Toyota Furia Concept Video, First Look: 2013 Detroit Auto Show

[heartdisease]

The presenter in the video needs to slow down and they need to take a microfiber towel over the car before they turn on the high def camera's. I like the styling overall but the honeycomb stuff in the grill has to go. Can you imagine trying to clean that?!

[SuperchargedMR2]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

Ummm...your 2007 numbers are definitely wrong and are likely using the old EPA numbers they've been revised. Straight from fueleconomy.org the official government source using the same tranny and engine being the 1.8L 4-speed auto, the one people buy, this is exactly what it shows.

2003 - 25/30
2007 - 25/31
2008 - 25/31
2012 - 25/32

The newer one is better. Even given a manual, the numbers are actually essentially the same across. If you're criticizing Toyota's rate of progress, yeah this is not good to achieve so little. Saying the newer one is worse...there's again zero evidence to suggest that.

My 07 Matrix XR did have the older 30/36 sticker in the window when I bought it & I averaged 34+ mpg over the 55k miles that I put on it. The 2nd gen got lower mpg as most of them had the 2.4L engine that got worse mpg. Only the base model had the 1.8L . Most of the 2nd gen Matrix models that I see are the S/XRS with the 2.4L in them.

[aznstylez]

Originally Posted by heartdisease

The presenter in the video needs to slow down and they need to take a microfiber towel over the car before they turn on the high def camera's. I like the styling overall but the honeycomb stuff in the grill has to go. Can you imagine trying to clean that?!

I think the new Corolla's honey comb grill is easier to clean than my 2001 Toyota Avalon grill. It's bigger and wider than a tooth brush so cleaning it shouldn't be a problem.

[CarGuyLee]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

No problem at all.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....24443&id=32191

My only criticism was that you said the newer Matrix got worse mpg when it just didn't. Barely noticeable gains is not the same as worse. Saying you didn't like the design, that's always subjective and thus I didn't criticize that. Heck, I don't like the car myself but its evident Toyota wouldn't be silly to give the current Matrix a new engine that actually got worse mpg than the old one. If Toyota kept the old 1ZZ engine there's the chance it could get worse fuel economy just because of the heavier body.


You just proved my point there. Honda didn't initially have this amount of aftermarket support, that used to be territory of the muscle cars which still to this day have excellent aftermarket support. The only reason aftermarket parts are so cheap for the Civic is because a lot of people deemed the Civic cool enough to sport these modifications and therefore the aftermarket can make a lot of profit by selling lots of modifications for those cars. Its not even a Honda thing, the Accord is more readily available and its from the same company that makes the Civic but its aftermarket support pales to the Civic and Integra.

If the Corolla was the cooler one, it would be getting the aftermarket support even if its the more difficult one to mod and it would be the cheaper one to mod as well. Heck the Corolla even got a head start with the Initial D craze, the AE86 is a aftermarket favourite. The difference is few deemed the successor Corollas to be worth dumping huge amounts of money into for mods, hence the aftermarket prefers to ignore them even though they're very readily available.

Its down to consumers to essentially elect which car they feel is cool. Scion is supposed to be aftermarket friendly with Toyota designing them so that they can be easily modified, but not enough bought one and not a lot modded them either. The aftermarket scene has no brand loyalty, if another car succeeds the Civic in the cool factor you'll see the aftermarket tuners flock there as its their only way of survival.

Right going by the numbers I looked at, and could see, it appeared worse to me. I will go along with it getting the same city/hwy number as the old model, according to the website. It gained in combined so that's an improvment, but not the kind of improvment I would expect, especially back then I don't think the window sticker showed a combined MPG.

[CarGuyLee]

Originally Posted by heartdisease

The presenter in the video needs to slow down and they need to take a microfiber towel over the car before they turn on the high def camera's. I like the styling overall but the honeycomb stuff in the grill has to go. Can you imagine trying to clean that?!

I think we might seen a toned down version of the honeycomb grill, but I doubt we will see a light behind some of the grill.

I'm pretty anxious to see how roomy the interior will be with the gain in wheelbase and length. I would like to see VW Jetta type of room in the backseat.

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by SuperchargedMR2

My 07 Matrix XR did have the older 30/36 sticker in the window when I bought it & I averaged 34+ mpg over the 55k miles that I put on it. The 2nd gen got lower mpg as most of them had the 2.4L engine that got worse mpg. Only the base model had the 1.8L . Most of the 2nd gen Matrix models that I see are the S/XRS with the 2.4L in them.

Beating the EPA numbers is nothing special the EPA lists my Impreza as 18/26 even though I consistently get 25 mpg with my commute being 100% city. Cressida exceeded EPA numbers significantly especially on highway. The only reason to use them is all cars are put through the same conditions to produce those numbers, they tend to give a good idea which model will be more efficient over the other for the regular driver who's not very good at driving.

As for the 2nd gen getting lower mpg, you can't make a blanket statement the car produces worse mpg when the engine choices aren't the same. The only conclusive way to note the car is worse on fuel economy is using similar engines and the only similar engine is the 1.8L and they can be compared and in this case the 2nd gen is better, albeit slightly. Using the 2.4L and saying this is the reason its worse on mpg is just silly, you note most of the Matrix's in your area are 2.4Ls but I see more 1.8s. The 1.8 engine is there for those concerned about fuel economy, if Toyota eliminated this engine then yes you can technically conclude the car is worse on fuel economy for the lack of engine choice as the reason.