iQ Review

[JPaul]

Toyota wants to show the world that their new iQ city car is even more fuel efficient than its fuel economy label would tell you. In order to do so without running afoul of any government agencies, they've dispatched two lads to hypermile across England -- from Titty Ho to Crotch Crescent -- all the while blogging about their attempts to average an MPG reading that's higher than the car's posted fuel economy.
For those of you who haven't heard of it, the Toyota iQ is a microcar that gets 56 mpg and seats four in a package that's less than eight feet long. In other words, it's like a Smart ForTwo that seats a family and actually gets desirable gas mileage. At the time of this posting, one is heading out of Oxford, UK after racking up 500 miles on a single 8.5 gallon tank of petrol.

More at: Toyota Shows Its Hypermiling iQ | Autopia from Wired.com
Or at the link posted on this IQ's door:

[Bill Marshall]

Originally Posted by chieftmc

There goes their 65 mpg!

Easy come, easy go

Never really was 65 mpg becasue they're using British gallons. In USA gallons, it's more like 55 mpg.

Just as a point of comparison the smart fortwo mhd with the USA spec's engine gets an identical fuel consumption rating in the UK. The regular USA spec'd fortwo gets an almost as good 57.6 mpg in the UK.

[chieftmc]

I keep forgetting about that UK thing

[Smartdavis]

Imagine how crazy those Europeans must be to drive one of those IQ's without meeting American safety standards. This is absolutely incredible and proof that the Brits and their government must be living on a different planet. I am going to wait patiently for somebody in our government to prove to me that those cars won't explode on impact before I get near one. It always amazes me how people will risk their lives just to get some media attention. I just hope that nobody gets hurt.

[Brabus]

Originally Posted by vwW12

Alas!, this car is illegal in the US today because of US DOT government regulations:

«Last week, chief engineer Hiroki Nakajima said he expects a U.S. launch in the “midterm,” before the first model update. The company needs to develop different airbags and improve bumper strength to help the iQ pass U.S. safety standards»

«To meet the federal safety standards the rear seat might have to go»

Seems like minimal requirements to meet U.S. specs. Stronger bumpers and different airbags seems like an easy fix, but everyone is right safety will make or break a small car like this. I tend to think Toyota knows what they are doing, because overall...all their U.S. small cars got a Good for both side and front crash tests for 2009 model year. And they know who they are competing with so it'd be a loss of sales for them not to get a perfect score. Wonder what midterm means, does that mean a Scion iQ by middle of the 2009 year?

I may wait for the GM Genius, the Honda Brainiac, Ford Ka-lever, Chrysler Know-It-All to upgrade my Brabus.

So the Smart has 45.4 cu ft of interior volume, yet I can't seem to find the interior volume of the iQ anywhere. It's not as tall as the Smart (Smart is 60.7" tall versus iQ is 59.1" tall). The iQ is longer and wider, yet absolutely no article that I can find and even Toyota's website doesn't specify the interior volume.

I found one site that said the seats can be folded flat to create 242 litres of space, which converts to 8.5 cu ft. I suspect the 8.5 cubic feet is up to the "beltline" rather than up to the roof for safety reasons. Smart's website is very specific, it states 7.8 cubic feet up to the beltline and 12 cu. feet up to the roof.

0-60 in the Smart if faster, top speed is the same governed speed, Smart is lighter, it seems to all comes down to those extra seats and appearance. Gas mileage is the same. If the interior was bigger, then maybe but I suspect the interior of the iQ is less than the Smart which is why Toyota isn't boasting about interior volume and focusing on the extra seats, which will be interesting to see if the U.S. safety specs approve it or not. They may have more problems than just bumpers and airbags with that rear seat.

But what surprises me most is that Toyota (of all companies) didn't produce a car with better gas mileage than the Smart. Rather shocked.

Overall, I'm not impressed. If they had come out with a car with better gas mileage or a bigger interior, the only advantage other than personal preference of looks, manufacturer, etc. that I can see is that third seat...without that feature the car the car doesn't hold a huge advantage over the Smart.

[smark]

BRABUS, look here. There might be some interior numbers, in the Toyota UK site.

Toyota iQ Specification, Colours and Engines | Toyota UK

There are air bags behind the rear seats in the IQ.

[Brabus]

Originally Posted by smark

BRABUS, look here. There might be some interior numbers, in the Toyota UK site.

Toyota iQ Specification, Colours and Engines | Toyota UK

There are air bags behind the rear seats in the IQ.

That was one of the sites I checked. I looked at a magazine today from I believe Car and Driver (it was a March 09 edition). It wasn't too kind to the iQ and praised the Ford Ka in the article. The magazine concluded the same way I did by saying the rear seat is the only thing that makes it significantly different than a Smart. They also said that it'll never come to the U.S., which they didn't explain.

I suspect it is either slightly larger or smaller, i.e. there is a reason why it's missing because car companies love to brag about car space when comparing to another segment.

What I'd like to know is whether there is an advantage to having the engine in the rear or front. I use to have a MR2 and having the engine in the rear was a headache for major repairs, however the Smart is a different kind of car due to its size thus the weight ratio is different.

The other thing I'd like to know is how a higher horsepower engine in either the Smart or iQ would respond overall in handling on the road. I suspect you'll see Smarts get modified engines especially with the world's most crappy warranty.

[Jared]

Originally Posted by Brabus

What I'd like to know is whether there is an advantage to having the engine in the rear or front. I use to have a MR2 and having the engine in the rear was a headache for major repairs, however the Smart is a different kind of car due to its size thus the weight ratio is different.

Actually the MR2 is mid-engined which makes for a better balanced car for handling. As you alluded, weight ratios are key. A rear engined car typically will be prone to more oversteer, particularly during lift throttle situations (see Porsche 911): If you go into a corner too hot and lift the gas to the point where the loading of the car is upset, a rear engined car is more likely to spin than a front engined car. To counteract this, one can induce understeer by smaller width front tires and aggressive stability electronics. Since the ESP (electronic stability program) on the smart is so aggressive, it's likely most any front engined car would handle better. Putting wider rubber up front on the smart (i.e. the Brabus) can help the handling.

Originally Posted by Brabus

The other thing I'd like to know is how a higher horsepower engine in either the Smart or iQ would respond overall in handling on the road. I suspect you'll see Smarts get modified engines especially with the world's most crappy warranty.

There are three basic performance aspects of cars: acceleration, braking, handling (cornering). HP gets you acceleration. An engine doesn't affect handling, other than it's weight. Light weight improves all three aspects, a principle that is nearly completely forgotten in this day and age.

A stock iQ will most likely handle better than a stock smart due to it's track and tire widths, and absence of an ESP that's paranoid about spinning. The smart's handling can be improved by changing a few things to bring it more towards neutral handling: namely wider front tires, stiffer suspension, and a lower center of gravity (Brabus seems to recognize these aspects).

In terms of real world drivability (acceleration and passing), I would love to see a smart turbo here. Fuel economy would still be quite good as long as you didn't have your foot into it, and just having the extra power as a reserve would be assuring. Nothing extreme like the what the modders do, but I think if the car had an additional 20-30 hp, it would be a lot more fun.

[sandiegoway]

Don't get me wrong, I love my little SMART car!

However, I just got back from a focus group in Long Beach, CA. (AIM RESEARCH)

I have to tell you I was very impressed with the Scion IQ> A 4 seater, hybrid, with an estimated MPG of 59!
Here's the kicker: $15,749 estimated MSRP !!!

oH, MY ....

[jefferios]

Besides the airbags for safety; I wonder what the car frame is like for sturdiness.