In 2010, Toyota’s Scion brand excited fans of small cars when it announced that America would get what it called the world’s smallest four-seat car. The iQ hit American shores during the 2012 model year as Toyota’s interpretation of the city car formula that made Smart famous. The iQ was a weird experiment in tiny cars that was only sold for four years, but Toyota churned out a hot version before the car took a bow. The Toyota iQ GRMN Supercharger boosted the smallest four-seater to 120 HP and upgraded the vehicle’s platform, turning the little car into a hot go-kart. With just 100 ever built and all of them in Japan, you’ll likely never see one.
Tiny cars have been a part of America for a very long time, from the Crosley cars of the 1940s to imports such as the Subaru 360 of the late 1950s and 1960s, and the oh-so-adorable Honda Z cars from the 1970s. For decades, Americans wanting less got just that. Today’s subject takes us to a more modern era. Eventually, the Smart Fortwo planted its stakes in America. The new Fiat 500 did, too, and these cars were joined by affordable offerings such as the Toyota Yaris, Mazda2, Ford Fiesta, Honda Fit, and even the Chevy Aveo.
If cash was tight during the Great Recession, a number of automakers offered small cars to help you get through the rough time.
If you needed a tiny car, but wanted more than the two seats Smart offered, Toyota had just the thing. In 2011, the brand launched the Scion iQ in America, and that car suffered the same fate as Smart USA and the Fortwo. While the iQ is gone, there is a version of it worthy of being called a Grail.
Revolutionary Change
The Toyota iQ was released into the world in 2008, right on time to compete with the then-new generation Smart Fortwo. However, the idea that became the iQ sprouted up long before that.
As Toyota UK Magazine writes, the Toyota iQ was the automaker’s answer to growing global concerns impacting the world’s cities, namely, pollution and congestion. The magazine notes that discussions on such topics were hot in the 2000s and it seemed as if everyone had ideas on how to make driving a bit easier for everyone. Toyota believed that in order for cars to have a secure place in the future, those vehicles had to be frugal on fuel consumption, emit as little CO2 as possible, and help cut down on congestion.
Toyota UK Magazine writes that the iQ’s development started in 2003 after an initial proposal. Development was led by Chief Engineer Hiroiki Nakajima and the team was given a rather large, or should I say, small, task. Toyota’s development team had to take the small car and make it even smaller. That would be challenging enough, but that subcompact had to seat four people while also retaining attractive styling and Toyota’s characteristic refinement. Toyota’s engineers had to do all of this with a vehicle coming in at less than three meters of overall length.
Toyota UK Magazine continues by saying the early development of the vehicle involved revolutionizing how a car is designed. To get four people into such a tiny space, the car had to be miniaturized. That meant a change in philosophy, from the magazine:
The Japanese design philosophy of ‘kaizen’ – meaning continuous incremental improvement – simply didn’t apply here. Instead, ‘kakushin’ – for revolutionary change or radical innovation – became the driving force behind the project. Every detail, every subset of components had to be rethought, not just in their design but also in how they related to each other and how they could be packaged within the iQ’s footprint.
While the development team worked on miniaturizing the car, designers in Japan and Toyota’s ED2 Design Centre in France had to take 10 feet of car and turn it into something you’d want to carry home with you in your backpack.
After two years of initial development, Toyota brass gave the project the green light for production. The first iQ concept car rolled out at the 2007 Frankfurt Motor Show. The production version launched at the 2008 Geneva motor show. Of course, Americans wouldn’t get to enjoy the car until late 2011.
The World’s Smallest Four Seater
When the iQ launched, Toyota was proud to call the car the smallest four-seat vehicle in the world. While I am not sure if this is true for every car of all time, it was definitely true of cars built in 2008 and later. At launch, the iQ was a scant 2985 mm, or just 9.79 feet. Toyota UK Magazine noted that the iQ’s competition, at least as far as size was concerned, was the Smart Fortwo and the Smart Forfour. The Fortwo seated just two and was a foot shorter. Meanwhile, the Forfour seated four, but was over two feet longer.
