oldmanatee

It might look nicer, but how does it feel? It might be the camera lens, but that rear seat looks smallerr than the xA's.....But at least the Aveo gets an arm rest.

CyberDoberman

Honestly, I have no idea. None of the dealers I talked to even had one to look at...

From the pictures, I'm thinking the seats of the xA are nicer, even though the Aveo comes in Leather now. I love the huggy firm nature of the xA seats.

I think I'm going to improve my interior a touch... I have a local place that works with leather...

Maybe some suede inserts with the rest wrapped in leather for the doors, and a nice soft headliner would make the interior really nice.

Don't get me wrong... I'm 100% happy with my xA... but... just like to keep it real :-)

CyberDoberman

Yes, it does cost more.

The base Aveo was $9000, this one was high $13K's... MSRP was $14,000, but they always come off of Chevy pricing.

And no, if you look at the picture, the armrest is integrated into the front driver's seat.

I'm sure the next Scion interior will be a step up in class as well...

However, I couldn't get over the exterior of the Aveo... I just thought it looked ugly... while the xA looked really great. Esp. in my Anthracite color, with Limo tint on the back windows and hatch, and as dark as limo on the front... just looks beautiful.

I also got the entire TRD suspension bits put on... just looks fabulous :-) And handles like a dream! (For a little econo-MPG car).

My other cars are a:

2003 VW GTI 5-Speed (Letting my buddy drive it and make payments)
2006 Pontiac GTO 6-Speed (My former daily driver and now weekend warrior hehe).

econobox

I test drove the Aveo before I drove the xA. The Aveo had a broken latch for the fold down rear seats, so they wouldn't lock into place. It also pulled strongly to the left on the freeway. Quality control was truly awful. Perhaps they've gotten things down in the past two years, but I woulnd't bet on it.

The big hidden cost with the Aveo is resale value. Good luck selling one. Dealers won't give you jack for one and few people will buy them used. The xA, however, maintains its value quite well as all Toyotas do. I learned that lesson with the Dodge Neon.

xA auto fuel economy is much better in the city. I average 30mpg with California gas, AC always on, and mostly short (3 mile) stop-and-go trips. I would expect the Aveo to do 3-5mpg less.

stonecoldnimrod

funy story - i applied for gmac credit so i could get an aveo cause i liked the way it looked in yellow. but when i saw it up close i realized how hideous it looked. since my credit app was declined i thought i'd try scion. since the first year of scion i wanted an xb so bad.../ but around my neighborhood of houston i've noticed lately that alot of senior citizens own the xb's. so i got the xa instead.


the immediate payoff is the mileage. i owned a 95 camaro v6. and with cheap gas i filled the tank with $45. with my lil red bullet i fill up in premium for a little over $20. i thought about trading it in after a few years but with the six year warranty scioon got me for i think this will stay in thre family for a good ten years at least.

Grateful11

You've probably heard it before but you're wasting your money with Premium gas.

stonecoldnimrod

actually... i haven't heard about that. so there's no difference whether i put the cheap stuff rather than premium?? elaborate.

xA_Factor

With the compression of the 1NZ and it's management system, using anything above 87octane is a waste of money. So, unless you're running some sort of forced induction, don't bother.

CyberDoberman

You always make the most HP and get the best Gas Mileage with the lowest octane possible.

However, not all engines can use the lowest octane possible...

Let me explain.

If you have a really high compression engine, i.e., Chevy LS2 (almost 11:1), the stock electronics are written as such to give x amount of timing and other engine settings. If the engine detects pinging, knocking, or anything else out of whack, it will *detune* slightly and go to a lower-timing map... and keep doing this until it finds a map it deems "acceptable and safe".

So, if you can run 87 octane with no pinging (almost impossible), you'll m ake the most HP. If you need to run 93 octane to keep the motor from pinging, then thats what you run so that the engine keeps the most amount of timing (= HP) possible.

Sometimes, people tell you *YOU NEED TO RUN RACE GAS* when you add turbos, etc.

This is only true because basically you have to run that type of gas to keep the motor from pinging, etc... NOT because it makes you more power.

