hatchbacks:

done right--mazda3
done wrong-- Scion xB.

enough said [&:]

 

[sm=funnypostabove.gif]

[sm=happybounce.gif] [sm=groupwave.gif]


[sm=exactly.gif]

 

Read my post slim. I did not say a Scion Xb I said a Scion Tc. there is a difference. You should do that reading home work. It will pay off in the end

 

I could be wrong, but I read his post as independent from yours, not in response to yours.
Let's play nice, Boys.

 

I don't care much for the Tc either....with a whopping 130 hp.

 

goodcall virgin1 i really could care less wut MrGaragal said before me. [8D]

and sstlaure. the tC has 160 hp. (2.3L I4 with toyota's VVT). its quick for its price.

 

My bad.....130hp....160hp....I still don't like it. IMO it's a girls car....All of the Scions are.

 

Well, while staying off-topic for a bit longer, iirc the first Tc's did have about 130, or less. They were generally considered pretty slow, weren't they? Or is my memory just faulty?

 

That was my memory as well virgin1. For awhile, all Scions had the same 130 hp powertrain.

I consider the 160 hp Mazda3s pretty slow, so the 130 hp Tc was a turd.

 

My wife and I both drive hatchbacks because they're more useful. I have a Civic Si, and she's driving a 3s 5-door.

I think that after the SUV fad of the last few years, a lot of people have come to realize how useful hatches are (since all SUVs are hatchbacks). Now that so many are going back to smaller vehicles, hatches are becoming more popular. Seriously, who would go from an SUV to a car with a tiny trunk? I couldn't imagine trying to shove my mountain bike into the trunk of the 3s sedan, but it's no biggie for both of our bikes to fit in either one of our cars (we don't use bike racks for security reasons).