The iQ split the difference between the two cars, offering buyers something they could slip into tiny spaces while still seating four people. It should be noted that while Toyota’s UK magazine says the Forfour was a rival, the Forfour was out of production for two years before the iQ came along. The second generation of the Forfour came in 2014, just a year before the iQ bowed out of production.
Toyota used some clever engineering to make a car about 10 feet long and 5.5 feet wide fit four people. The automaker says a lot of the tricks went into the vehicle. To maximize interior volume, Toyota punched the wheels out to as far near the edges as they could be. To facilitate this up front, the differential was moved forward of the engine, placing the centerline of the wheels slightly ahead of the engine.
Another space-saving development happened with the steering gear. In other Toyota small cars, tie rods connect to the ends of a conventional rack and pinion. In the iQ, the rods connect to the center of the steering gear. Toyota says this allows the steering rack to sit back near the firewall, reducing front overhang and saving space in the engine bay.
The engineering didn’t stop there. The iQ uses a flat fuel tank that resides under the floor, roughly in front of the rear seat and under the driver seat. Other space-saving measures included the aforementioned air-conditioner pack, which was reduced in size by 20 percent, that weird dash, which is slimmer on the passenger side for more legroom, and seats slimmed down to barely thicker than what you’d see on a bus so that rear passengers could have a place to put their knees. The glovebox was also deleted for even more room.
The Toyota iQ uses its space so efficiently that rear passengers will find their heads literally a couple of inches from the rear glass. Since Toyota targeted five stars in the Euro NCAP, this meant 11 airbags, including inventing what Toyota says is the world’s first rear curtain airbag. To Toyota’s credit, the iQ did score five stars in its crash test, something my beloved Fortwo did not.
The smallest engine available was the 996cc 1KR-FE three, which produced 67 HP. Other engines would include a 1,364cc 1ND-FTV diesel four making 89 HP and a 1,329cc 1NR-FE making 93 HP. Another variant of the 1NR-FE made 97 HP. Drivers had their choice of manual transmission or CVT.
For those of us in America, the Scion iQ gave us one choice, the 1NR-FE making 93 HP and coupled to a CVT. Here in America, the Scion iQ changed little from its global counterparts. The EPA rated the vehicle at 37 mpg highway, 36 mpg city, and 37 mpg combined. The Smart Fortwo gets 41 mpg on the highway, but 33 mpg in the city, so the iQ wins.
I’ve had the pleasure of driving the iQ back when it was a new face in America. I thought back then, as I still do today, that the iQ was a more refined driving experience than a second-generation Smart Fortwo. The CVT, while boring, didn’t have any of the jerking of the Smart’s automated-manual. The suspension was softer, the turning circle was tighter, and the engine had more power. On paper, Toyota built a better Smart. However, I couldn’t escape the feeling that I was driving a scaled-down Yaris.
It was a fine car, but it didn’t quite have the “puppy dog” character of a Smart. It also didn’t really seat myself plus four of my friends. Three of us fit in just fine, but the poor person sitting behind me began wishing they didn’t have legs. Mind you, our tall friend, the guy above 6 feet, sat shotgun next to me. The car also hit 60 mph in about 9.7 seconds, making it faster than my 11-second smart!
Perhaps others felt the same way. In Europe, Toyota sold 99,359 iQs between 2008 and 2018. Yep, the iQ was discontinued in 2015, but were still selling a few years later. Meanwhile, Smart sold 605,305 Fortwos in Europe from 2008 to 2015. The iQ didn’t even come close. Smart even took Toyota to the cleaners here in America, and Smart was already a failing brand here! From 2011 to 2015, Toyota sold 15,701 Scion iQs in the United States. In the same timeframe, Smart sold 43,255 Fortwos.
