Love my Yaris... [Archive] - Toyota Yaris Forums - Ultimate Yaris Enthusiast Site

09TRD

11-20-2008, 07:16 PM

I suppose anyone can claim anything on these forums, but the following it true.

I own/have owned several "nice cars," including the 2009 Corvette I bought two months ago (see below). Before that I owned a 2007 Acura TL Type S. I've also owned three Accords, a Taurus SHO and two 5.0 Mustangs - all purchased new.

This is the fourth "low buck" Toyota vehicles I've owned and it ranks near the very top of my "favorites" list.

I got the base 2 door hatch 5 speed manual with the convenience package and all weather guard package ("Option Group D" in this area).

I had the dealer install the TRD springs, shocks and bars and the four mudguards.

Summarily, the car is very well balanced, rides surprisingly well, is quiet, very smooth in operation, well made, utilitarian (holds lots of stuff with the rear seats folded) and downright FUN TO DRIVE. It is MUCH more fun to drive than my '07 Acura.

The Yaris's stereo is the car's single weakest point and that's going tomorrow (a Kenwood KDC-MP735U in dash receiver and 4 Infinity Kappas are going in it's place).

I averaged an even 35 MPG on my first tank on a still green engine with some of "enthusiasm" in my driving style...

The little car just hums along...This car's brakes feel better in every way than the "Brembos" in my '07 Acura TL. The Yaris's brakes are much quieter, far more progressive, firmer and simply feel stronger. (The car's light weight is a factor, but the bottom line is all I really care about.)

What an HONEST car this is; it's refreshing that cars like this still exist.

For those who "wish" they had "nicer cars, listen to me: They are "nice" in some respects, but they are also very over-rated and introduce as many hassles as they do rewards.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/DSCN0080.jpg

Bob_VT

11-20-2008, 07:27 PM

Hey I owned a SHO and I loved it. Nice Vette but where's the Yaris!!

09TRD

11-20-2008, 07:30 PM

Hey I owned a SHO and I loved it. Nice Vette but where's the Yaris!!

I'll snap and post a pic of the Yaris if you need to see it...

It's just a 1421 (Toyota model #) that's blue and sits 1.2" lower than most others due to the TRD springs...It has the stock wheels and tires, which I plan on running year 'round.

Not a whole lot to see, really.

The SHO was the absolute worst car I've ever owned. It did nothing but break and all four doors visibly moved when I went over certain sections of rough roads here.

Water leaked past the window seals on two doors in car washes...

Junk...

The Yaris is MUCH better built than that SHO.

Sodium Duck

11-20-2008, 08:03 PM

I'll take that big hassle off your hands then, trade for my '08? =]

Chupacabra

11-20-2008, 08:16 PM

I have a 1963 fuelie split window with 22K original miles. They certainly don't make like that anymore. I love my Yaris too....great little car for what it is!

Sodium Duck

11-20-2008, 08:22 PM

...can I come over and ride in it? lol

Chupacabra

11-20-2008, 08:35 PM

The fuelie is a beast....sounds better than a Ferrari and is just loving to be revved around 7500 RPM

09TRD

11-20-2008, 08:37 PM

I have a 1963 fuelie split window with 22K original miles. They certainly don't make like that anymore.

Thankfully, they don't.:wink:

The "375 HP" (Gross) rating of that engine equates to something on the order of 275 Net, as illustrated by the ~ 101 MPH Trap Speeds (and curb weight combinations) of the day.

Go drive a new LS3 and you'll be blown away.:headbang:...until something "small" (e.g. any of the power accessories) breaks and you have t return to the dealership - AGAIN!:mad:

09TRD

11-20-2008, 08:43 PM

The fuelie is a beast....sounds better than a Ferrari and is just loving to be revved around 7500 RPM

Redline was 6,500 RPM. The motor would have blown apart at anything close to "7,500 RPM."

They produced something on the order of 275 NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). The old "gross" ratings were essentially meaningless.

