I dont understand this car...

[cris654321]

TOYOTA Yaris 1.8 VVT-i SR



seems like a great little car

but its kerb weight is 980kg (impressive for a car of its age, size and engine capacity)

it supposedly produces 133bhp and 128 lbs/ft (about 135brake per tonne)
yet official figures say it takes about 9 seconds to get to 60(depending where you look)

now my rev 2 mr2 has about 122 brake per tonne and supposedly gets to the magic number in 7.7 seconds or something like that

so are the official figures for the yaris abit out?
is the peak power of the yaris so far out of reach or so narrow that it cant really be used?
will it be as fast or faster than my mr2?

anyone have any knowledge about the subject that theyd like to share?

cheers Chris

[David87]

I never knew they made a 1.8 Yaris. Who on Earth would buy one?

[twazzock]

cris654321 said:

it supposedly produces 133bhp and 128 lbs/ft (about 135brake per tonne)
yet official figures say it takes about 9 seconds to get to 60(depending where you look)

now my rev 2 mr2 has about 122 brake per tonne and supposedly gets to the magic number in 7.7 seconds or something like that

It's FWD so won't put the power down as well as your mid-engined RWD MR2

[EDLT]

It might have quite long gears for better CO2s, or they could be sandbagging to get a lower insurance group. Your MR2 will have a traction advantage too.

[davepoth]

twazzock said:

It's FWD so won't put the power down as well as your mid-engined RWD MR2

Nowhere near enough power for that to be an issue I would have thought - it'll be massively over-tyred for the power. Likely a gearing issue.

[Yodafone]

There is also a 1.3 SR with Toyota Motorsport lower suspension which I find to fun to drive .

http://www.testdriven.co.uk/toyota-yaris-sr-enhanc...

It has lots of grip and the steering is rather quick and responsive and a smooth gear change.
Very surprised that I liked it.

[chevy-stu]

The Celica 1.8 vvti with 140bho and 1075 kg, does 0-60 in 8.7, which is also FWD is somewhere in the middle. Final drive gearing have a big part to play in the figures..

[itch]

I bought one recently and think it's brilliant.

2nd tops out at 54 I think which won't help the 0-60.

Given the most recent insurance quote was £100 cheaper than a Suzuki Swift SPort, I suspect Toyota were sandbagging to get a lower insurance group. (as mentioned earlier).

It does have much bigger wheels than necessary and hates big puddles. Lots of fun however.

Edited by itch on Sunday 22 April 17:24

[cris654321]

good stuff so long as its still decent to drive i arnt really bothered about the figures i just use them to compare to other cars

[y2blade]

cris654321 said:

good stuff so long as its still decent to drive i arnt really bothered about the figures i just use them to compare to other cars

The two cars are Not really comparable on paper, have you driven one at all?

[PumpkinSteve]

I had one last year the 980kg kerb weight is incorrect, the kerb weight of the 1.3 is 1055kg and the 1.8 engine is a fair old weight.

http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/YA3_63_spec.pdf

I found mine had crazy understeer, I assume due to the weight of the engine. The wheels are too big for the car, Toyota had to fit a rack limiter and never published the turning radius because it was so poor, mine hit full lock just pulling out of a parking space.

One thing I will say, the engine was beautifully smooth, torque seemed great throughout the rev range and I often took roundabouts in fourth and even fifth and it'd still pull. I know in the EU they got a new model with a 6-speed gearbox and facelifted front end that looked much smarter.

Before I bought the 1.8 I had the 1.3 SR which, despite it's lower power, I found to be more fun to drive.

Edited by PumpkinSteve on Sunday 22 April 18:37

[davepoth]

itch said:

2nd tops out at 54 I think which won't help the 0-60.

Figured as much. That probably means they've fitted a gearset from something else that didn't quite tally up properly with the wheel diameter, and not bothered to sort it because it's a small volume seller. I imagine it feels quite a bit quicker though?

[itch]

PumpkinSteve said:

I had one last year the 980kg kerb weight is incorrect, the kerb weight of the 1.3 is 1055kg and the 1.8 engine is a fair old weight.

http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/YA3_63_spec.pdf

I found mine had crazy understeer, I assume due to the weight of the engine. The wheels are too big for the car, Toyota had to fit a rack limiter and never published the turning radius because it was so poor, mine hit full lock just pulling out of a parking space.

One thing I will say, the engine was beautifully smooth, torque seemed great throughout the rev range and I often took roundabouts in fourth and even fifth and it'd still pull. I know in the EU they got a new model with a 6-speed gearbox and facelifted front end that looked much smarter.

Before I bought the 1.8 I had the 1.3 SR which, despite it's lower power, I found to be more fun to drive.

Edited by PumpkinSteve on Sunday 22 April 18:37

I agree with everything. Not discovered too much under steer yet but i'm only early into ownership.

It certainly feels as about as quick as my mx5 in a straight line, but the upright seating position does make me feel much less secure in the corners.

[cris654321]

y2blade said:

The two cars are Not really comparable on paper, have you driven one at all?

no i havent driven one, i arent in a position to change cars for a few months yet and i change my mind every week hence why this is not a what car thread.

also a few people have said the 1.3 is more fun to drive, and i thought the weight figure was too good to be true. so is the old 1.5 t sport more fun to drive, say on a b road for instance.

iv also been considering a c2 vts but ideally id like something lighter.

Edited by cris654321 on Sunday 22 April 19:16

[y2blade]

cris654321 said:

no i havnt driven one, i arnt in a position to change cars for a few months yet and i change my mind every week hence why this is not a what car thread.

also a few people have said the 1.3 is funner to drive, and i thought the weight figure was too good to be true. so is the old 1.5 t sport more fun to drive, say on a b road for instance.

iv also been considering a c2 vts but ideally id like something lighter.

havnt
arnt
funner

You don't "Understand this car"
I don't understand your post

goodbye