^^^ And I thought it was bad when I had to put $30 in my Spyder

 

Went to the autoshow today and got the scion brochure. What I find funny, strange, and odd at the same time is the fact that the xd's mpg is listed but the xb's isn't which doesn't make sense considering how the xd won't be out for awhile.

In case ur wondering the xd is listed 32/37mpg with a 5spd and 30/34 with the auto.

xb automatic weights in at 3,085lbs. and has a 14 gallon tank. my guess 22/32mpg automatic and 24/30 5spd.

 

Do you know if the mileage listed was under the EPA 2008 standards? Assuming it is, that is much better than the Corrola. Wonder if the Dual VVT-i has that much of an impact over the traditional VVT-i. What does the broshure look like?

 

The one my local dealer sent me the day of the official announcement is kind of strange. On the one hand, it has the 2006 xB & 2007 tC on the outside of the brochure and when you unfold the thing, it has the specs for the new 2008 xB & xD on the inside.

Nowhere that I could see any MPG figures on that brochure, strangely not on any of the vehicles.

My guess is that this is a regionally published brochure and that each may have the same basic info on it, but none will be the same. IMO, Toyota is screwed up like that, each distributor (they call it region) is different on lots of things.

Will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with the actual rated numbers before they hit the lots.

 

I am betting the new xB will be lucky to get 20 MPG in the real world, and just wait till all the tuners get their turbos and superchargers on...Less than 15? IMO this is exactly what everyone was asking for with all the complaints with the xB being too small, too slow, no storage, etc...there are still going to be a lot of disappointed people in the performance and mileage numbers with the new, heavier, longer, wider, more expensive, not as energy efficient xB. This is the American Way.

 

The below is copy pasted from another thread because it is more on-topic here. It is in response to DriverXa's post about 32/37 for the manual xD:


I am beginning to doubt the numbers in that book, Driver. Those numbers have to be in the 2008 EPA standard as it is a 2008 model. They cannot post 2007 numbers for a 2008, and Mickie3 is correct in saying that they cannot advertise anything other than EPA certified numbers. (Toyota actually wanted to advertize lower numbers for it's Prius so that customers would not be disppointed, but it was/is illegal)

The Yaris, on which that car is based, gets 29/36 in the new test (with a manual transmission). How could the xD get better mileage than the Yaris being on the same platform and being heavier, worse areodynamically, and having a bigger engine?

The Matrix, which prolly weighs about the same or at most 200 lbs more than the new xD, has similar aero, and has the same engine/tranny gets 26/33 in the new tests.

Actually, I am pretty sure the Yaris is the third most fuel efficient gasoline vehicle sold in the US, behind the Civic hybrid and the Prius. If those numbers are correct, the xD will be taking the crown as the most fuel efficient non-diesel, non-hybrid vehicle availible.

 

^^^ To respond to that post... I think that the xD being based on the Yaris while utilizing the larger 1.8L is what brings in those higher numbers. I am very skeptical about the claimed xD figures, however, I would imagine that it is possible. The Matrix' platform is much larger and heavier. You also have to keep in mind that the xD's 1.8L has the DUAL VVT-i, which will help its efficiancy as well.

 

The Yaris weighs 2326lbs. The matrix is 2679. I always assumed the Matrix was 3000+. but it really isn't as heavy as I thought. I think the switch to the xD on the Yaris platform will add 200-300 lbs (echo to xA was 285 lb increase). As such, I think the xD will be pretty close to the matrix weight, probably within 100-200 lbs.

 

It's official. 22/28 for both trannies!

www.scion.com

 

Wow, thats 2 mpg city more than the tC!

(Using 2008 conversion)

Wow!!

EPS FTW!!!

Looks like it was right in my range, which was 19/27 to 22/29.

To reiterate, the old manual transmission car only managed 26/30 using the 2008 standards, so expect 4 less city/2 less highway than the old box. That is only 3 mpg in mixed driving for a much faster/bigger/heavier box, seems like an excellent trade to me!

 

Where did you find the info on the new site?
I looked at the .pdf spec sheet and it's still the same.

 

Try this link to see if it gets you to the right place.
http://www.scion.com/#xBPerformance

 

I am very impressed with the new mileage. I was afraid that they would drop down below 20.

 

Yeah I like it.