Here's an original road test of a 1962 327 "fuelie" Corvette. The car ran the quarter mile in 15.0 seconds @ 95 MPH. The 60 to 100 MPH segment required nearly 10 full seconds, which is pretty lame by today's standards. I like 60 to 100 MPH comparisons, since they eliminate the "but it had skinny tires" excuse that often used for the older cars.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/106989/1449417/version/1/file/1962+Chevrolet+Corvette.pdf

A new, bone stock V6/automatic Camry is a faster car.

This 1965 327 fuelie was a little quicker than the other one (14.4. @ 99 MPH). http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=957

That's nothing that a new, bone stock, V6/6 speed Accord coupe couldn't handle. http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1107_rt_dp_accordCoupe.pdf

Bob_VT

11-20-2008, 10:15 PM

09TRD

11-20-2008, 10:54 PM

The SHO was a fun car to blow off 5.0 mustangs..... I used to enjoy the looks on the face of people when they thought it was a family car. I kept up with the maintenance (and alot of it) but I just got tired of it. Never had a leak..... mine was a 1993.

Either you're dreaming or you ran up against a lot of 5.0/automatic cars and/or people who couldn't drive.

Here's an original road test of a bone stock, '88 5.0 Mustang notch; it ran a 14.17 @ 99 MPH straight out of the box:

http://www.derekspratt.com/PDFs/Automotive/1987%20Ford%20Mustang/Hot%20Rod%20-%20Ford%20Mustang%20-%20May%201987.pdf

As you can see, the SHO (15.2 @ 93 MPH) wasn't in the same league:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CDSHO.jpg

Latka

11-20-2008, 11:03 PM

500snakz

11-20-2008, 11:43 PM

The vette gets excellent gas milage for a v8.

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 08:33 AM

Redline was 6,500 RPM. The motor would have blown apart at anything close to "7,500 RPM."

They produced something on the order of 275 NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). The old "gross" ratings were essentially meaningless.

Here's an original road test of a 1962 327 "fuelie" Corvette. The car ran the quarter mile in 15.0 seconds @ 95 MPH. The 60 to 100 MPH segment required nearly 10 full seconds, which is pretty lame by today's standards. I like 60 to 100 MPH comparisons, since they eliminate the "but it had skinny tires" excuse that often used for the older cars.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/106989/1449417/version/1/file/1962+Chevrolet+Corvette.pdf

A new, bone stock V6/automatic Camry is a faster car.

This 1965 327 fuelie was a little quicker than the other one (14.4. @ 99 MPH). http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=957

That's nothing that a new, bone stock, V6/6 speed Accord coupe couldn't handle. http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/1107_rt_dp_accordCoupe.pdf

I have driven and been in the LS3 (on the racetrack). It is a performer...more car than I can handle on the track though...I much prefer my e30 M3 which was where I got the 7500 RPM's from.:wink:

I sometimes confuse that with the vette which also loves to be revved to the 6500 RPM that you mentioned...and it will stay there. I don't get on the fuelie often as it's a concours car. I am going to pick it up today AAMOF as I recently had the bearings in the steering replaced. :thumbup:

09TRD

11-21-2008, 08:57 AM

Yeah, but the SHO Taurus was from the what...late 80s? I would hope a car with 20+ years more development could kick it's butt. :) It had a great (Yamaha?) V-6 in it from what I recall.

I can't wait to get my Yaris. Still trying to get things lined up out here...and then it looks like I'm going to have to wait to get mine after that - base model yellow 5MT 2 door hatchback.

Try READING before you respond.

Here is the comment I was addressing:

The SHO was a fun car to blow off 5.0 mustangs..... I used to enjoy the looks on the face of people when they thought it was a family car.

I compared a "5.0 Mustang" to a later model year Taurus SHO.

The Mustang smokes the SHO, which is contrary to what was claimed.

voodoo22

11-21-2008, 08:59 AM

For those who "wish" they had "nicer cars, listen to me: They are "nice" in some respects, but they are also very over-rated and introduce as many hassles as they do rewards.

Like paying $900 to replace one rear tire, vs the Yaris where I bought top of the line winter tires and steel rims for $650. I don't miss the cost of nicer that's for sure.

09TRD

11-21-2008, 09:03 AM

...I much prefer my e30 M3 which was where I got the 7500 RPM's from.:wink:

That statement is ridiculous; your original claim was clearly referring to 327 "fuelie" Corvettes, which have nothing whatsoever to do with an E30 M3.

