Geneva Motor Show: Toyota goes loopy with Aygo For Sports
by Chris Paukert on Mar 2nd 2006 at 8:00AM 
While we're just getting used to the idea of the cheap n' cheerful Yaris subcompact Stateside, in other markets, Toyota has an even less expensive offering for sale, the Aygo.
Building on the discount front wheel driver, the quizzically-named Aygo For Sports looks like a cheeky Japanese take on what a lovechild spawned from the loins of a Citroen 2CV and a Meyers Manx might look like. The roofless concept relies on structural side arches that remind of Citroen's Pluriel, and it does away with the standard Aygo's rear seats in favor of teak flooring.
Word is that the drivetrain is bog-stock, meaning that either incorporates Toy's 1.0L VVTi or 1.4L engines, either of which points to a bit of a chore given the concept's 17" wheels (stock fitments are 13"-14").
Still, looks like a harmless bit of fun.
[Sources: Top Gear and Toyota UK]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joel A 9:46AM (3/02/2006)
A golf cart.
Reply
Steve B. 11:21AM (3/02/2006)
Nah, this would make a terrible golf cart. For a golf cart, it would be very inefficient, oversized, and wouldn't have enough space.
It would make a great little car on the coast... sort of an onroad dune buggy. Great fun to drive around Key West or Carmel... Or, considering the market, the very warm, sunny island of Okinawa.
If this is a golf cart, the Jeep Wrangler is equally so.
Reply
winter 12:36PM (3/02/2006)
Useless... I mean, they'll have to get some kind of roof and doors on that thing. People with open air "jeeps" don't want to drive a sissy looking thing like that. So it's a bad combination. I don't know if that market segment exists. Maybe some real rich dudes with cash to through away would buy one for certain days. Then again, if they were rich they'd probably buy something more expensive.
Reply
Car-la 6:26AM (3/03/2006)
Another car/concept the world doesn't need. What exactly was Toyota's intention when they built this?
Reply
Galley 7:29AM (3/03/2006)
Something tells me that it wouldn't pass side-impact tests...
Reply