I couldn’t find sales numbers for Japan, but reportedly, Toyota canceled the iQ due to slow sales. It didn’t help that here in America, a 2015 iQ had an MSRP of $16,435, a couple of grand more than a Smart, and about the same price as a Toyota Yaris.
The Grails
Before the iQ departed this planet, it left behind some oddball variants. Many people already know about the Aston Martin Cygnet. As the story goes, Aston Martin was in a need to meet fleet average emissions regulations in Europe. Instead of developing an efficient vehicle, Aston took iQs and turned them into baby Aston Martins, complete with lavish interiors, some custom body parts, and 97 HP from the 1.33-liter four.
It was a compliance car in every sense of the term and yet, Aston managed to sell about 593 of them over the course of a couple of years. That’s impressive for a car that cost £30,995 ($38,719) to start, double the iQ that birthed it. Beau has one and it might just be the perfect city car.
Perhaps the true Grail of iQs is the one and only Aston Martin V8 Cygnet. A collector commissioned Aston’s Q division to lift the 4.7-liter V8 from a Vantage S and drop it into a Cygnet. Even though this was made at the request of a customer, Aston’s designers were apparently dreaming of cramming a V8 into a Cygnet, so this was a dream come true.
The result was a 430 HP monster that Aston said was capable of hitting 60 mph in 4.2 seconds, faster than the donor Vantage, and race on to a top speed of 170 mph.
The Cygnet had to give up a lot to accept the V8, including much of its interior. A roll cage was also added–a necessity, no doubt, considering so much power was to be wielded by so little car . The thing is, the car was officially a one-off. You will almost never be able to buy it, and if it ever came up for sale, you can bet on it costing around $500,000 or so.
If you wait long enough or perhaps pull some strings, you might be able to find the Grail nominated by my wife, Sheryl. See, she’s become the owner of an iQ and has been researching all she can about them. Almost by accident, she stumbled on the car I’m about to show you. At first, I thought it was a tribute car, but it’s real, and 100 of them exist.
Toyota Gazoo Racing, the fabled racing arm of Toyota, decided to turn the Toyota iQ into something a bit hotter. In 2009, Toyota released the Toyota iQ GRMN. That alphabet soup is actually an acronym for “Gazoo Racing, tuned by the Meister of the Nürburgring.” Gazoo is known for its motorsport as well as tuning up various Toyota models. Americans are perhaps most familiar with the GR86, GR Corolla, and GR Supra. If you know your obscure Toyota knowledge, you may even know about the ultra-rare Toyota Century GRMN.
In 2009, Gazoo Racing tuned up the iQ. Just 100 iQ GRMNs were sold and this initial batch included platform improvements. Buyers were treated to a manual transmission, a rear disc brake conversion, stiffer and lower springs, RAYS wide wheels, a stiffening brace, brake upgrades, an exhaust, a spoiler, and a body kit. This one was powered by a stock 1.33-liter four. The mild upgrades kicked the price up to ¥1,972,000 ($13,182 today), compared to about ¥1,400,000 ($9,360 today) for a base iQ.
Gazoo didn’t stop there. In 2011, it presented a concept version of a widebody iQ racer. This went into production in 2012 as the Toyota iQ GRMN Supercharger, also known as the GRMN iQ 130G. Once again, just 100 people were able to buy it.
The highlight of the Toyota iQ GRMN Supercharger is the engine. It’s the iQ’s normal 1NR-FE 1.33-liter four, but now it wears a supercharger. Output rises to 120 HP and 128 lb-ft torque. For those of you counting, that’s 27 more ponies than the stock engine and a kick of 41 lb-ft of torque. That’s pretty mild, but this is also a car that weighs just 2,182 pounds, so it doesn’t take much power to make a pocket rocket.
