Article Comments - 2008 Scion Xb Full & Long Term Test

35 messages, Last post on Feb 08, 2009 at 12:30 AM

You are in the Scion xB Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Scion xB, Wagon

Full Test: 2008 Scion Xb - Our test car has been equipped with Scion's top-of-the-line, Pioneer tuner/CD/DVD/navigation system with iPod and aux hookups. It's not as confusing to use as it is to say, and it makes the five-hour trek to college pretty pleasurable. (more)

Long-Term Test: 2008 Scion xB - The 2008 Scion xB is the very definition of hip. After all, it's the successor of the 2004 Scion xB, which made "hip" and "econobox" usable in the same sentence. And while most manufacturers struggle to create this kind of cult following, Scion's unique box effortlessly draws the dollars of the fashionable and the utilitarian alike. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 4: 1; 2; 3; 4; Prev; Next; Last

#20 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [pezzy669] by smithchuck Jan 26, 2009 (11:40 am)
Replying to: pezzy669 (Jan 25, 2009 1:08 pm) Just for grins I looked up the Edmunds 5-year "True Cost to Own" for a 2006 Scion Xb vs. a 2006 Jetta GLI. For whatever reason, they have estimated maintenance plus repairs costs for the Scion (over 5 years) as $6,797 and for the VW it's $9,644. In fact, every cost they list for the Scion is lower than for the VW (depreciation, insurance, etc.), so that after 5 years they estimate the VW will have cost $9,616 more than the Scion, or almost $2,000 a year. I'm not pitching Scion over VW--I just thought it might be interesting to look at the total cost of ownership.
#21 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by smithchuck Jan 26, 2009 (11:49 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Jan 26, 2009 7:13 am) Just for grins I looked up Edmunds' "True Cost to Own" for a 2008 Chevy Tahoe LT (didn't see a Z71 listed anywhere obvious) vs. the 2006 Scion Xb that I'd already looked up for another post. If their numbers are accurate, you'll be spending $69,337 over 5 years to own that vehicle, versus $33,063 for a Scion. Depreciation alone on the Chevy ($23,981) will be much more than enough to buy a whole new Scion Xb, stuffed with options. And if gas goes to $5 a gallon and you drive 12,000 miles a year, I figure you'd be saving $921 a year with that 23 mpg Scion (which is about 35% better than 17 mpg). They do say your Chevy will be cheaper than the Scion in maintenance & repairs. Of course it's important to buy the car you need, and I'm not slamming Chevy--I just think it's interesting to consider total cost of ownership. Replies to this message: colorado1974 (Jan 26, 2009 8:42 pm) gearhead1977 (Jan 27, 2009 7:14 am) colorado1974 (Jan 27, 2009 9:57 pm) gearhead1977 (Jan 28, 2009 6:29 am) and 5 more...
#22 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by counthuber Jan 26, 2009 (6:18 pm)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Jan 24, 2009 7:35 am) are u kidding? have you read any car and driver? i think they're paid by BMW. they would kill 30 million people before admitting that BMWs aren't that good.if u want bias, read car and driver
#23 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [smithchuck] by colorado1974 Jan 26, 2009 (8:42 pm)
Replying to: smithchuck (Jan 26, 2009 11:49 am) Looking at that, how could you slam the Tahoe? Tahoe, cheaper to maintain than a tiny 4 cyl toyota? That sentence along should be published in every auto publication. That sentence alone should bring a world of laughter at scion. These two cars really aren't comparible in any way. They are meant for work at the opposite ends of the spectrum of users. My tahoe spends the year towing trailers, hauling multiple kids, friends, friends kids and a dog. The scion really only carries 4 people, or cargo, but not really both. That being said...a 315 hp v8, full sized suv that is pigeon-holed as a gas guzzler that comes within 6 mpg of, and is cheaper to maintain than an "eco-friendly" toyota econobox is extremely hilarious. we all can admit that toyota didn't really try hard, or do a good job on this xb redesign. Replies to this message: gearhead1977 (Jan 27, 2009 7:14 am) colorado1974 (Jan 27, 2009 9:57 pm) gearhead1977 (Jan 28, 2009 6:29 am) colorado1974 (Jan 28, 2009 10:21 pm) and 4 more...
#24 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by gearhead1977 Jan 27, 2009 (7:14 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Jan 26, 2009 8:42 pm) The redesign didn't do much for me, but after sitting in the Xb at the Detroit show, it kinda grew on me. The plastic coming off the wheel covers doesn't surprise me. Toyota wheel covers always look cheap (and probably are cheap). Remember the whole customization aspect to the Scion brand? Toyota assumed, incorrectly or not, that most people who bought into the whole Scion thing would remove the wheel covers and steel wheels soon after purchase, replacing them with alloys. So why put "expensive" wheel covers on the car if most will be discarded soon after purchase. The Tahoe being cheaper to maintain could be true. But dealerships charge whatever they want and whatever people are willing to pay. The Edmunds calculator estimated the service at $201. Even another $50 wouldn't have been unnacceptable,allowing for variations in region,etc. But almost $100 more then calculated speaks of rip-off from that dealer. When I had to have a timing belt done in a Mitsubishi, there was $300 between the highest and lowest price for the dealers in my area, for the EXACT same service! The Tahoe is also a truck. RWD or even AWD truck parts (except for those relating to the AWD or 4WD system) are usually cheaper because they are easier to produce. The Scion Xb is a FWD car, it's a Toyota (Toyota parts usually being more expensive) so that could also account for the higher prices. No matter who does long-term test, I don't think windshields should be included in the total for service. That skews the total and since the windshield for the Scion Xb is probably more specialized then, oh, a Tahoe, it probably costs more. Gas mileage, that I can't argue. 15 mpg, even for a four cylinder driving a boxy vehicle like the Scion, seems wrong. I don't think Toyota dropped the ball, I think there were other circumstances here that kinda through off some of the numbers. Replies to this message: colorado1974 (Jan 27, 2009 9:57 pm) gearhead1977 (Jan 28, 2009 6:29 am) colorado1974 (Jan 28, 2009 10:21 pm) texases (Jan 29, 2009 4:52 am) and 2 more... gearhead1977 (Jan 29, 2009 7:03 am)
