Article Comments - 2008 Nissan Cube vs. 2008 Scion xB

23 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2008 at 5:35 PM

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

What is this discussion about? Scion xB, Nissan Cube, Wagon

Comparison Test: 2008 Nissan Cube vs. 2008 Scion xB - Don't we all have a happy childhood memory of our parents buying a new refrigerator — and getting to play in the giant delivery box? Within minutes, the box was refashioned into a clubhouse. Or it became a sled and we piled in for a tumble down the nearest hill. (more)

Outline

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

#9 of 23 Re: Gold Rush Mica Release Edition 5.0 [xbgoldrush] by so_cali Jun 12, 2008 (11:34 pm)
Replying to: xbgoldrush (Apr 13, 2008 1:39 pm) Toyota has blown it with the sunroof on the second edition. The gold is way too loud and obnoxious and to drive home the point, they added fugly trim of the same color inside. If only they would wise up and offer the sunroof in all the xBs, then I'd have a blackberry crush one in my driveway.
#10 of 23 Glad to see The Cube by marinerfh Jun 16, 2008 (1:43 pm)
I was going to buy a Scion xB, then Scion made the major mistake of totally changing the car into a gas guzzler. The original xB had already become a classic and phenom, much like the original VW Beattle in the 1950's. The new xB is an ugly monster than drinks too much gasoline. Toyota made the mistake of listening to the people who didn't buy the car while ignoring those who did. The Cube actually came first in Japan and was copied by Toyota with the xB. The cube will have a practical bench seat, better visibility, a bit more power and better gas mileage than the original xB. The Cube is also very practical for seniors who will find it easier to get in and out of than a standard car. I can't wait to buy one, but I will. Nissan will have my deposit as soon as they start taking orders. I was reluctantly going to buy a Honda Fit, until my son told me about the Cube. I am sold already. Note, the Cube that will be sold in America will have the 1,7 ltr Versa engine rather than the 1.4 ltr engine in the article. Replies to this message: anderlan (Jul 04, 2008 11:18 am)
#11 of 23 Re: Glad to see The Cube [marinerfh] by anderlan Jul 04, 2008 (11:18 am)
Replying to: marinerfh (Jun 16, 2008 1:43 pm) I cannot agree more. See my rave about the old, rant about the new, here at gnuber.com. The xB went from being a bold experiment in the space-efficient/hull-weight-efficient cube concept, with an engine-to-size ratio which can only be describe as prescient in todays $4/gallon world, to being yet another car that looks like a squished SUV, with terrible visibility and an engine too big for its size!!! At the very least in 2010 they should give the option for the 1.8L Corolla engine in the xB. They should also make it taller again, and cut some of the weight, but I'm not holding my breath. To me, all they needed to do originally to the old one was make the front less weird/more aerodynamic, and maybe increase the engine to the 1.8L, but only if it wouldn't hurt MPG.
#12 of 23 Re: Article Comments - 2008 Nissan Cube vs. 2008 Scion xB [texases] by anderlan Jul 05, 2008 (6:05 am)
Replying to: texases (Feb 22, 2008 7:00 pm) thefoth: 'adequate mpgs'? Dude, if you're willing to go with 22/29MPG, why didn't you get a RAV4? With a RAV4, you can go off-road. There's no other car you can go off-road with that gets that MPG. The CRV comes close. The Element is close, but it doesn't go off-road quite as well (but its BIGGER---there's the cube thing again). Anyway, as you can see, I determine what I want to do with a car, then I find the one that does that with the most MPG and reliability. I was looking for a wagon I could take my small family travelling in, off-road not absolutely required. I was considering Fit and Matrix, with the old xB in last place because of looks, I must admit. But when I was forced into it, I discovered the old xB was the biggest of the 3 with MPG better than the Matrix. I'm just disappointed. The xB is NOT the xB anymore. More space, less gas, hi-visibility ergo-car turned into less space, more gas, normal visibility squashed SUV. Replies to this message: alamocity (Aug 22, 2008 5:12 pm)
#13 of 23 APPLES TO ORANGES by sn58411 Aug 21, 2008 (11:37 am)
