Toyota Caldina GT-Four: The Scion IM That Never Was

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler

In a few short months, we’ll see the production version of the Scion iM, based on the European Toyota Auris. If only Toyota had sent this instead.

A decade ago, Toyota offered the Caldina, a station wagon that was a fair bit bigger than a Matrix, riding on the same ST2xx platform that was also used by the Celica.

The big highlight was the GT-Four, which, as its name suggests, used the same drivetrain as the Celica GT-Four. The 3S-GTE turbocharged four-cylinder engine was, sadly, mated to a 4-speed automatic, with no provisions for a manual gearbox. All-wheel drive was standard.

Around the time of the Caldina’s introduction, there were rumors that it would come to America as the Scion CCX, but that development never transpired. The Caldina’s model cycle came to an end in 2007, without ever reaching North America – though the model, and the GT-Four, remains a popular grey import in Asia, the West Indies and South America (despite being RHD only, they are often brought in as affordable performance cars).

Not long ago, I spoke to a source at Scion regarding the iM and the possibility of a performance variant. Before I could even get into the question of the Caldina, and whether was ever slated to arrive here, the source informed me that a sporty iM wasn’t in the cards – and not for reasons you’d expect.

“We’d be open to doing it,” he said, “but our market research showed that most customers don’t even care about performance. They want fuel economy, practicality – really anything but performance.”

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 14 comments
  • Suto Suto on Jan 05, 2015

    It is possible this may be to the Matrix what the Gen 2 xB was to the Gen 1 xB. Larger and less space efficient. With the extra weight of the Celica platform and 4 wheel drive, along with the extra roof and glass, and increased drag, I bet this thing regularly saw under 20 mpg around town. If it did offer true wagon-like storage, though, I could almost see the point.

  • John R John R on Jan 05, 2015

    “We’d be open to doing it,” he said, “but our market research showed that most customers don’t even care about performance. They want fuel economy, practicality – really anything but performance.” I am sure the "market research" was nearly 100% accurate in reporting what people SAY they want. However, I think there is merit in paying attention to how people actually drive. It may be unique to the northeast, but I see, on a regular basis, cars that have no business having "90 mph" on their speedometer struggle to do it. Prii and etcetera. Then these individuals are surprised and angered to see anything that can punch at or above the V6 Camcord weight-class walk right past them. This sort of situation always reminds me of a quote made some by decision maker at BMW. "Americans buy horsepower, but they drive torque." In this sort of context I would adapt it to read "...they WANT fuel economy, but they drive performance." I think Ford may be wise to this. Hence calling ordinary turbo-charging "ECO-boost". It is as if any sort of nomenclature or appellations having to do with "performance" are politically incorrect. Hey, Toyota, sell "GREEN-charged". That one is on me. ANYHOW, too bad about the Caldina GT-Four. I have some very passing familiarity with it. It would have been a neat car to have over here. The tuning community would have had a field day.

    • See 1 previous
    • 05lgt 05lgt on Jan 07, 2015

      I've been away a bit, but how did you imply that a V6 Accord is limited to 90mph without incurring the wrath of Baruth? Did you get a personal email inviting you to come show him how slow his DD is? I want video of this.

  • APaGttH APaGttH on Jan 05, 2015

    “We’d be open to doing it,” he said, “but our market research showed that most customers don’t even care about performance. They want fuel economy, practicality – really anything but performance.” Look at what sells. Sadly, he's right. :-/

    • Luke42 Luke42 on Jan 08, 2015

      My Sienna has 269HP in a 4400lb vehicle. Those are muscle car numbers, at least as far as they were considered when I was born in the late 1970s. And it drives like a muscle car, unless it's fully loaded. My van is fast, and very stable at high speed. It has good brakes and a really stiff anti-sway bar. It's not that I don't care about performance. The truth is that my anonymous family truckster han enough performance that I wouldn't be driving drive a sports car any faster than I drive my van... I can haul my cake and eat it too, so why bother with a performance car?

  • Varezhka Varezhka on Jan 05, 2015

    The original Scion tC was supposed to be a more "sporty" Caldina with a reinforced chassis, US preferred body style, and a larger engine, no? Given the additional "affordable" requirement for the Scion brand, I think the 2.4 Camry engine was a good balance of cost and power given the audience. A GT-Four powertrain would've been neat, but given the cost, probably would have brought in an additional dozen customer or so.

Next