#25 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [gearhead1977] by colorado1974 Jan 27, 2009 (9:57 pm)
Replying to: gearhead1977 (Jan 27, 2009 7:14 am) Very poor mileage. Poor Reliability. Not just from Edmunds but from all the other surveys as well. Didn't Toyota become what it was by being reliable and fuel efficient? Exactly what is a Toyota that isn't reliable or fuel efficient? You almost have to ask, "what's the point then?" This also applies to Tundra (the worst in toyota reliability and mileage), sequoia, tacoma, scion and camry. looks like the sales are based on the logo alone, not the vehicle it's attached to.
#26 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [gearhead1977] by gearhead1977 Jan 28, 2009 (6:29 am)
Replying to: gearhead1977 (Jan 27, 2009 7:14 am) Just got my new Car and Driver yesterday. They also did a long term test of the Xb and didn't have anywhere near the "problems" Edmunds did. Also, in my initial post, I mis-read the fact that Edmunds had alloy wheels with caps, not plastic wheel covers. I know Toyotas are supposed to be perfect, but no car is truthfully. They've all succumbed to having to build cars to a price point to be competitive. And I'm worried that Toyotas interiors are starting to look as cheap, plasticky and overdone as GM used to. I looked at the interior of the Matrix/Vibe at the auto show. Yuck!! Just awful looking. The outside isn't much better. No car is perfect and maybe Toyota quality isn't what it used to be. But if I had to choose between a Chevy HHR or Scion Xb, I won't be at the Chevy dealer with my money. Replies to this message: colorado1974 (Jan 28, 2009 10:21 pm) texases (Jan 29, 2009 4:52 am) colorado1974 (Feb 02, 2009 9:52 pm) and 1 more... gearhead1977 (Jan 29, 2009 7:03 am)
#27 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [gearhead1977] by colorado1974 Jan 28, 2009 (10:21 pm)
Replying to: gearhead1977 (Jan 28, 2009 6:29 am) taste is a personal thing. I like the hhr. i've driven them and are great little cars. they are more reliable, get better fuel economy than a scion, have more cargo room and have a better warranty. on top of that, they are cheaper and cheaper to own. kind of seems like a no-brainer to me. toyota got its foot in the door by providing these attributes long long ago but they no longer seem to subscribe to that theory anymore. my original point was simple. they call the car perfect even though they wrote it wasn't. they overlook the deplorable fuel economy. had that actually been an article on the hhr, the editors would have been much more severe and sharp-tongued. can you imagine the print if an hhr and a tahoe got almost the same mileage? whoa. this isn't 1985 where domestics are unreliable boats, this is 2009 and the playing field is much more even than these biased editors are willing to acknowledge. hell, did you know that the accord is the same size as a chrysler 300? i only want what is fair. report the facts and leave your bias for breakroom chats. Replies to this message: texases (Jan 29, 2009 4:52 am) colorado1974 (Feb 02, 2009 9:52 pm) texases (Feb 03, 2009 6:31 am) gearhead1977 (Jan 29, 2009 7:03 am)
#28 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by texases Jan 29, 2009 (4:52 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Jan 28, 2009 10:21 pm) "they are more reliable, get better fuel economy than a scion,, have more cargo room and have a better warranty. on top of that, they are cheaper and cheaper to own" OK, we get it, you don't like the xB, but now you're just making stuff up. xB is more reliable per CR, cheaper base price by 3k, same basic warranty, and better EPA fuel mileage. Replies to this message: colorado1974 (Feb 02, 2009 9:52 pm) texases (Feb 03, 2009 6:31 am)
#29 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by gearhead1977 Jan 29, 2009 (7:03 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Jan 28, 2009 10:21 pm) I will agree with you on the bias. Had it been an HHR, the article would not been as favorable in tone, even though Edmunds had issues. From the EPA website. A similar HHR with the 2.2 engine and automatic gets 1 mpg on the highway more then the Scion,probably attributing to the more slippery shape of the HHR. The Toyota engine is larger in displacement and only slightly more powerful (3 hp and 12 ft.lb. torque). Granted the Chevy is making almost the same power with less displacement, but the difference isn't that great. How Edmunds wound up with a 15 mpg worst tank average is beyond me. They must have been driving it really hard, lots of idling or traffic. That's the worst tank. They averaged around 23 mpg overall, which while not stellar, is 1 mpg off the EPA average. You'd have to drive a Tahoe off a building to get 23 mpg, according to the EPA. EPA estimates for a 4.8 V8 2wd Tahoe is 14 city/20 highway. For a 5.3 with the six speed auto, it's the same. Drop all of those numbers by one for 4WD versions. From Edmunds: The HHR has 4 cu.ft more of cargo space, but the Xb has slightly larger passenger dimensions, about 1 inch in all directions. Honestly, it comes down to preference, as both vehicles are quite similar in many regards.