(first posted 8/24/2017) When a new vehicle segment is created, its founder tends to define it. That pioneering status makes it harder for interlopers to steal the spotlight. Look at the Toyota Prius, which created the practical hybrid hatchback segment and handily dispatched the second-generation Honda Insight. Look, too, at the smart fortwo, a car that became so associated with its tall minicar style that juggernaut Toyota’s attempts to vanquish it with the iQ were for naught.
Toyota’s introduction of the iQ to the North American market as a Scion was, to some, a head-scratcher. This style of minicar has very niche appeal on a continent defined by wide, open spaces. The bulk of the fortwo’s sales typically come from densely populated urban centers like New York City but even in its best year, the fortwo has only managed around 25,000 sales in the US market. That makes Toyota’s projections of almost 24,000 annual sales of its fortwo rival seem dubious at best, something borne out by sales that couldn’t even scrape up half of that in the iQ’s debut year and which continued to fall.
Cast your eye over to Europe and the fortwo has always been vastly more popular, the car even surpassing 100,000 annual units some years. Yet despite the warmer reception to these quirky vehicles, the Toyota iQ managed only around 44k units in its debut year in Europe and trailed off very quickly.
The iQ didn’t deserve to fail as Toyota effectively built a better smart. Blame the fortwo’s pioneer advantage—it arrived three years prior to the iQ in the US, and earlier still in Canada. The smart also was around for almost a decade before Toyota ambled into the European market with the iQ.
It must have been that head start that helped the smart, as the iQ was a much better drive. The iQ’s highway manners were superior to the smart’s, proving quite stable, and the car boasted an excellent turning circle tighter than that of the smart. The steering had more feel and the transmission – although a typically droning CVT – was vastly more smooth and refined than the smart’s. Fortunately for Europeans, a manual transmission was available there. An electric iQ was made available, but in the US it was pushed into car-sharing fleets like early examples of the electric smart ED.
The car felt more composed on the move than the smart, thanks in part to a longer wheelbase (78.7 inches vs. 71.3) and a wider track. Both power and fuel economy were superior to the smart, the iQ sipping fuel to the tune of 36 mpg city and 37 mpg highway (2 mpg better in the city and only 1 less on the highway), while the iQ’s larger, four-cylinder engine also mustered 24 more horsepower (to 94 in total).
“Comfy back there?”
Toyota managed to fit a second row of seats in the iQ as it was 22 inches longer than the fortwo. To manage expectations, Toyota called the iQ a “3+1 seater” with an “offset seating arrangement”. That was just a silly way of saying, “Hey, you can fit an adult back there but they have to put their legs diagonally if they want to maintain circulation.” The seats looked like any other rear car seats, just considerably smaller. At least it was something, and if you folded them down you still ended up with slightly more cargo room than in the fortwo. Front passengers also had little dashboard to speak of in front of them to allow them to move their seat further forward and help the poor adult cooped up in the back. The downside of this design was the iQ lacked a glovebox.
But while the iQ managed to be more useable and better to drive than the fortwo, that was a fairly low bar to clear. And given the more bountiful parking opportunities afforded to those in North America, the iQ began to look as foolish a purchase as the smart against conventional subcompacts like Toyota’s own Yaris and the Chevrolet Spark. The iQ was pricier than the fortwo, which was a problem, but the larger problem was that its price was considerably higher than other subcompacts. The iQ listed for just over $15k, while more spacious and conventional subcompacts like the Kia Rio were around $1-2k less, and the roomy Nissan Versa started a whopping $4k lower. Even if those subcompacts were too plebeian for an idiosyncratic, potential iQ buyer, the more useable Fiat 500 cost the same as the iQ.
That left the iQ in an untenable position. It was less practical than almost every subcompact but cost more, and its one virtue – its parking-friendly size – was almost irrelevant outside of one or two cities in North America. And as for Europe, consumers could instead purchase the more conventionally-styled and cheaper Aygo minicar (North American readers: think Chevy Spark dimensions), launched in 2005. It was a more sensible option, was still sufficiently small for densely populated cities, and if you really cared about fitting into tight parking spaces you would’ve picked a fortwo over an iQ anyway given it was almost 2 feet shorter.