I WORK FOR NISSAN AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE CUBE THEY IMPORT HERE WILL INCLUDW LOTS OF SAFTEY. THE 2007 VERSA WAS RATED ONE OF THE SAFEST SUB-COMPACTS. THE CVT TRANI SHOULD AD MORE FUEL ECONOMY AND THE JAP SPEC CUBE IS RATED AT 41 MILES PER GALLON WHEN DRIVEN THE WAY IT WAS MADE TO BW Replies to this message: ahsanman99 (Nov 30, 2008 8:15 am) arumage (Nov 30, 2008 5:35 pm)
#14 of 23 Re: Article Comments - 2008 Nissan Cube vs. 2008 Scion xB [anderlan] by alamocity Aug 22, 2008 (5:12 pm)
Replying to: anderlan (Jul 05, 2008 6:05 am) You forgot to mention the Forester.
#15 of 23 The cube is NOT hello kitty? by omi1 Aug 30, 2008 (1:26 am)
I am one of those people as well who liked the original XB. I hate it, now, COMPLETELY. Since I moved to Japan and saw the cube, I immediatly loved it more then the XB. I do not see hello kitty in it . I love a fast car but the Cube will work for me. Oh ya! All cars in Japan have a navigation system. Majority have iPod hook up. And TV
#16 of 23 Cheap vs. Premium by rockstonesteel Nov 28, 2008 (6:25 am)
I find both of these vehicles bordering on pathetic, both in styling and performance. The one vehicle in this category that will blow both of these away is the new Kia Soul that is coming to the US. However, the greatest unfortunate feature of all these vehicles is the lame torsion beam suspensions. It is sad that auto manufacturers are more consistently using these on small vehicles to save a buck at the expense of ride quality. I sincerely believe the market here in the US has a great desire for PREMIUM small cars that is not being met, yet we keep getting CHEAP small cars that are underpowered and have compromised suspensions (i.e. torsion beams). I believe that cars such as the Civic coupe, BMW Mini, and Rabbit, which all sell tremendously well indicate the true market for such vehicles. And those vehicles do not have to resort to bargain basement pricing, which indicates buyers are willing to pay for premium engines, transmissions, and suspensions. Additionally, automakers and the public need to get over the notion that small, underpowered engines somehow equate to good fuel economy. That simply isn't true, especially in US driving conditions. Vehicles typically need an approximate minimum of 1hp per 20 pounds of vehicle (or a maximum of 20 pounds of vehicle per 1 hp). Then give it a tall final drive ratio for the economy. This gives adequate off-the-line performance as well as decent highway driveability. And while Toyota has a decent reputation for fuel economy, the truth belies that myth. Toyota continues to use that lame 2.4 liter 4 cylinder which seriously lacks the horsepower or efficiency that an engine of that displacement should be getting. As a result, the Scion lineup gets seriously pathetic fuel economy ratings for that size and class of vehicle.
#17 of 23 Just My Opinion by arumage Nov 28, 2008 (7:13 am)
The Cube is just plain underpowered. I've heard some rumors that the cube will get the Versa's 1.8L 118hp for the US that will make it much better. The xB is overly heavy and has too much engine. I'm not a huge fan of the center mounted instruments either. A modest weight gain for added safety features along with the 1.8L engine featured in the Vibe would have been plenty, but instead it gained 700 lbs and 57hp. If I want a box on wheels, I'll go for the Kia Soul. At 140hp, it has enough oomph to get going on the highway. It's just a good compromise between the two boxy extremes that are the Cube and xB in my opinion. If everything goes as speculated... Nissan Cube 147" <2600 lbs 95 or 118hp 27.4 or 22 lbs per hp Scion xB 168" 3100lbs 158hp 19.6 lbs per hp Kia Soul 162" 2800lbs 122 or 142hp 22.9 or 19.7 lbs per hp
#18 of 23 I just drove a Versa by bankerdanny Nov 28, 2008 (9:05 am)
I got a Versa Sedan as a rental for a 360 mile one day round trip for thanksgiving with the family. To say I was unimpressed would be an understatement. It gets point for being very quiet, but the ride was 1970's Buick soft and I was particularly annoyed with the CVT. You have an infinite number of ratios between low and high. Why program it to act like a 4-speed auto. My trip included a few long steep hills. To maintain speed (abt 65 mph) the trans would "shift" to "3rd" and bump revs 1,000 rpms when maybe 500 would have done. It needlessly hurt MPG. I think the CVT is a fine idea, and Nissan's is better than the one Mini used, but it needs to be utilized better. The cost to make it work like a 6 or 7 speed is essentially $0 since it only requires new programming for the engine management system and not actually adding the extra gears. Replies to this message: rasldasl (Nov 28, 2008 5:35 pm)