Backing the power are the same platform enhancements from the last iQ GRMN. That means better brakes, a body kit, over an inch dropped from ride height, a sport suspension, dual exhaust, Enkei wheels, sport seats, spoiler, stiffening brace, and a close-ratio six-speed manual transmission. Just 100 of them were ever sold, each for a startling ¥3,550,000 ($23,733 today). Reportedly, all Toyota iQ GRMN Superchargers were sold out basically immediately after they were announced.
Rare And Invisible
Sadly, I couldn’t find any performance figures. I found no reviews for them, either. It seems as if all of the supercharged models were purchased and immediately tossed into collections. However, I did find a review of the naturally-aspirated iQ GRMN.
The reviewer concludes that the naturally-aspirated GRMN is not about straight-line performance, but carving corners. They describe it as a sort of hot city car. In other words, it’s the Toyota iQ equivalent of a Smart Brabus, but you get an honest manual transmission and nominally, seating for four.
As I said before, these are crazy rare with just 100 of them out there. That said, you could make a replica if you tried hard enough. Rotrex, the supplier of the GRMN iQ Supercharger, will sell you the supercharger kit to bring your iQ to GRMN spec for about $5,000. One person who went through the work to get the supercharger fitted to a Scion iQ reports a 60 mph acceleration time of around 9 seconds, so roughly a second faster than stock.
If you ever find one of these, be sure to take lots of pictures and talk with the owner. Chances are, you may never see another again. If you see one for sale, you might have to begin figuring out if the hottest Toyota iQ counts as significant enough to qualify for a Show or Display exemption.
Do you know of or own a car, bus, motorcycle, or something else worthy of being called a ‘holy grail’? Send me an email at mercedes@theautopian.com or drop it down in the comments!
(Images: Toyota, unless otherwise noted.)
Totally off the subject is why can’t auto manufacturers design one car for each clearly defined customer subset instead of one car for every subset and a bunch of Pepboys added cheap crap. A single guy/girl doesn’t need a 4 door 9 passenger SUV. A retired chilless couple doesn’t need a big SUV. A widow/widowess doesn’t need an SUV. A young couple married/unmarried needs a 2 seater with cargo. All we are offered are SUVs with room.
Simple. Money. Developing cars are expensive, and whatever manufacturers come up with now has to cater to as wide an audience as possible, which means covering a large base.
A car that can do almost everything (SUV) is seen as the solution to that problem.
True which means car appreciation is probably going away.
I had no idea these existed… thanks Mercedes!
Given a choice, I’d probably rather daily a Cygnet. 🙂
I have an iQ. It’s a 2012 with 67k miles that I have owned since 2015 and 8800 miles. It’s been the best car I’ve ever owned. I have done meticulous maintenance and keep it like new and still daily it. I outfitted it with a full TRD suspension which means it’s stiffer and lower along with bushings and swaybars. I also outfitted it with Sparco rally wheels and Scion plastic mudflaps for a mild rally stance.
The car was expensive for its size, yes. John Davis of Motorweek (ep. 3142) put it best when he said:
“But it’s not about any of that. It’s small for the SAKE of being small”
People rip on its fuel economy for a small car. It’s true, there were/are other modern cars that could top it in that field while being bigger and heavier. But remember, the Scion iQ did it with an automatic transmission and a non-hybrid layout. There wasn’t even cylinder deactivation or stop/start. It was just your typical Toyota 4-cylinder. It was designed for city use so highway economy isn’t as great due to the engine working harder to keep it up to speed and no cruise control (yes, you read right. Cruise control was not offered on any iQ sold stateside). The iQ wasn’t about power, sportiness, or big space. It was designed to be the way it was designed to be. It was intended for those who just wanted a tiny car that could undercut all their other models in size and allow for tight maneuvering in the city. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. If it was just the car you were looking for, it would serve you well. I actually have decent cargo room because I keep the rear seats down since I don’t really need them. That is another point to make. It’s not likely many of these cars were purchased as family haulers or cargo commuters. I’m the only person in my car 95% of the time.