My vehicle I plan to replace with a 2008 xB is a 2005 Mazda 3 2.3 liter that shows 21 city and 26 highway under the new 2008 rules. That means I may do slightly better with the xB.

In real world terms with the 3 I usually get around 24-25 city and have done as well as 32 highway. That makes me think it might be possible to get 30 or better on the highway under the right conditions with the xB. That would be very nice.

 

Not bad.

It'll take awhile to get used to seeing REALISTIC mileage numbers, but just think how bad it'll be for a lot of other vehicles. It could be a lot worse.

My rule of thumb with the old standards were:

Highway rating = usually accurate or even a touch low depending upon gearing.
City rating = mixed driving in the real world
Actual expected city mileage = rated city mileage - 15-20%

Those of us living in areas of the country where the AC was a requirement for much of the year were particularly misled by the old standards.

Ironically though, my old 97 Accord gets its actual rated mileage based on the old standards (23/31.) Every other car I've ever owned though . . . not so much.

 

Well, I think the city MPG stinks. Its 10 MPG less than the xB1. Thats a lot guys.

Hmm, its almost $18K for a decent automatic xB that gets 22MPG in the city?? Yeah, lemme at it.

No offense, but in that price range, there are TONS of other vehicles that offer more. xB just jumped the shark.

 

10? umm..what? Even if you use the much higher 2007 numbers for the old car and the much stricter 2008 numbers for the new car, which is like comparing centigrade to Fahrenheit, mind you,, there is an 8 mpg difference. If you convert the old car's numbers to the 2008 scale that the new car is measured on, you will get 26/30, which is a 4 mpg difference in the city.

How do you get "almost $18k" for the new auto...it is $17,180 INCLUDING destination.

Once again you have proved yourself to be nothing more than an ignorant basher with nothing better to do than try to make the vastly improved new xb look bad. I am sorry you feel so jealous, but I am sure you would get a decent trade in on your old car for a sweet new 2008!

 

I said $18K for a "decent" automatic. Thats with a wing, cargo net & a few other minor extras, nothing major. You're quoting the bare bones base model. I never said that, so read a bit.

And all I know is that my automatic xB1 usually gets around 30-32MPG in the city whereas the new one gets 22MPG, so yeah dude, thats 10 less. Even if its 8, thats still significant.

And trust me, dude. Im not jealous or ignorant. The numbers dont lie, do they?? Am I just pulling stuff outta my **** here?? No. The mileage IS bad compared to the last. The price IS quite a bit more than the last. At that price range, there ARE lots of other choices that make more sense for a lot of people, especially the "youth" market.

Sounds like you just dont wanna accept the truth. Thats fine, I really could care less. I hope the xB2 is a success, its just disappointing to lots of people, especially 1st genners who were looking for a natural progression from the last in terms of concept. Enjoy your new SUV, er xB.

 

Since you only want to compare apples and oranges (your personal numbers against the new method EPA numbers) with no real interest in the new xB, please slide on back to the first gen xB forum and do your bashing over there. You add nothing to the content here.

 

Yeah, and you would pay ~16,300 for a "decent" automatic 1st gen xB, as the price is about $1700 different. Keep in mind, it now includes things like 6 airbags, EBD, BA, EPS, cruise control, projetcors, 16" wheels, bigger front brakes with rear disks, sequential automatic, and 50% more horsepower. It isn't like the next gen is $3k+ more expensive.

Once again you don't understand the numbers. Your car is rated 26 city in the 2008 tests. If you get 32, congratulations; as you are beating the rating by 6 points. But you are being obtuse if you think you will get 6 mpg better than the standardized test mileage in one car and exactly the standardized test mileage in another car on the same route, same driver, etc.

That is exactly what the EPA tests are, just a line graph of vehicle speed. It accellerates and decelerates at controlled rates, and the weight and aero of the vehicle are simulated with a dyno. It is very similar to driving the same route to work every day in 2 different cars, except on the drive to work there are other variables like weather and traffic. What this means is that if you drove a 2nd gen EXACTLY like you drove your first gen, you would get 4 mpg less.

Borrow a 2nd gen, break in the engine, and drive EXACTLY the same as you drive your gen 1 (aka, no exploiting the 55 additional HP) and then compare the numbers. Until then, what you get in your car on your route has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the EPA numbers for the new xB. You could coast down a mountain for your drive and average 70 mpg even if you drove a Hummer, it all depends on conditions