Toyota unveiled the iQ last year with an impressive 65.7 mpg, 55 mpg in the US. But a not so impressive 67 horsepower. So Toyota is bringing a more powerful version to the Geneva Motor Show next week.
The more powerful iQ will be powered by a 99 horsepower 1.3L VVTi engine with 58.9 mpg (49 in the US) when mated to the six-speed manual transmission. When the engine is mated to the Multidrive automatic transmission it gets 55.4 mpg (46 mpg in the states).
The more powerful iQ will be on sale in Europe this July.
Related Stories:
Toyota iQ Wins Japanese Car of the Year
Comments (18)
Look at that, the US is getting an econobox that actually has fuel economy to match the small size. Not the car I'm looking for, but if it's cheap it sure makes a lot of sense (unlike the SMART cars).
Posted by thetruth | February 27, 2009 4:49 PM
Posted on February 27, 2009 16:49
This will be great to give to you kids for thear 16th birthday.
Posted by 426Hemi | February 27, 2009 6:54 PM
Posted on February 27, 2009 18:54
I'd be plenty happy with a $15,000 birthday gift any day. Will you be my sugar daddy, big 426Hemi?
Posted by big_whiney_baby | February 27, 2009 7:06 PM
Posted on February 27, 2009 19:06
Reminds me of the XA....
Which should have had a performance option, like dropping the 2ZZ-GE engine from the Celica GTS into it....
That'd be one blast of a little car. Like a Mini S, but on crack, all twitchy and uncontrollable.
Posted by Brian | February 28, 2009 12:02 AM
Posted on February 28, 2009 00:02
Death Trap. The only way I would drive this is on the golf courses.
Posted by SteelCity1981 | February 28, 2009 5:58 AM
Posted on February 28, 2009 05:58
OK. So we actually got two sets of MPG numbers. What isn't clear is what two sets we have.
Is it the NEDC number (converted to miles/US gal) and the EPA number (which is always lower due to test methodology)?
or is it the NEDC number converted to miles/imp.gal. and again the NEDC number but converted to miles/US gal?
Given the ratios, it could be the latter in which case the car will see a lower mileage than this when measured by EPA standards.
(I'm not saying that one test is better than the other, but when comparing mileages of different cars, they should be compared based on the same test.)
Posted by bubba551 | February 28, 2009 9:26 AM
Posted on February 28, 2009 09:26
I should mention that, as a commuter, I like it (assuming that the front seat room is there.)
As for the back seats of small cars, my expectations are that they are for groceries and children.
If you need a back seat, buy a mid-size.
(A friend has a 3 series and while I could ride in the back all day, I find it hard to exit the car due to the fact that the front of my shoes extend under the back of the front seats.)
Posted by bubba551 | February 28, 2009 9:39 AM
Posted on February 28, 2009 09:39
SteelCity1981 name one mass produced car that nobody has ever died driving. Your comment is rediculous and that kind of 5tupidity slows progress. If you're worried about dying in a car, I highly recommend you avoid them altogether. Good luck with that.
Posted by Fear-it | March 1, 2009 1:36 AM
Posted on March 1, 2009 01:36
Steelcity,
SUVs, pickups are worst performers in crash tests and in general in practise end up in more accidents due to higher roll over tendency and poor road holding.
IQ and similar micros tend to get best safety marks.
Large car safety is a myth.
Death traps are usual crappy pieces of shit like Cherokees etc..
IQ has the world's first back airbag curtain to protect when hit from rear.
In recent tests SUVs with people on the extra back seats got heads smashed when hit from behind because the heads are literally on rear windows. They would actually need the system IQ has etc...
Big car safety was a myth started by marketing guys to make women feel safer in big cars that US makers were pushing because it was the type of car they could build and with no real inovation which means it was profitable for them.
And it backfired. What remains is the myth. It seems logical but in practice, makers don't make safe big cars. They all perform poorly in crashes and also impact others in chrashes negatively.
Posted by Diesel | March 1, 2009 3:17 AM
Posted on March 1, 2009 03:17
@Diesel
What's the point of an airbag curtain that's only gona end up hitting the back of your headrest?
Posted by 426Hemi | March 1, 2009 8:34 PM
Posted on March 1, 2009 20:34
@426Hemi:
The majority of full-size, mid-size, and subcompacts don't have rear headrests. If you sit in the back seat of any of these cars and look behind you, all you'll see is the rear window, the seat ends at the base of your neck. The rear airbag just places a barrier between you and the window, and provides a cushion so your head and neck don't snap back during a hard collision.
Posted by Actius | March 2, 2009 7:22 AM
Posted on March 2, 2009 07:22
@Actius
"If you sit in the back seat..."
There are no back seats in this car.
Posted by 426Hemi | March 2, 2009 9:41 AM
Posted on March 2, 2009 09:41
@426Hemi:
There are indeed back seats for this car. The official layout is 3 + 1. That is 3 adults and 1 child. The interior has an asymetrical layout ( the dash is smaller on the passenger side to accomodate the full size front and rear passenger. The seat behind the driver is suitable only for children). The rear airbag is a first for any car.
Posted by longdxcommuter | March 2, 2009 2:21 PM
Posted on March 2, 2009 14:21
@longdxcommuter
I'm sorry, I thought this car was made to hold people over 5ft. tall.
Posted by 426Hemi | March 2, 2009 9:53 PM
Posted on March 2, 2009 21:53
lol wtf is this crap
Posted by Sandman | March 3, 2009 11:06 AM
Posted on March 3, 2009 11:06
@426Hemi:
You might want to peruse the Toyota website or even better watch the Fifth Gear review of the vehicle. The passenger side will allow a 6'2" adult in both front and rear. You may not like Toyota, this car or me for that matter. But please take 2 minutes to get your facts straight. (it is really not that hard with the internet and all) Granted this may not be your cup of tea with a moniker of "426Hemi" but for the commuter (re: my tag) this might be an appealing option. (49mpg without the use of needless hybrid systems)
Posted by longdxcommuter | March 3, 2009 4:46 PM
Posted on March 3, 2009 16:46
@longdxcommuter
I'll just wait till see it in person, thene I'll make my final judgment on this car.
Posted by 426Hemi | March 4, 2009 7:51 AM
Posted on March 4, 2009 07:51
I own a ForTwo going on two years now. Plan on trading it in when the warranty expires. It took me awhile to get use to the shifter but I'm still waiting for an after market upgrade for a quick shifter. I don't think it's going to happen. If Toyota brings the IQ to the US; it would be a trade up to my Smart. That is if the IQ is sold with a full manual or automatic. As for safety; I don't feel safe in any car sold. But,if safety is the only reason why I would buy a car, then maybe a TANK will be better for me. I've seen big and little cars get mangled in wrecks. It doesn't matter what one drives, you will get hurt. And yes, that also includes a TANK too. As for fuel consumption; if you own an ic engine, then we all have to pay what ever the going fuel prices are; $.o1to $150.00/gallon or more. The IQ can be made with a full time electric drive with a built in battery recharger as well as a plug-in too. But, for our time now a 99 hp ic in the USA would make the IQ a really hot pocket rocket. So, I look forward to the IQ in the USA with out losing my Fortwo size to much. Actually, I'll get a gain of two baby seats.
Posted by Steven | March 8, 2009 2:24 PM
Posted on March 8, 2009 14:24