2007 Toyota Tacoma Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This 1,000-horsepower, rear-drive Toyota Corolla iM could be yours

We were amazed last year when we learned that Papadakis Racing built Fredric Aasbo a rear-drive, 1,000-horsepower 2017 Toyota Corolla iM for drifting. Now we're amazed that the car could end up in the hands of an average person, because the car is currently going for auction on Bring A Trailer. Just as a quick recap for those that might have missed hearing about the car last year, the little Toyota hatch features a turbocharged and nitrous-injected 2.7-liter 2AR-series Toyota four-cylinder. Variants of that engine are found in older Toyota RAV4s and Camrys. According to Bring A Trailer, the engine hits 1,000 horsepower and 850 pound-feet of torque when running on E85. Power goes through a four-speed dog box manual transmission to the rear wheels. Now there is the question of what you would do with such a mad machine. One possibility is to run it again in the Formula Drift series the car was built for. Bring A Trailer reports that it should be legal for the 2019 season, and with extra parts and wheels, you would be in a good spot to get started. The seller does note that all the graphics and sponsor decals would have to be removed if it's entered again. Even if you didn't run it in a professional drift series, it would probably be a fun car to use in more grassroots drift events or even just as a track car of some sort. There's also one more potential option that would be totally absurd. You see, it appears Papdakis Racing started with a factory-built, street legal Corolla iM that could have easily gone on to see a life of ferrying a young couple or family around in efficient, affordable style. As such, it should have a VIN that could be used to register and insure the car without too much trouble. It even still has functional lights. As long as you're in a state that doesn't have modification or emissions restrictions, it could be possible to make this a street car. Now we're not positive on this, so do your due diligence before plunking down cash for it, but it does seem possible, and it would be crazy and awesome. Related Video:

2013 Toyota RAV4 earns 'poor' rating in IIHS small overlap crash test [w/video]

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested a batch of SUVs in its small overlap frontal crash test earlier this year, it held off on putting the Toyota RAV4 in the blender because the new, 2013 model was due to arrive shortly after the test. The new crossover might be better than it was before, but it could still only manage a rating of "Poor" in the test that has been a bugbear for a number of manufacturers.
Among other issues, the IIHS noted that the steering column moved seven inches to the right causing the crash test dummy to practically miss the airbag, the dummy's left foot was trapped in deformed sheetmetal and the dummy's head hit the instrument panel.
The 2013 RAV4 earned the Top Safety Pick rating by scoring well in the Institute's four other tests. A good score in this particular test would have earned it the Top Safety Pick+ rating that is so far only claimed by the 2014 Subaru Forester and 2013 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport in the SUV category. There's a press release below with more details and a video of the test.

Scion was slain by Toyota, not the Great Recession

Scion didn't have to go down like this. Through the magic of hindsight and hubris, it's easier to see what went wrong. And what might have been. What the industry should understand is this: Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. This is more than just the failure of a sub-brand. It's the failure of a company to deliver new and compelling products over an extended period of time. Toyota will point to the Great Recession as the reason it hedged its bets and withdrew funding for new vehicles, instead of using that as an opportunity to redouble efforts. This was as good as a death warrant, although myopically no one realized it at the time. Sadly, GM's Saturn experiment was a road map for this exact form of failure. No one at Toyota seemed to think the Saturn experience was worth protecting their experimental brand from. Or they weren't heard. Brands live and die on product. Somehow, Scion convinced itself that its real success metric was a youthful demographic of buyers. It seems like this was used to gauge the overall health of the brand. Look at the aging and uncompetitive tC, which Scion proudly noted had a 29-year-old average buyer. That fails to take into account its lack of curb appeal and flagging sales. Who cares if the declining number of people buying your cars are younger? Toyota is going to kill the tC thirteen years [And two indifferent generations ... - Ed.] after it was introduced. In that time, Honda has come out with three entirely new generations of the Civic. Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. At launch, the brand could have gone a few different ways. The xB was plucky, interesting, and useful – a tough mix of ephemeral characteristics – but the xA didn't offer much except a thin veneer of self-consciously applied attitude. That's ok; it was cute. Enter the tC, which managed to combine sporty pretensions with decent cost. It took on the Civic Coupe in the contest for coolness, and usually managed to win. More importantly, an explicit brand value early on was a desire to avoid second generations of any of its models, promising a continually evolving and fresh lineup. At this point, the road splits. Down one lane lies the Scion that could have been. After a short but reasonable product lifecycle, it would have renewed the entire lineup.