2008 Scion xB: The Best Laid Plans ...

^your nuts. The 4 cylinder rav4 I rented couldnt get past 23~24mpg on the highway.
 
our mini scion xa road trip. did slightly better doing ~75mpg covered 256miles using 8 gallons. ~32mpg. I actually drove it some this time. And ya the thing needs some heads up its passing, my sunfire is similar but the bigger 2.2 engine has a bit more troque. I needed to plan a 65mph pass with the xa.

I'd say that's about what you'd expect from a vehicle in this class: 28 mpg on the highway. If it was meant as an economy car, Toyota would have left the anemic 1.5L in there. Instead they opted to make it more driveable. What about other small hatches with similar power? HHR (22/30), PT Cruiser (19/24), Caliber (23/27), Element (20/25), Mazda3 (22/29), '09 Matrix (21/29), Rabbit (21/29). So its mileage is pretty normal considering its competition.
  
For irba:
Now, maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I can't find a single 3.6L V6 engine that yields anywhere close to 22/28. 18/26, maybe, but not 22/28. The awd RAV4 gets 20/25 in 4-cyl trim; again, not even close. And the Sienna? 17/23.

Problem here is, the old xB got 30+ mpg CONSISTENTLY with no conscious effort and also had more interior room! So what if it needed to downshift more often? That was part of its character.
 
Then again, there are always the people who will sacrifice everything else in order to have better performance in 30mph headwinds, or tow a boat once a year, or, well, you get the idea.

The Sonata gets better MPG.

We rented a new xB for a week while the Matrix was in the body shop. I couldn't wait to hand it back. Poor mileage, poor visibility, poor handling - other than the flat backseat floor there was nothing redeeming about the car at all. Scion took everything that was great about the original xB and neutered it to satisfy Americans. No wonder sales are down.
 
In comparison, my Matrix gets 30mpg combined regularly, outruns and outhandles the xB, and doesn't look like a UPS truck that was left in the drier too long.

You'd think this was an H2 or Dodge Ram Hemi, judging by some of the comments. Somehow, getting 27+ mpg while hauling four people and a load of luggage is related to "the people who will sacrifice everthing else..." Gimme a break!
 
p.s. Yes, there are sedans that might get similar mpgs, but are not nearly as versatile.

I have a 3.9L Impala and at 65mpg I'll get about 33mpg. It doesn't matter what direction the wind is blowing.
I don't think you can expect to get great highway mileage in a vehicle that's shaped like a brick. Look at how much mileage was effected when edmunds put the luggage on top of the enclave.

@texases: some of the outrage may come from how far the second xB has strayed from the original: it's no longer light, zippy, or efficient, all qualities that caused the xB to be such a success for Scion.
 
Toyota could have solved this by putting in a four-cylinder engine somewhere between 1.5 and 2.4 litres to compromise between performance (which the aging 2.4 lacks anyway) and economy (which the 1.5 offers). Problem: Toyota only offers once such engine in the US, the 1.8 used in the Scion xD, Corolla and Matrix.
 
Toyota hasn't offered a 2.0 or 2.2L engine here in years (the last one was the 2.0 in the RAV4, which was killed four years ago). And given their thinking of late - share as many components as possible and offer no truly unique engines - it will probably stay that way for the indefinite future.

dj - I understand the disappointment of the gen1 xB crowd, and it is causing Scion problems in the market, as described in this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/automobiles/autoreviews/30scion.html?ref=automobiles
 
I just step back, and, for what it is, it does its work OK. If you don't need the room, yes, other cars will be a better choice.

Worst vehicle to drive in those I-10 headwinds? My 6 cylinder Wrangler. There the sail like areodynamics really really really hurt it. I had to be in 3rd gear to maintain 60mph on the freeway! Did that trip too many times...

You say the headwind is like hitting a brick wall, but the wind is probably saying the same thing about the xB!!

for greenpony,
 
(I was meaning 3.5 & 3.6 V6, their engine displacement are so close..)
 
try the 3.5 V6 camry which gives you a handsome 28mpg on the highways, and I was surprised to find that the 2008 mpg for the V6 4WD RAV4 is even better than the 4 cylinder version... 26mpg highway!
 
I know 26=\=28, but I would sacrifice the 2 mpg for the look, interior space, and awd.
 
They should really have offered an 1.8 or 2.0 base model for the new XB...

Sure, a Rav4 is better in many ways, but also much more $$, especially the V6. I'm curious - is there a better option than the xB for the same $$? Would need to have same amount of room, remember.

dj -
 
The mileage drop isn't coming from the bigger engine. It's coming from the 700 pound weight gain, and the larger frontal area, and the wider tires.
 
Putting a minicar engine in a regular sized vehicle doesn't give you minicar mileage. It just gives you a slow car which makes a lot of noise and gets 28 mpg instead of 27.

Texases: I'm interested in this segment, and if I were looking today, I'd cross-shop the xB against the Versa and the 2009 Matrix/Vibe with the 1.8l engine.
 
The Versa is the least "sporty" of the group, but thanks to the deteriorating L.A. streets, I wouldn't mind a softer-sprung ride. Plus, I like the available hi-tech features.
 
The Matrix/Vibe have the decent 1.8l engine and a flat load floor, and the Vibe has the longer warranty and standard OnStar. So for me, it's a wash between the Versa and Vibe right now.
 
I've ruled out the HHR due to the poor mileage of the Ecotec engines. (Plus, that car is way overpriced.)

aspade
 
I agree completely. Whether you put a 1.8, 2.4 or even a 3.5 V6 in this thing, it will get about the same mileage.
 
Weight and drag kill mileage, at least the original was light.

misterfusion -- you must be living the same life as me.
 
I am also cross-shopping the Versa/Vibe/xD and have come up with similar opinions.
 
Versa-Gas sipper, comfortable, has quirks but can live with them.
 
xD-Funky, more style, equally as economical
 
Vibe(GT)-Wild Child styling, better performance(w/2.4), better versatility, worth the hit in the pocketbook and at the pump?
 
I'm waiting for GM to slap some incentives on the Vibe so that the prices will equal out somewhat. Frankly, I'd probably be happy with either one of them.

LOL Altimadude, small world (or should I say "compact"?) Forgot to mention that the Versa has damned impressive IIHS crash ratings -- but no available stability control (d'oh!). But what I like about it is that a loaded Versa costs about the same as some entry-level competitors.
 
I figured the 2.4 Vibe would get the same mileage as the xB, so I wasn't sure if it was worth it. :P
 
I like the xD, but any idea what the crash ratings are?

"but no available stability control (d'oh!). "
 
Does anyone actually care about stability control?
 
Always struck me as a gadget carmakers stick on a car to give the illusion of safety.

Misterfusion -- According to a quick flip through Edmunds' pages (of course not the end-all, say-all source), the xD actually out performs the Versa in side impacts, earning five stars by the NHTSA. Other scores are the same. The xD received an "Acceptable" from the IIHS in comparison of a "good" rating for the Versa.
 
Mileage for a manual xD is 27/33.
Pontiac Vibe w/1.8L: 26/32
Pontiac Vibe GT (2.4L): 21/29 (pontiac.com)
Nissan Versa CVT: 27/33
 
So, at least with the 1.8L engine, the Vibe is competative in MPGs. But as you said, a loaded Versa gives you lots of goodies at a base Vibe price. And the Scion is even cheaper yet.
 
Grr! Why can't these choices be simple!