Talk:Scion (automobile)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nice new version! Who wrote it?

I like the much more neutral feel to the expanded article that was posted today. Who wrote it? It's good stuff. -- Che Fox 23:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still has quite a lot of marketing-speak that could put it in the spam hause if not removed.

Pardon my bluntness, but it reads like a press release! It still needs a rewrite. Rhobite 06:32, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

The people who object to "marketing-speak" and "press release" are free to rewrite the relavent article(s) to a more acceptable level. Considering that we are talking about a transportation device and not some item of supreme importance I don't care if the article is "marketing-speak" or a "press release" as long as it has useful information.--TGC55 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Scion car" and "the US Division of Toyota" aren't quite correct and don't make sense grammatically - Scion is a Marque of Toyota, but is not "the US division" - Toyota of America is the US division. And there's 3 different models, Scion is the name of the car maker, not the car, just as Lexus is the name of the car maker in the phrase" Lexus IS300". Just my $0.02 to explain my edits. -JoshW 05:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

monospec?

Maybe this term "monospec" should be defined or have its own article. Not many relevant results on google. --Kenyon 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but wouldn't the article name be better as Scion (brand), since this more accurate reflects the term here? Using "Car" makes it sound as if it is a particular model of car, rather than a brand name. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

xB holds market share?

In the consumerreports.org member section as well as at my local Scion dealership, I was told that the tC is by far the most popular vehicle in the Scion lineup, NOT the xB like the article says. Combined with the questionable cost per mile figure, I think the entire "Target market" section needs to be removed or heavily cited. Some of it is just plain wrong. Glennklockwood 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand why the xB would be the most popular, because that thing is ugly...But anyway, I see more xBs on the road, so maybe it has sold more total units, while the tC has just sold more in your area. 12.175.230.36 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Scion (car) to Scion (automobile)

Just wanted to give my rationale for moving the article from Scion (car) to Scion (automobile). It follows the naming convention of Lincoln (automobile) and Mercury (automobile) articles, among others. Also, car redirects to automobile, so thus the title should reflect the Wikipedia name. --theSpectator _talk 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New Layout

If you find yourself here before heading to the "revert" section, please gimme a comment or two about the changes that I did to the main pages, and/or what I should do to make is better. Much thanks is given....Gyrferret (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Run a Find in the article for the words "trash" and "fart." They likely don't belong.70.88.207.100 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it was done by 71.189.109.196. Fixed now. MTan355 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One-trim???

" ... The Scion lineup uses a one-trim, simplified purchase process ... "

What does that even mean? One-trim? What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.47.143 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Where / How Many?

Where are the production plants for Scions and how many were made /sold in various markets? (e.g. U.S.A., Japan, etc).JeepAssembler (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

iQ Release?

The article says that the iQ will be released in Fall of 2010, though there is nothing to support this. I have seen most predictions for early 2011. Should that really be in the article until the date is actually known? 98.140.225.40 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

USA Today article

A review by USAtoday is avialble at: Toyota matures its Scion youth brand http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/01/01/toyota-scion-fr-s/1798217/ Ottawahitech (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless!

What a useless article! There's no specs or dimensions, but it goes on and on about colors and rock & hip-hop. This article is so bad it should be a candidate for deletion. Is anybody able to add dimensions, etc? Santamoly (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the brand Scion. If you want details of a particular model then you need to look at the article for that model (eg Scion xB) where you will find all the specs and dimensions. I have added some links in the Lineup section that make it easier to get to each model.  Stepho  talk  00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Scion Audio/Visual be merged into Scion (automobile). The former, shorn of its puffery, is quite short and could easily be integrated with this article's existing section on "advertising", which covers virtually the same ground. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the depth and scope of Scion Audio/Visual is broader than what the current article covers. In addition, lifestyle marketing offshoots similar to Scion AV from other brands contain their own articles, such as Red Bull Records, Red Bull Music Academy, Vans Warped Tour, and Volcom Entertainment. Scion AV maintains its own website, social media properties, and is promoted very rarely through the Scion automotive brand channels. I think the article could be improved by adding additional detail across more of the projects they produce. Just my opinion. (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's more, but as I review the references for the latest addition to the A/V article ("Film"), they seem to be little more than one paragraph squibs noting the pendency of the event. The music aspect - with three actual NYT articles - is the only one that seems at all substantial and well-sourced. As for those other "lifestyle marketing offshoot" articles - I think each article should stand or fall on its own, and the existence of those doesn't mean much one way or another for a separate Scion A/V article. Not to mention that at least a couple of those other cited articles are, in my opinion, pretty thin too. Let's see what others may have to say. JohnInDC (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is, not was

I see that my fellow Wiki users have fallen all over themselves to get the latest news online, changing the introductory "Scion is a marque of Toyota" to "Scion was a marque of Toyota that operated between model years 2003 through 2016."