Lol there are cars twice the size of an iQ that can be at it in fuel economy without hybrid drivetrain, stop start, cylinder deactivation, or even VVT. Some without fuel injection.
As a former owner of multiple smarts, I’d buy one of these in a heartbeat. I still see a few iQs around Toronto and it pleases me every time.
Someone put an Aston Martin Cygnet body on it!
“To facilitate this up front, the differential was moved forward of the engine, placing the centerline of the wheels slightly ahead of the engine.”
So it’s mid-engined. Front-mid, but still. How many mid-engined 4-seaters are there? Adrian’s Ferrari Mondial, Lotus Evora and the IQ?
Most Camrys also have the engine behind the axle centerline, so quite a few marginally mid engined 4 seaters. I think my Crown Vic is really close.
I always thought that wasn’t an especially good way to define mid engined.
It may not be a good way to define mid-engine, but it is the correct way.
I say this as an OEM engine designer and former owner of six “proper” mid-engined cars with the engine where the rear seats would be.
The correct way, or the “commonly accepted despite being less accurate than it could be”?
Of course Porsche recently decided the 911 is mid engined because the center of gravity of the engine is forwards of the rear axle. Which is extremely stupid considering I don’t think I’ve ever driven a car or light truck that DIDNT have the engine COG between the axles.
It’s the correct way, as used by OEM vehicle architects.
The problem is people attach too much baggage to the phrase “mid-engined”. In a race car it can seriously reduce polar moment of inertia, but in a Toyota Previa the dynamic benefits aren’t great, certainly no one is getting one of those instead of a Miata because it turns better.
I’ve done a lot of powertrain packaging for OEMs and for every transverse engine and gearbox I’ve had the CAD data for, the crank is way in front of the axle line (which is never the same as the centre of the diff, but is usually pretty close). With the crank several inches forward of the axles it’s very hard to get the CoG for the engine behind the axle, even if you lay the engine nearly flat and pointing to the rear. I’ve not seen it done. I’ve seen it tried with prototypes, but short of making tungsten cam covers it’s not going to happen.
Longitudinal engines have a much less well defined relationship with the axle centres, especially with a front engine/rear drive car or truck, but the 911 is definitely rear engined. Quite why they’d argue with the definition when they make what has become the default benchmark for sports/GT cars I don’t know.
The label doesn’t matter, it’s all about the driving dynamics.
I don’t understand how something is “not ideal” and “objectively correct” at the same time.
The reason I object to the “centerline of the axle” definition is because it’s so arbitrary, the centerline of the axle relative to the extremities of the engine is a dimension that just doesn’t matter.
A Miata has the timing cover just behind the front axle, making it mid engined. What if the engine sat one inch further forwards? Would this make a noticeable or relevant difference to polar inertia? I’m guessing it would make about as much difference as moving the battery under the seat, or losing a passenger. But this is the difference between DEFINITELY mid engined and DEFINITELY NOT mid engined, measured the CORRECT way.
The engine may be the single heaviest part of a car short of the chassis, but it weighs relatively little compared to the sum of many other parts. Moving the battery and gas tank and drivers seat and transmission and washer fluid reservoir and A/C compressor to the middle of the car is going to have a greater effect on polar inertia than moving the engine a few inches.
Not to mention that on a long wheelbase car, an engine that’s between the axles may or may not be anywhere near the center of the car.
My point is that the owner or mechanic doesn’t really care where the extremity of the engine is relative to the axle centerline. A more immediately relevant distinction would be whether there is passenger and cargo space both forwards and aft of the engine. This would make a Previa and a C8 Corvette mid engined, but not a Boxster or Lamborghini.
The naming of something as mid-engined is arbitrary. It also doesn’t matter, as the important thing is the dynamic response of the vehicle as a whole.
I don’t understand your proposed new definition of mid-engined. The current definition works fine for something that only really matters to vehicle architects.
