At $25k, I'll go buy a Mustang.
FlightService wrote:Cotton wrote:STOP THE PRESSES!!! GRM IS OUT OF BUISNESS! MIATA ISN'T THE ANSWER!FlightService wrote: I hate to really keep riding this horse (pun intended) 300 hp 30 mpg, sticker of $24,990 for a Mustang V6 with Performance Pack, just quoted it out on ford.com. With todays technology and TPS being the industry standard, if they can't get 30+mpg for LESS money from a 4cylinder RWD 2+2 something is seriously wrong.This is really the answer.... Toyota lost me in the 90s anyway when they killed the Supra and the MR2 (MR spyder does not count!)......
Priceless....
FlightService wrote: as far as a slow fashion statement, I think they found their target on that one.
Actually, a bill eighty at the wheels, 18 inch alloys, a 5 speed, no sunroof, and a real factory backed aftermarket supply that WILL KEEP YOUR WARRANTY INTACT at $18k is actually a pretty sweet deal. Plus they perform well (so Ive read). If I could live with a coupe, Id certainly be interested.
4cylndrfury wrote:FlightService wrote: as far as a slow fashion statement, I think they found their target on that one.Actually, a bill eighty at the wheels, 18 inch alloys, a 5 speed, no sunroof, and a real factory backed aftermarket supply that WILL KEEP YOUR WARRANTY INTACT at $18k is actually a pretty sweet deal. Plus they perform well (so Ive read). If I could live with a coupe, Id certainly be interested.
They aren't that slow compared to say.... a Civic Si, either. 
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
I didn't think I was crazy when I thought the 180 HP was wrong. I remember that being lower.
New engine, kudos for Yota!
So as of this moment we know they can build a "fairly" light (2900 lbs in 2005) 2+2 coupe for reasonable money, so why are they working so hard to FUBAR the FT?
FlightService wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: I didn't think I was crazy when I thought the 180 HP was wrong. I remember that being lower. New engine, kudos for Yota! So as of this moment we know they can build a "fairly" light (2900 lbs in 2005) 2+2 coupe for reasonable money, so why are they working so hard to FUBAR the FT?
This is the argument a few of us have already made. Why not just shorten a lexus IS chassis, throw in the 180 hp engine with the 6 speed and have a rwd tc for $18k. They can even offer another bolt on supercharger to up the power.
FlightService wrote: why are they working so hard to FUBAR the FT?
Because they can? Probably too many discussion groups about what the car SHOULD be
mad_machine wrote:FlightService wrote: why are they working so hard to FUBAR the FT?Because they can? Probably too many discussion groups about what the car SHOULD be
Wait, you mean someone will pay me to do that? Sign me up!
Cotton wrote:DirtyBird222 wrote:I guess I'm one of the few in this thread that's an HP junkie. When we bought out Solstice Coupe we got the GXP with 260HP. Our Mustang is the Mach 1. I also have a 95 GT and the extra power in the Mach 1 is much more appealing to me. My 85 Carrera is an NA with a little over 200HP and it's a fun car, but I keep wondering if I should have held out for a turbo. (I should have...really no need to wonder) When I had my MKIV na Supra I regretted from day one not buying the TT. I hope all you guys that want the low HP engine get it, but I also hope Toyota wakes up and does make an upgraded version for those of us that prefer it.Strizzo wrote: Don't forget that the rsx type s and teg type r made 195-200 hp from 1.8 - 2.0 liters. My rsx weighed in at about 2850 and ran a 14.7 1/4 mile. Probably would have been even quicker with rwdarghh, i can't get my FA5 Si into the 14s stock. 15.2@95 is my best run as of now, it's at a crappy track though. But honestly, 200hp from an Si is plenty if the car handles well. I'm tearing it up in the autoxes around central florida with my Si, keeping up with some fast rides....Even at the PDX I recently did I was keeping pace with some Vettes and IT prepped rides. 200hp with the torque from a flat 4 and hopefully a decent curb weight should be fine and should be a mid 14 second car. But Toyota could screw all of this up.
