Full Test: 2004 Scion (Toyota) xA

[NFS4]

Full Test: 2004 Scion xA

Pic #1
Pic #2

Previous thread (it's boxier brother):

Full Test: 2004 Scion (Toyota) xB

 

[tweakmm]

soooooo uuuuggggllllllly

 

[Ryan]

Holy jeebus! THe rear end looks really ugly to me for some reason - it makes the verticleness (sp?) or the hatch seem horrible, unlike toyotas photos. Damn, after seeing that, my opinion has changed. This car is TOO funky for my tastes. Oh well, at least I found another quirky toyota that I like - the new PRIUS (not that I'm going to be owning one any time soon)!

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
soooooo uuuuggggllllllly

It ain't THAT bad. It looks like a miniature Matrix, but I guess if you don't like the Matrix...

Anyway, the testers seemed to like it. And at this price point, I'd be stupid to pick a Kia/Hyundai over a Scion/Toyota:

Road Test Editor John DiPietro says:
Taken by itself, the xA is spunky, space-efficient and priced low enough so that it could be almost anybody's first new car. Furthermore, it comes with a generous list of standard equipment ? no need to check off a number of option packages to make the car palatable. In spite of its modest power output, the xA never felt flat-footed, even though it had an automatic tranny. Likewise for the handling, as this Mini-Me Matrix had a tossable nature that made it fun to drive when flung through the curves. Ah yes, the beauty of low mass. And best of all, it's a Toyota! This means that whoever buys the xA should enjoy years (decades?) of stone reliable service along with a user-friendly cabin that should wear well as the years and miles pile up.

Were it not for xA's funky and similarly priced xB brother, I'd give the "A" my whole-hearted endorsement. But the "B" is the one I'd get, because it offers even more room and the boxy body design that I previously decried as silly (when I saw pictures of it) has grown on me fast and in a big way. Either way, econocar shoppers can't go wrong.

Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig says:
When I first saw the xA, I was admittedly skeptical. Catering to younger generations with the promise of a low price is one thing, but doing it with a car that looks like pretty much every other econobox on the road is another. After a short test-drive, however, I came away thinking that the xA might just have enough personality to make good on its promise.

Short gears gave the xA more pep around town than I expected, but passing on the freeway took an eternity. The car's suspension was a real eye-opener as it's unexpectedly tight, giving the car a nimble feel that's absent from the typically flaccid setups of most economy sedans and hatchbacks.

What really impressed me in the end, however, was the quality and design of the interior. Whereas most cars in this price range use only the most basic colors and materials, the xA's multihued cabin not only looks good, it feels more expensive as well. Maybe it was the Toyota build quality shining through, but whatever it was, it looked pretty good for a $16K car. I had a mixed reaction to the optional mood lighting. Yeah, it looks cool, but having to pay extra for it is lame, and the fact that they called it out so blatantly with a very visible on-off switch makes it look like the designers are trying to get brownie points for it. They should have just included the lights for free and never said a word about it ? now that would have been cool.

 

[BigSmooth]

Ugly. Just... ugly.
Although it's not quite as bad as the xB IMO.

I like this quote:

as the xA weighs almost 300 pounds more than the Echo, acceleration isn't as spirited

So the Echo, an extremely slow car, has "spirited acceleration" compared to the xA? :disgust: Man, a Civic must seem like a McLaren in comparison!

Still, it does provide a decent value considering the very low pricing.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: bigsmooth
Ugly. Just... ugly.
Although it's not quite as bad as the xB IMO.

I like this quote:

as the xA weighs almost 300 pounds more than the Echo, acceleration isn't as spirited

So the Echo, an extremely slow car, has "spirited acceleration" compared to the xA? :disgust: Man, a Civic must seem like a McLaren in comparison!

Still, it does provide a decent value considering the very low pricing.

If I'm not mistaken, an Echo 5-speed goes 0-60 in 8.9 seconds or less which isn't bad for an economy car.

 

[BigSmooth]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: bigsmooth
Ugly. Just... ugly.
Although it's not quite as bad as the xB IMO.

I like this quote:

as the xA weighs almost 300 pounds more than the Echo, acceleration isn't as spirited

So the Echo, an extremely slow car, has "spirited acceleration" compared to the xA? :disgust: Man, a Civic must seem like a McLaren in comparison!

Still, it does provide a decent value considering the very low pricing.

If I'm not mistaken, an Echo 5-speed goes 0-60 in 8.9 seconds or less which isn't bad for an economy car.

No, that's not that bad, but it sure isn't good. Plus, as you know, any car that has an automatic available will sell a very low percentage of manual-equipped cars, so the average Echo is probably slower than that.
And in the review of the xA, one of the editors mentions that the around-town driving isn't the real problem, it's trying to pass on the highway.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Ugly... the boxy one looks decent.

 

[prodigy]

I like the Matrix, but xB > xA

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: prodigy
I like the Matrix, but xB > xA

I agree...I like the boxy shape of the xB. Has more cargo/passenger room too.

 

[Maximin]

Originally posted by: prodigy
I like the Matrix, but xB > xA