Well that’s what I’m saying, that the naming is arbitrary and not always relevant.
Mid engined or not matter a lot to people who aren’t vehicle architects. The difference between owning and working on a front engined or cabover/mid engined truck is considerable. Same with the difference between owning a Beetle or a Boxster. Previa vs Aerostar vs Caravan. The engine location has many implications beyond handling characteristics.
“The Toyota iQ uses its space so efficiently that rear passengers will find their heads literally a couple of inches from the rear glass.”
Efficient use of space, or extreme downsizing, passenger safety and cargo space of any sort be damned? I feel like it would be more impressively efficient if it could keep the rear passengers more than a couple inches away from the glass.
37mpg is quite terrible for a vehicle half the size of some vehicles that get 40mpg or better.
Also, “just” 2182 pounds is also quite terrible for a vehicle this size. A classic Mini is the same length but more of it is available for passengers, and it weighs 1300lb. A Miata is almost 13 feet long and is almost exactly the same weight at almost 2200lb, and the same horsepower as the supercharged iQ. Early 2000s Nissan Sentra were just under 2000lb and could carry four people vastly more comfortably, and fit a cello in the trunk.
Reading this article has reinforced my opinion that the iQ is a miserable ugly little car with no space for passengers or cargo, that needs a supercharger just to have the same power and weight as a 1.6 Miata.
The IQs curb weight was more like 1900-2000 pounds, and it has a 5 star crash rating, which is why it weighs several hundred pounds more than vehicles with 0 star crash ratings.
Early 2000s Sentras were about 2800 pounds.
I agree that the mileage should have been better, but at least it was better than the Smart’s shitty mileage.
The real sin of course was no manual for north America.
It would appear that I am misinformed and a Sentra is in fact significantly heavier, although my point still stands with a Mitsubishi Mirage that’s a hair under 2000lb and is certainly more comfortable with four people and cargo. I’m seeing weights for an iQ anywhere from 1900-2200.
Crash ratings are actually pretty poorly representative of safety in general but especially in tiny cars, because safety is rated relative to size(making a tiny 5 star car significantly less safe than a big 2 star car). And having 11 airbags in the car isn’t going to make you any less dead when a dually rolls right over the top of you.
Good points. The appeal of the IQ was that the wheels were pushed to the corners, giving it a nice stance and implying fun driving dynamics. Also the power to weight ratio was promising, and the car would have been fun with the manual.
The Mirage, while offering more cargo space, is nasty looking with its muffin top proportions and pizza cutter wheels. The tiny wheezy engine makes things even worse.
If carrying people and cargo are a priority, both cars are a terrible choice.
A used Corolla is a significantly better option than a Mirage.
And of course you’ll lose to a dually in any small car, but at least in the Scion you get a faint chance of survival.
The power to weight ratio just isn’t promising though. The supercharged version had a whole 120hp and 2200lb, for 18.3 lb/hp. That’s the same as a vascular 163hp in a 3000lb car, or a totally buff 219hp in a 4000lb car. That’s what I would call “adequate” and most car reviewers would call “painfully, borderline dangerously, slow”.
That’s the supercharged version. The naturally aspirated version is just plain slow, in line with a Mirage.
My point with the Mirage was not that’s it’s a better choice(it isn’t), but that the iQ is rather porky for the size car it is. Mid 2000s Toyota was good at that.
When I say it was promising, I’m talking about 95hp and 1900 pounds, or 20 lb/hp, compared to the Mirage, which comes in at 27 lb/hp. The base IQ has 30 percent more hp than a Mirage, and weighs 100 pounds less.
My Swift GTi at 1900 pounds and 100hp will do 0-60 in the low 8 second range, similar to a first gen veloster turbo. So that’s why the specs seemed promising to me.
I don’t think you’re appreciating how bad the Mirage is. 0 to 60 is like 3 seconds slower than an IQ, but worst of all, this is a 2000 lb car that is cited by many publications for its very poor handling. It is a regressive insult to lower income people.