I have a 400whp Trans Am, I had a supercharged S197 GT, I love me some hp....but some slow cars can be made fast by the best mod of all.....the DRIVER! Unless you want to go fast in a straight line, then you just need $ to buy you HP.
The scion TC with the overpriced TRD supercharger is still slower than a stock SI through the 1/4. Im pretty sure the supercharger bumps it higher than the Si too. Try comparing the interior quality on top of that. Just saying.
You know, I don't think I've seen a TC that wasn't driven by a either a chick or a "fresh out of high school and can barely afford the insurance" guy.
And I've yet to run into one that had a supercharger or was anything other than painfully slow.
Edited for clarity, or instead of and.
rwdsport wrote: The scion TC with the overpriced TRD supercharger is still slower than a stock SI through the 1/4. Im pretty sure the supercharger bumps it higher than the Si too. Try comparing the interior quality on top of that. Just saying.
It's slower because it can't launch. In every real-world application (Who the hell buys a Civic Si to drag race it anyways?), the Supercharged tC WAS (as the new one is no longer available with a supercharger) faster. The n/a tC wasn't much slower than the Si in real world applications, either. Amazing what torque does for you.
Interior quality is subjective. The Si interior makes me vomit. I'm not a fan of the tC interior either, but if i had to spend my normal 10 hours a week inside one of them, tC, hands down. Nothing about either of them screams "quality" to me. (Unless you like silver painted plastic and an alien dash, then the Si wins in spades.)
DirtyBird222 wrote:Cotton wrote:I have a 400whp Trans Am, I had a supercharged S197 GT, I love me some hp....but some slow cars can be made fast by the best mod of all.....the DRIVER! Unless you want to go fast in a straight line, then you just need $ to buy you HP.DirtyBird222 wrote:I guess I'm one of the few in this thread that's an HP junkie. When we bought out Solstice Coupe we got the GXP with 260HP. Our Mustang is the Mach 1. I also have a 95 GT and the extra power in the Mach 1 is much more appealing to me. My 85 Carrera is an NA with a little over 200HP and it's a fun car, but I keep wondering if I should have held out for a turbo. (I should have...really no need to wonder) When I had my MKIV na Supra I regretted from day one not buying the TT. I hope all you guys that want the low HP engine get it, but I also hope Toyota wakes up and does make an upgraded version for those of us that prefer it.Strizzo wrote: Don't forget that the rsx type s and teg type r made 195-200 hp from 1.8 - 2.0 liters. My rsx weighed in at about 2850 and ran a 14.7 1/4 mile. Probably would have been even quicker with rwdarghh, i can't get my FA5 Si into the 14s stock. 15.2@95 is my best run as of now, it's at a crappy track though. But honestly, 200hp from an Si is plenty if the car handles well. I'm tearing it up in the autoxes around central florida with my Si, keeping up with some fast rides....Even at the PDX I recently did I was keeping pace with some Vettes and IT prepped rides. 200hp with the torque from a flat 4 and hopefully a decent curb weight should be fine and should be a mid 14 second car. But Toyota could screw all of this up.
I have low HP cars as well......the lowest HP car I have is in my avatar. It's fun to drive, but I'd love more power. It doesn't matter how good a driver I am....it's still a 60-70HP car. Hell my streetbike has 167HP.
You can buy HP sure.....you can also buy a slow ass new car.
Here's why I'm NOT a horsepower junky: To me, the fun part of driving is pushing the limits of the car; 99% of my driving is on the street and I don't like to interact with law enforcement.
With 100hp, I can tach out 1st and 2nd gear and not be speeding in a 45 zone. Going up a windy mountain road? I can drive at the absolute limit of the car and never be doing anything that will pique Johnny Law's interest when I pop around a corner to see him sitting there.
Even with "only" 300 hp, I can NEVER push it. Romp on it in 1st? Either I'm low geared, in which case I'm spinning the tires, or I'm high geared, and I'm suddenly at extralegal speeds. Which means I have to drive like a grandma everywhere. If I'm gonna drive like a grandma, why have 300+ hp?
You'll need to log in to post.