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 09:36 AM

That statement is ridiculous; your original claim was clearly referring to 327 "fuelie" Corvettes, which have nothing whatsoever to do with an E30 M3.

What?....I stated that I sometimes get the two confused. It is not feasible that I make a typo in regards to missing the RPM points by 1000 points? If you think that you are Mr. Joe f'ing cool....well you are waaaay off. I own the 327 "fuelie" and happen to know just a few things about it. I also happened to pay $150K cash for it. In other words...I own it. Get off your high horse.

eTiMaGo

11-21-2008, 09:42 AM

hey hey calm down guys, sounds like just a misunderstanding, no harm done, let's leave it at that, ok?

09TRD

11-21-2008, 02:35 PM

What?....I stated that I sometimes get the two confused. It is not feasible that I make a typo in regards to missing the RPM points by 1000 points? If you think that you are Mr. Joe f'ing cool....well you are waaaay off. I own the 327 "fuelie" and happen to know just a few things about it. I also happened to pay $150K cash for it. In other words...I own it. Get off your high horse.

I don't think I'm Joe anything.:iono:

Rather, I'm simply stating that no 283 or 327 fuelie in anything resembling stock form can rev to 7,500 RPM or produce anything close to its advertised (Gross) output in its "as installed" condition. The "375 HP" 327 fuelies, for example, produced roughly 275 SAE NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). As such, they were mid 14 second/100 MPH cars...That's fast by early-to-mid 1960's standards, though nothing a brand new, bone stock V6 Camry family sedan couldn't match.

Nearly half a century has passed since the first 327 Fuelies hit the streets. Huge technological advancements have taken place during that period.

Anyway...I hope you enjoy yours. How about posting some photos of it so we can all see it?

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 02:40 PM

I don't think I'm Joe anything.:iono:

Rather, I'm simply stating that no 283 or 327 fuelie in anything resembling stock form can rev to 7,500 RPM.

I'm also stating that the old fuelie 'Vettes aren't fast cars by modern standards; a new, bone stock V6 Camry would give any bone stock "fuelie" 'Vette a real good run.

Nearly half a century has passed since the first 327 Fuelies hit the streets. Huge technological advancements have taken place during that period.

ah the old "Joe pro"...gotta love em'. I also assume that you would rather have a V6 camry as opposed to a split window 'fueli' as well? You don't have to tell me about fast cars my friend...I have family, friends and I myself, have raced cars. Get a grip....go quote some more Road & Track.

And any day of the week when you'd like....I'll invite you to join me at LRP and race my e30 M3 against your vette. That'd be a hoot to see you get your ass wiped in a car that's 20 years older with 20 years of better technology. :headbang:

ChinoCharles

11-21-2008, 02:45 PM

Chupacabra, I think we can all agree you slap harder. Now let the dude bask in the glow of his new vehicle.

09TRD

11-21-2008, 02:48 PM

ah the old "Joe pro"...gotta love em'. I also assume that you would rather have a V6 camry as opposed to a split window 'fueli' as well? You don't have to tell me about fast cars my friend...I have family, friends and I myself, have raced cars. Get a grip....go quote some more Road & Track.

And any day of the week when you'd like....I'll invite you to join me at LRP and race my e30 M3 against your vette. That'd be a hoot to see you get your ass wiped in a car that's 20 years older with 20 years of better technology. :headbang:

The E30 M3 (192 HP, 4 cylinder in a 2,900 pound car) is a slow car my modern standards...They also had handling issues due to their semi-trailing arm rear suspensions.

They required roughly 19 seconds to run from 0 - 100 MPH, while a new LS3 Corvette will do it in roughly 9 seconds flat. The 'Vette also as much larger brakes, superior suspension geometry and a lot more rubber. Top end is 190 MPH.

A new LS3 'Vette will run with a new M3; comparing a 20+ year old, 4 cylinder E30 M3 to either of them is ludicrous.

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 04:08 PM

The E30 M3 (192 HP, 4 cylinder in a 2,900 pound car) is a slow car my modern standards...They also had handling issues due to their semi-trailing arm rear suspensions.