Toyota, commendably, had built a smarter smart. Unintelligently, however, they had done so several years later. The familiar smart had had years to entice buyers and had managed to attract many buyers despite its myriad flaws. It seems smart buyers didn’t want a smarter smart if it had a Toyota badge, and almost everybody else was happy with something more conventional. The iQ ended production in 2016 after a single generation.
iQ photographed in June 2017 in Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY.
Related Reading:
COAL (COJL) – 2005 Smart ForTwo Passion – A Friend Till the End
There is acutally a lot of room in the front passenger seat on the iQ, my assistant Coach has one and that is the car her and her 6’7″ husband take when they go somewhere together because he has more room than in his Camry.
I’d argue that in the US the iQ was far more successful as Mercedes sold the vast majority of them to their Car 2 Go subsidiary. It is very rare to find them around here that ether don’t have full C2G livery or the tell tale blue B pillar of a retired unit.
I can confirm it. The iQ was an awesome car. I used to ride in one every day at work. I’m 1,91m tall and with the front seat a bit forward I could fit in the back, and the car was reasonably comfortable. It was silent inside (small 1.0l Daihatsu 3 – cylinder engine), the upper dash had soft touch plastics, it had auto AC, keyless entry and start (you could lock the car touching the handle, provided that the key wasn’t inside) and ten airbags. Including a rear curtain (yes, REAR) and passenger knee airbag (integrated in the seat). The European unit I used to ride in had some kind of briefcase fixed to the dash that dubbed as a glovebox. It was available also with a diesel that made it a decent highway cruiser. It really deserved better success.
As a matter of fact, It didn’t sell better because of the price, as now in Portugal, people are scoring iQ’s from foreign countries to import here, and now they’re gathering quite the following.
Mom drives an iQ, dark purple metallic, just like one of the iQs in the article. And before the iQ she had a first gen Aygo. Both cars powered by the Daihatsu-based 1.0 liter 3-cylinder engine. The Aygo had the robotized 5-speed transmission (worthless!), the iQ has a real 5-speed manual (good!).
The iQ was a (very) pricey car for its dimensions. But it has a high-quality interior compared with the Fisher-Price Aygo interior. It also drives better (certainly on the highway), has better sound proofing and -overall- is just a much better built little car.
The iQ is a tiny luxury hatchback, the first gen Aygo was/had to be built as cheap as possible, from bumper to bumper.
Currently the best-selling A-segment car here is the VW up! (there are 4 VW models in our 2016-Top 10, BTW).
The name alone made me cringe, both in being a competitor to a car named “Smart” and oh so cleverly naming it IQ, and also by making it hip with a lower case “i” in front of Q to boot. At least with Smart there was a certain irony to the name, intentional or not.
I’ve also wondered about the names of the Mazda Navajo (clearly a play on the Jeep Cherokee), Mitsubishi Outlander (Outback meets Highlander), and the Chevy Venture (Voyager, anyone?).
Let’s just talk about the whole “–lander” thing for a second. You had Outlanders, Uplanders, Highlanders and Freelanders. But why no Lowlanders or Midlanders or Inlanders?
No Lowlander, you said?
Pahking in Bah Hahbor can be tough unless you drive a Smaht Cah. They wiggle in most anywheah.
The truth was that Toyota missed the point entirely. All of that extra practicality and comfort made no difference, because it failed by being 2 feet larger. The Smart is all about that small size. It is relevant only where it’s size is.
And let us remember that before MB brought their diminutive city car here, there was a sizable group of people begging them to. They never originally planned to- as you said, outside of a few older cities, it has no place here.
Yeah, when the main (only?) selling point is a short length, that extra two feet is a killer. Not to mention that weird C-pillar DLO that simply doesn’t match up with the rear of the side glass.
Toyota made a few mistakes with the Scion brand and this was 1 of them.
From what I’ve read about the 1st generation of Smart, Toyota built a better Smart…but as this article pointed out: the bar wasn’t all that high.
Among the Japanese car manufacturers Toyota used to be an innovator, lately they’ve resorted to following other car manufacturers….or themselves, and rarely improving in a big way. Example ? The 2nd generation xB.
I would argue that Toyota has made much of its success not innovating, but perfecting. In fact, engineering-wise, they are very known for being conservative. Some would say “late to the party” but they often do it very successfully, and with a general minimum of reliability problems.