It only makes you more power in the sense that if you have to put 104 octane in a boosted car to keep it from pinging, 104 octane with no pinging = more HP and 87 octane and having the timing retarded all the way back to as low as possible (or boost scaled back) ...

However, if you have a car that doesn't ping or knock (meaning no detonation) at a given octane rating (i.e., that 104 that the boosted example above requires), then 106 or 108 octane would actually make LESS HP.

Make sense?

Our little scions run just fine on 87-89 octane.

oldmanatee

I hate to point this out, but the 1.5 has 10.5 :1 compression ratio...that's kinda high as well.

But if Toyota tells me to run 87, I will run 87.

kdepew

I was in Philadelphia/New Jersey last week and I got a 2007 Chevy Aveo sedan as my rental car. I like small cars and asked for a compact. i ended up with a bright yellow Aveo. The car was totally base w/o remote keyless entry and power windows. That sucked.

However, the car wasn't bad at all. The new Aveo's front looks much better than the last generation. The interior wasn't bad. The car ran fine. It had reasonable power. Overall, I was impressed. however, it still doesn't look nearly as good as the Scion xA, especially in hatchback form.

I also got a Hyundai Accent in California a couple of months ago. That car was pretty nice too. It was low on power, but otherwise was very nice.

There are alot of good low-cost cars available now. IMO, the Scion xA just looks much better than all of the rest.

norse

I sat in, but did not drive the Aveo. The feeling was not right. The seats felt too -- flat. Didn't hold me like the Scion seat did. I went to the dealership to look at the Aveo and the Corolla. A Scion was never on the radar. But when I sat in it, the interior and attention to smaller details was king in the decision-making process.

The Scion might be "inexpensive," but the Aveo just felt "cheap."

The Aveo has a good-sized trunk, but it's not likely to be nearly as reliable as a Toyota product.

We've had an '87 Camry ($12,000) that we put 240k miles on before selling to a student for $300! And we currently have a '97 Geo Prizm -- a Corolla -- ($3,000) that has 159k miles and still going strong. And we have a 2000 Chevy venture ($30,000) with 98k miles. The Chevy has had the transmission rebuilt and has had several electrical problems and things just falling apart.

proctorsilex

i bought my xa back in 2005, so i was comparing against 2005 models.

the aveo was ok. it was cheaply priced and felt like it, but not too badly. i think that it was around 12k while my xa was around 14k. i did not like the looks or colours as much. i brought a sound meter to measure interior noise on the road, which was equivalent to the xa. it also had comparable fuel economy ratings.
the doors were really thin and light. scary!
the stock radio sucked and felt cheap, including the upgraded mp3 model.
options (like power windows and locks, radio, et al) brought the price up quickly to meet the xa.
i think that the 2005 aveo has a 1.6L engine versus our 1.5L.
the gear ratios felt much more conservative/sane in the aveo over the xa, but the xa feels sportier.

the killer for the 2005 aveo? putting aside the former daewoo name and the salesman's ignorance about where the parts came from (like the engine), the 2005 aveo had a terrible side impact rating (3 stars). the NHSA or whatever had all sorts of warnings about the car's side impact. in its favour, it had a superior front/rear rating (5 stars), but no side air bag option.

the xa had four star ratings for front/rear and side with no warnings and side air bags were an option. so i got an xa with side air bags.

as a side note, i also drove a 2005 chevy cobalt. that thing felt CHEAP! the aveo felt reasonably cheap, like my old 2000 sephia or my grandmother's 2002 rio. the cobalt felt like all the plastic would crack and fade within a year.

it sounds like the aveo is a much better option these days.

ezzyB

I didn't think much came standard on the Aveo, even with the upgraded trim. The Xa has much more standard, you just can't get a sunroof or leather from the factory.

proctorsilex

OH NOES!!!one

Dawn6463

My 2005 Scion xa has 350,000 miles on it and it is still a very reliable and strong running car! I bought it with 300,000 miles on it 2 years ago. The ONLY complaint I have has been trying to figure out why my Ac only works when I am parked. As soon as I start down the road it starts blowing hot air. This is driving me crazy. I live in Georgia and this has been one of the HOTTEST summers that I can remember down here. Other than that it is one of the best cars I have ever owned!