Probably not something that most US buyers were concerned about, but another advantage of a very small car, is ease of parking. I reckon I could easily park an iQ in a space the length of an MX5/Miata.
I’ll say it again: Toyota needs to bring the iQ back!
Yeah, the world definitely needs more iQ these days.
It’s a bit sad that even the supercharged version had less HP than an MR2 Spyder and weighed about the same. I feel like you’d be better off making a 4 seater Spyder than this.
I don’t think it is quite accurate to call this a “hot go kart”. It’s too tall. More like something you would bring to a county fair porta potty race. 120HP in one of those would really get some shit flying!
Dear God, those gubbins stuffed into a Cygnet would literally be the perfect car
I hate that stupid limited edition shit. Fuck that! Make as many as you can sell 😀
Glad to hear that Rotrex offers the supercharger to anyone though. I wish Edelbrock would do the same for the Lotus Evora’s supercharger. That’s right, Edelbrock makes the Lotus supercharger for the 2GR, but it’s not listed on Edelbrock’s site! Too bad, because everyone could install that shit on a Camry, Avalon, Sienna, etc.
I agree in theory but the reality is that tooling costs money, and tooling designed to last longer costs more money. That cost is amortized over the intended production run to get to the final vehicle price, and once the tooling is out of spec, making more parts requires a reinvestment alongside all of the other parts of a car that come from a supplier that need to be aligned for a new production run.
Yeah, it’s a bummer when you can’t get a Taco Bell Jeep Wrangler because they didn’t order enough decals.
The perfect ride for out Idiocracy future!
While on vacation, a friend offered the use of their cabin, car included. Said car was a plain vanilla iQ. I am a diehard manual fan and dislike CVTs (except for economy) in general, and though I wasn’t expecting much from the iQ, I was very favorably impressed by the littlest Scion. It was quick, nimble, surprisingly good on the interstate, and felt way bigger than its actual size. If the base car was so much fun, I can only imagine the joy imparted by a supercharged engine and manual gearbox.
I’m sorry 93hp and a CVT in a 2200lb car just can’t be quick. At best it could be adequate.
It’s almost as if you did not read the article
It’s almost as if you did not read the two comments you just responded to, or the article.
Sorry, bub, that doesn’t work as comment, but it does make you look stupid, so there’s that
I did read the article, and I saw that the car had 93hp, a CVT, and weighed 2200lb. Making it not fast or quick in the slightest.
I also saw that there are extremely few Japan only 120hp cars, which are also not fast or quick in the slightest, because 120hp and 2200lb is still a below average power to weight ratio.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
As an iQ owner and fan, “quick” is not accurate though it is certainly nimble. It does feel roomy inside which belies its exterior dimensions though interstate use is not the best use for the car.
After my 91 Toyota pick up was shortened by almost 3 feet at a stop light, I had to buy something fast.
I brought home one of these to show the old lady.
She politely said “No.”
As I was returning to the dealer, my phone buzzed. It was my neurologist calling to schedule a third brain MRI in a month. It was at that point I realized that maybe she (the wife) actually did give a damn…
“The glovebox was also deleted for even more room.”
This is one of my favorite tricks of the iQ. Even if you consider the seat behind the driver as pointless, there’s still plenty of room for two average sized people to fit on the passenger side when you pull the front seat forward a bit. Sure, you’ll be sitting ahead of the driver, but you can still fit 3 plus the spare bucket seat can be for cargo
Looks like they also deleted the infotainment on the GRMN version to save some weight, which is funny because I kept reading the model name as the Garmin edition. Maybe it knows where it is going…
I always read it as “German”
It’s pronounced Guh Ruh Muh Nuh per James May. https://youtu.be/v-JjalOG00E?t=18
They fitted a sliding cubby tray underneath the passenger seat to make up for the glovebox delete.