The one outlier being the Prius, which was very much an establishing entry, and was still executed nearly perfectly.
For the ultimate luxury don’t forget Europe only badge engineered Aston Martin Signet: http://www.astonmartin.com/en/heritage/past-models/cygnet
You missed the best part – it became the Aston Martin Cygnet. Yes, that Aston Martin. The main difference was the leather interior with matching throw pillow. AM even had this to say about it on their website:
“Cygnet was conceived, designed and built as a true Aston Martin. Including the many synonymous design cues featured across our model range including authentic zinc side-strakes, distinctive bonnet meshes, iconic grille and the legendary badge.Cygnet signified our exclusivity and our heritage in a unique and innovative format.”
I have to give them credit for the biggest load of horse-sh#t ever put to words. Hey, buy a cheap Toyota with our badge for 7 times the price!
I think the Cygnet was AM’s compliance vehicle, and it was only available to AM owners. Not many were sold but the few that were appear for sale occasionally.
So cute but DAMN they’re tiny ! .
-Nate
The fun part is, once you’re sitting inside, it isn’t all that small. Simply thanks to its width. And sitting in the passenger seat, the dashboard is “far away”, certainly with the seat in its maximum rear position.
Don’t look over your shoulder though, because DAMN they’re short!
Did you try the rear seat? I am quite tall for my age and did fit!
But then I looked back and saw the rear windows about 15-20 cm from me. That’s the only thing that gives away the size.
I am a much more of huge fan of Swedish and German cars than of Japanese, but nevertheless I think the iQ is one of the best engineered cars I’ve ever seen.
Consumer Reports tagged both the smart and iQ with a “don’t buy” recommendation as they figured both cars compromised their performance and accommodation too much to be worth the bother.
Saw an item on the news wire sometime within the last year: internal combustion engined smarts are being withdrawn from the US market. Only the electric will carry on.
Meh… I’ll take a 500 Abarth. Much more fun and still easy to find parking.
The European version of the IQ could be had with a 1.4 liter 90 PS turbo diesel mated to a 6 speed manual transmission. Living in a city where street parking was extremely limited and having fond memories of my “ur” Minis, the IQ seemed ideal. This is the version I had and it was a fun and very practical little car. One could seat a 6 footer behind a person of the same size on the passenger side, or have useable luggage space with the rear seats folded. The astonishing thing was how nice it was to drive – torquey motor, great gearchange and tossable handling (it would oversteer on a lifted throttle) with quite some adhesion on 17″ Contis. It would get to 100kph (60 mph) in around 10 secs and cruise at around an indicated 180kph(110mph) at 3,000 rpm(!) in Germany,hitting its speed limiter at 112 mph, which was hilarious, as people couldn’t believe a “Smart” could be doing those speeds.. It would also do under 4 liters/100km (60mpg US) if I didn’t goon it too much….I took it to Venice from Stuttgart with my then fiancée – there really were very few sacrifices over using a larger car in terms of long distance comfort and no comparison to a Smart which really only worked in a city environment. So, a great product then, let down by too much hard plastic on the interior, a high price and curious under promotion by Toyota. I think it would have worked better under the Lexus banner with a more luxurious interior to justify a higher price……
I hear you. I did think about getting one when I was still living in Vienna as I’ve heard the same from people who drove them, but since then I moved out to the countryside and decided to go for a “normally-sized” car. They may not have sold very well when new, but now that they are no longer made, they seem to hold their value reasonably well for what is essentially an economy vehicle – even 8 year old cars seem to command over-€6000 asking prices, and really good late ones are over €10K.
I think the basic problem with the Smart and the iQ was that you looked at the things and you automatically thought that they SHOULD get 55 MPG. And, if you did get 55 MPG, you might be willing to put up with the zero or limited back seat, and the minimal cargo room, and the jiggly short wheelbase ride. But you didn’t get 55 MPG. Instead, you got similar mileage to a Corolla or a Fit, which are real cars with four doors and real back seats and real cargo areas. With no price advantage over other small and economical cars, the only undeniable advantage was if you lived in a city center and needed the smallest parking footprint possible.
