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

#31 of 35 Re: talk about bias... [colorado1974] by texases Feb 03, 2009 (6:31 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Feb 02, 2009 9:52 pm) Warranty: 36/36,000 basic for both, other parts differ, some better HHR, some better xB Base price $18,720 HR, 15, 760 xB City/hwy: 22/32 HHR, 22/28 xB (my mistake) And CR reliability: average for HHR, much better than average for xB
#32 of 35 by colorado1974 Feb 04, 2009 (7:24 am)
like CR is something credible. Anybody remember last year, their statement: "We have been giving Toyota the benefit of the doubt because of their reputation. Their current slate of products will force us to re-examine that due to their poor initial quality ratings." Every other quality survey has shown that the Scion (you pick which one) is not quality. It's far from quality. As for the HHR. 5 year, 100,000 mile warranty far exceeds the scion. As for base price. Compare options on a base scion and a base HHR. Again, no comparison. My only point in the beginning was that here we have an example of a Toyota that is small, with a small engine, that get horrible economy and has terrible quality. In this Edmunds article, their bias is sickening. Stuff went wrong and they didn't call Toyota on it. I mentioned earlier that had this been an HHR, they would have been all over Chevrolet. Hell, a while ago they ridiculed a Silverado and it's quality when THEY didn't get a simple issue fixed (which led to the tranny failing). BUT since it was a Toyota, they looked the other way. I think that's wrong. Replies to this message: alamocity (Feb 04, 2009 7:31 pm)
#33 of 35 Re: [colorado1974] by alamocity Feb 04, 2009 (7:31 pm)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Feb 04, 2009 7:24 am) As someone who has looked at both vehicles in their base form I am curious where you are getting the information that the HHR is cheaper than the XB? From what I've researched the base HHR 5 speed MSRP is $19,380 (rebate of $1000.00) while the XB 5 speed is $16,420. With the automatic the base HHR (LS) is 20,380 (rebate of $1000.00) while the XB is $17,370.00. Looking at Black Book prices a 2008 HHR shows $11,080 trade in value for a clean vehicle while the XB shows $12,820 trade in value for a clean vehicle, both vehicles having 12,000 miles and automatic so where in the comparison does the HHR come out ahead?
#34 of 35 by colorado1974 Feb 07, 2009 (12:19 pm)
in standard equipment. Again, my main point is that they overlooked all of the faults of the Scion whereas had that been an HHR, the article would have been more than scathing. Replies to this message: smithchuck (Feb 08, 2009 12:30 am)
#35 of 35 Re: [colorado1974] by smithchuck Feb 08, 2009 (12:30 am)
Replying to: colorado1974 (Feb 07, 2009 12:19 pm) colorado1974: You said "Every other quality survey has shown that the Scion (you pick which one) is not quality." Your case would be stronger if you would name one or two of these surveys that you're referring to. As has already been pointed out, Consumer Reports predicts reliability for a new HHR to be "average" and the xB to be "better than average" (according to their 2008 Buying Guide). The only other popular quality surveys I'm aware of are from J.D. Power. They have the 2009 Scion ranked a tiny bit BETTER than the Chevy: Initial Quality is 3 (out of 5) for the Scion, 2.5 for the Chevy. Their Performance and Design Rating is 3 for the Scion vs. 2.5 for the Chevy. The Predicted Reliability Rating is 2.5 for the Scion, 3 for the Chevy. I'd call that all too close to call either one a clear winner, and certainly not evidence that the Scion has "terrible" quality. Or if it is "terrible," then the Chevy is just as bad. Those are the summary ratings. If you want to see their detailed ratings (which are roughly equivalent, some better for the Chevy, some better for the Scion), you can check them out here: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/Scion/xB/2009/Hatchback/ratings http://www.jdpower.com/autos/Chevrolet/HHR/2009/Mini%20MPV/ratings As far as warranties, you said the HHR's "5 year, 100,000 mile warranty far exceeds the scion" but that's only the powertrain warranty (which is 5 years/60,000 miles for the Scion). Their basic bumper-to-bumper warranties are identical. True, the Chevy offers standard 5 year/100k miles Roadside Assistance that the Scion doesn't. But the Scion offers 5 years/unlimited mileage rust-through warranty, vs. 6 years/100k miles for the Chevy. The point here is that overall, the warranties are pretty comparable. Neither car clearly knocks the other one out of the ring when it comes to warranty. Another way to look at this: one of the most reliable cars (5 stars in every category but one, according to J.D. Power) is the Lexus LS. But it only has a 6 year/70,000 mile powertrain warranty, 30,000 fewer miles than the HHR. Would you rather have a car with a shorter warranty that probably won't need it, or a car with a longer warranty that is more likely to actually get used? In other words, a longer warranty doesn't necessarily guarantee a higher quality car. You say the Scion has a "small engine" and gets "horrible economy" and yet the Scion's 2.4 liter engine is slightly more powerful & torquier than the smaller 2.2 liter engine in the HHR. The Scion gets virtually the same mpg as the Chevy HHR, so that seems to be a wash, too. (You can compare them at the official government web site: www.fueleconomy.gov; I used the 2.2 liter engine for the Chevy and the automatic transmission for both cars.) You say the HHR comes out ahead in standard equipment but again you don't give any specifics. When I compare the two side-by-side, I don't see any huge difference. Just like with the warranties & quality surveys, in some places the Scion wins, and in some places the Chevy wins. In fact, there are a couple of things that I think are important that are standard on the Scion but not available on the Chevy: 4 wheel disc brakes and side airbags. You can use the comparison I used here: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/scion/xb/100996738/VehicleComparison?basestyleid- =100996738&styleid=101020467&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=features I just checked Kelley Blue Book (kbb.com) and did a quick check of Trade-In value on a 2008 HHR LT vs. 2008 xB, (for both cars I used 15,000 miles, excellent condition, automatic, defaults for options). The Chevy came out at $10,925 and the Scion at $12,825 which means the Chevy lost $6,840 or 38.5% in one year and the Scion lost about $3,775 or 23% in 1 year. That tells you what the market in general thinks about the value of the HHR vs. the new Scion xB, so if there's anti-Chevy bias out there, it ain't just coming from Edmunds! I can't say anything one way or the other about Edmunds' "bias" or what they would have said if they'd been reviewing an HHR instead of the Scion. But it seems to me that a reasonably objective look at the two cars shows that they are very comparable in many ways, especially in terms of rated quality. However, it' also seems clear that one of them is probably going to be significantly less expensive to own (at least in the first 5 years or so), and that it isn't the HHR.