That's all fine and dandy, apart from the fact that it refers to a still-extant brand in the past tense. Per Toyota themselves -- and per the Wiki article, too ("Toyota announced that it would discontinue the Scion brand after the 2016 model year") -- they will remain in existence through the end of the 2016 model year, which is still many, many months away.

Likewise, the "defunct" line in the info box is also getting ahead of itself. Let's not try and write history, and just document it instead, eh? 73.190.158.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

correction to attribution, and future model name of Scion FR-S

I had come to correct an attribution to a secondary source. The breaking of Scion as "dead" was attributed to Motor Trend, which in fact got its information and attributed CarBuzzard.com: http://carbuzzard.com/2016/02/breaking-news-scion-is-dead/

The current article is incorrect by stating that the Scion FR-S will become known in the U.S. (and Canada) as the Toyota GT86 (as it is in other markets around the world). That is incorrect. In a conference call with Scion's Bob Carter on Feb 3, 2016, and as reported here, , Toyota will use the FR-S model name in the U.S. Furthermore, the Scion CH-R is a concept vehicle, not a future production model, and has not been announced for production, nor has a model name that it might wear as a production model be announced.

Furthermore, the correct name of the Scion concept is in all caps, CH-R, not Ch-r.

50.29.177.165 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)John Matras

Thank you for pointing out the 'Ch-r' typo.

From http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/scion+transition+toyota.htm we have 'The C-HR, which recently debuted at the L.A. Auto Show, will be a part of the Toyota line-up.' While it doesn't give the new name, it does say that it will be in the line-up. Also note the placement of the dash.  Stepho  talk  04:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Implausibly mismatched production and sales numbers

The numbers listed under the heading Release series are drastically smaller than the Sales numbers. Example: FR-S is said to have a total of 2,500 units produced across the 1.0 and 2.0 release series, but is said to have sold 54,313. It's not possible to sell more than you produce, and especially not over 21 times as many. The problem is, all of this data comes directly from Toyota via the cited articles. Sienile (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There were 54,313 FR-S sold in total. Of this total, 1500 were the FR-S RS 1.0 and 1000 were the FR-S RS 2.0 . The other 51,813 FR-S were not RS versions.  Stepho  talk  08:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

legal standing

I'm curious what Scion's legal standing was. https://pressroom.toyota.com/scion-fact-sheet/ says it was a division. I'd be surprised if Toyota didn't register it as a company that was 100% owned Toyota USA. But I don't know how brands/marques, divisions, subsidiaries, etc are legally registered in the US - if at all. Would it be nothing more than a registered trademark or a 'Toyota, trading as "Scion" thing?  Stepho  talk  05:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Except that the source doesn't necessarily say that Scion was a division, it says it was a "test laboratory division," a phrase that strikes me as bogus marketing newspeak. Although I'm not an attorney and I don't actually know exactly how Scion was organized on paper, a carmaker has to comply with state franchise laws to open dealerships in the U.S., and many of these laws are intentionally written to complicate the process by imposing arcane rules on the dealers and the carmaker (which is the reason why Tesla will not sell cars in Texas despite huge market demand, but I digress). In the case of Lexus, Toyota deliberately set up a separate division to dissociate Lexus from the plebeian Toyota brand, but Scion was the exact opposite: most Scion "dealers" were simply a small partitioned area of a Toyota showroom, with the same service department and parts counter, and sometimes the same salespeople and F&I. Toyota wanted their dealers to sell Scions because they wanted Scion buyers to buy a Toyota next time, and formally setting up Scion as a separate division would have caused legal complications that would undermine that. Carguychris (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)