If you just want the best mileage on an ICE engine car, you could always just get a 90’s Metro or a Chevy Sprint and restore the mechanicals to make it dependable.
Which brings me to a question: Why DON’T the Smart and the iQ get 55 MPG? Why can’t they beat a 90’s Geo Metro with the advantages of a quarter century of technology? Is it because their makers think we wouldn’t put up with a 15 second 0-60? Is it because they are overbuilt to do surprisingly well in crash tests for their size? (do we need TEN airbags?) Could you design one — complying with 2017 laws – that would get 55 MPG? I would love to see someone at least sketch that out on paper, set 55 MPG on an ICE as the fixed design parameter, and show me what kind of car we could make that would achieve it.
Check out the comparative weights. I think that will explain a lot.
A bigger issue might be that they look like they’d be about as aerodynamic as a telephone booth.
Still, I wonder how the iQ sold in densely-packed Japanese cities where Kei-class cars have abounded for decades. You might think they’d have sold well, but I’d be willing to bet that they’re actually too ‘large’ for Japanese urban dwellers.
The MPG issue is why I didn’t get one. My Note has a MPG rating of 31/40, with a rear seat that’s gotten comments about how roomy it is and a hatchtrunk which can hold more than two bags of groceries, much more! Contrast my lifetime 37.26 lifetime mpg with the 36/37 rating of the iQ 🙂 They would have sold much better with a 36/45 mpg rating. The Mirage is selling like hotcakes because of their 37/43 rating.
Having a tiny footprint is the only advantage of owning one of these.
It certainly seems that the iQ fell between the absolute-smallest Smart size and a much-cheaper “normal” car. For some people the compromise will work, but clearly not enough.
One interesting aspect was that the gearbox was mounted ahead of the engine instead of the usual fwd layout of behind, to move the axle line further forward and reduce intrusion of the wheel arches into the cabin. I think this would be a good idea for fwd cars in general, to improve weight distribution, at the cost of a slightly larger turning circle.
Putting the transmission in front of the engine to maximize interior room ‘is’ an interesting concept. I’d be curious to know why no one else has done it; are there inherent engineering issues, or is it simply too expensive? Maybe it helps explain why the iQ was more pricey than the smart.
Putting the transmission in front of the engine to maximize interior room ‘is’ an interesting concept. I’d be curious to know why no one else has done it;
The Renault R4 and R5 had the trans in front of the longitudinally mounted engine. I figure they did it that way for expediency as it allowed them to use the powertrain from the rear engine R8/R10. The R5 had zero wheelwell intrusion into the driver’s footwell, but half the engine was under the instrument panel, so service access was not ideal.
Shifting the trans is another issue. The R4 used a rod that extended over the engine from the dash mounted shift lever.
My R5 had a floor mounted shifter, with cables that wound their way around the engine to the trans. Lets say the shifter action was less than ideal.
If I remember correctly, Saab also put the transmission in front of the engine, however they didn’t use a tranversely mounted engine when they did. I am probably wrong, but I think they did it for aerodynamic reasons.
I also seem to remember Saab was criticised for having poor shifter “feel” while they used the transmission in front of the engine design.
If I remember correctly, Saab also put the transmission in front of the engine, however they didn’t use a tranversely mounted engine when they did.
This cutaway of a Saab 96 appears to show the trans behind the engine.
The Saab 99 had the trans folded under the engine, though the trans did not share the engine oil supply as an Austin does.
I have no idea why they did it this way. The engine was in the car backwards, with the accessory drives against the firewall and the high mounted water pump far from the radiator. And having the diff under the #1 cylinder put the front wheels very far back, intruding on front footwell space.
Steve, originally almost all FWD cars had their transmission in front, going back to the Miller racers, the Cod L29 and the Citroen TA. But you’re missing the point: that configuration was not space-efficient; it was intrinsically less so than a transverse arrangement. Which is why everybody switched to that.
The key point here is that the iQ has it in front of its transverse engine.
…you’re missing the point: that configuration was not space-efficient;
I was responding to the question of whether anyone else had put the transmission in front of the engine. I agree that a transverse arrangement is more space efficient as long as the engine is not excessively long.
Actually, looking at this pic of an iQ trans that is on offer on eBay, it looks like the trans is not in front of the engine, but in line with the engine as is common practice today. The difference is the diff is on the front of the trans, rather than on the back side as is usual practice today.
Here’s a better pic of the iQ trans as installed.
Too bad the Fiat 500 has such a mediocre reliability rating, but at least it’s fun to drove and cute.
The rest of these tiny cars look like a wart-on-wheels!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Two big things that the smart and 500 have over the iQ are the availability of a cabriolet version (you can get a regular sunroof in the 500, too), as well as a much more varied color palette. In fact, the 500 has one of the widest selections of color/interior combinations that I’ve seen on a car in a long time.
For these types of ’boutique’ cars (which some might view as an accessory as opposed to actual transportation), being able to tailor one to individual tastes (i.e., style) handily trumps a solid reliability reputation. Taking that into consideration, it’s really no wonder that the iQ bombed.
Two big things that the smart and 500 have over the iQ are the availability of a cabriolet version (you can get a regular sunroof in the 500, too),
The smart cabriolet has one of the dumbest setups I have ever seen. The rails that connect the windshield header to the B pillar are removable. That means if you have taken the rails off, and get caught in some rain, you need to park somewhere, dig the rails out of the trunk and snap them into position, before you can close the roof. Because of this piece of design, the door glass is frameless. I haven’t looked closely at a smart cabriolet to see if the frameless glass has the same design flaw as the Beetle and many other cars with frameless glass: a weather stripping design that requires the glass retract a half inch before you can open the door. If the smart has the same design as the Beetle, then it’s probably prone to the same issue as the Beetle: the windows freezing in the winter so they will not retract, so you can’t get the door open without a struggle.
In contrast, the Fiat’s roof is brilliant, Push the button and it’s open. Push the other button and it closes. No rails to dismount or mount. No need to park to open or close the roof. No frameless door glass to freeze in the winter. If only the rest of the Fiat’s controls were as well thought out as the roof.
Here’s the routine to work the smart’s top. It doesn’t go as smoothly as in the video. I watched a couple salesmen at the smart stand at the Detroit auto show struggle with that thing a couple years ago.
From what I can gather, it’s not necessary to remove the roof side rails on the smart after lowering the roof. Plus, with framed doors, the Fiat isn’t really a ‘true’ convertible. Neither is the smart but, if someone wants to go to the trouble, they have the option of removing those roof rails.
From what I can gather, it’s not necessary to remove the roof side rails on the smart after lowering the roof.
I’m sure you are right, that the rails can be left in place. You are also correct that, with the rails in place, it isn’t really a convertible just as the 500 isn’t a convertible. I also suspect those snap in rails will eventually be the source of squeaks and rattles that would not happen if they were structural parts of the car. Careful examination of photos of the doors when open indicates the smart does not suffer the weather stripping design that requires the door glass to retract to open the door, so it has one up on the Beetle convert.
Overall, if you want to go topless, seems the 500 has the fewest drawbacks to it’s soft top design.
I bought a 2012 Abarth and have owned it for a little over 5 years now, zero problems, no complaints and tons o’fun.
Brad ;
How many miles on it now ? .
Mostly drivel around town or cross country jaunts ? .
-Nate
After these came out I was surprised that Toyota kept facelifting/reskinning the Yaris rather than replacing it with a stretched version of the iQ platform which could probably approach C-segment wagon roominess in a 12′ overall length.
Being a small car advocate AND an avid senior citizen bicyclist/tricyclist I shot this photo of my recumbent tadpole trike and an IQ at my local super market parking lot.
This is about as future collectable as a King Midget.
Drove both the Smart ForTwo and QI as possibles during the UK’s scrappage scheme in 2009. Also the totally forgotten Mitsubishi i which was a 4 door Smart. The Smart and i won on the fun angle. You couldn’t miss one. The QI was offered in a dull selection of colours and Toyota missed the memo that customisation was a way of selling small cars like the Mini. All 3 were fine around town but part of my commute included the motorway and all 3 had a target on their rear for aggressive motorists. Too scary. But compared to some of the dreadful electric deathtraps currently being made which avoid safety regs by being quadcycles, these are gems.
Here’s a Scion in NYC Police livery that I photographed in Brooklyn in 2018.