They required roughly 19 seconds to run from 0 - 100 MPH, while a new LS3 Corvette will do it in roughly 9 seconds flat. The 'Vette also as much larger brakes, superior suspension geometry and a lot more rubber. Top end is 190 MPH.

A new LS3 'Vette will run with a new M3; comparing a 20+ year old, 4 cylinder E30 M3 to either of them is ludicrous.

Ludicrous? How about this...I have connections at LRP. I will get them to open the track and I will give you 5 seconds. You beat me...I'll give you my 2.5L Evo spec M3 and if I beat you....I'll take your vette. I am not all afraid to put my money where my mouth is. AAMOF, I will have your car trailored for you at my cost and give you a limo ride to LRP. Just make sure to have plans on how you want to get home afterwards. Are you game....I'll make some calls and get it set up?

Bob_VT

11-21-2008, 05:43 PM

[QUOTE=09TRD;179940]Either you're dreaming or you ran up against a lot of 5.0/automatic cars and/or people who couldn't drive.

Here's an original road test of a bone stock, '88 5.0 Mustang notch; it ran a 14.17 @ 99 MPH straight out of the box:

http://www.derekspratt.com/PDFs/Automotive/1987%20Ford%20Mustang/Hot%20Rod%20-%20Ford%20Mustang%20-%20May%201987.pdf

As you can see, the SHO (15.2 @ 93 MPH) wasn't in the same league:

[QUOTE]

Where's your TRD Yaris pictures? We want to see the dump.

As far as dreaming ....... The SHO had a better top end than the mustang and my SHO had a few mods.

Do you think I am new to this game? I was modding my 66 chevelle when I was in HS oh....... my chevelle was only 6 years old then.

What do I know? Your the proclaimed expert on every car!

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 05:55 PM

Bob_VT

11-21-2008, 06:23 PM

The SHO was a fast car...a friend of mine owns one. It hasn't been running for a few years but he loves that car and wants to do a rull restoration on it. Because of the rarity...it's not easy to get parts as you know. That 66 Chevelle wouldn't happen to have been an SS396 would it have? On of my favs with the Muncie!!:thumbsup:

Yes it was my first car. I could not afford the insurance on a 58 vette so I got a 66 chevelle ss396 (two door). It went through 6 big blocks and 3 transmissions..... when it was all said and done I was bracket 1 racing it at National Speedway with a 327 coupled to a Muncie T10. Good old purple zoom clutch ..... it became a dedicated 1/4 mile car. As far as SHO parts there used to be a website called SHOtimes.

09TRD

11-21-2008, 06:28 PM

The SHO was a fast car...

So you must consider a 15.2 second, 93 MPH (in the 1/4 mile) a "fast car," since that's how stock SHOs ran :rolleyes:

A new, bone stock Camry V6/automatic will run mid 14s @ 100 MPH right out of the box. That's enough to embarrass a bone stock SHO.

The SHO's cylinder heads were junk by modern standards; it only made 220 HP for God sake. The new Camry's V6 weighs about the same as the SHO, but makes 268 CERTIFIED SAE Net HP and is therefore a faster car.

I OWNED A SHO; it was a 1995 that I bought brand new. My 2006 V6/6 speed Accord coupe was a significantly faster car. Both are dog A** slow compared to my '09 'Vette and even that isn't overly "fast" by some of today's standards.

Here, compare the Taurus SHO test results with those of a new Camry V6; it's not even close.

SHO:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CDSHO.jpg

CAMRY V6:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CAMRYV6.jpg

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 06:31 PM

Yes it was my first car. I could not afford the insurance on a 58 vette so I got a 66 chevelle ss396 (two door). It went through 6 big blocks and 3 transmissions..... when it was all said and done I was bracket 1 racing it at National Speedway with a 327 coupled to a Muncie T10. Good old purple zoom clutch ..... it became a dedicated 1/4 mile car. As far as SHO parts there used to be a website called SHOtimes.

One of my favorite muscle cars....loved the 66 SS. My old man bought a 63 vette roadster...spent every dime he had to buy it and got a great deal. He couldn't afford insurance when he first started college so the car sat until one day he risked it and brought it to school while his impala was in the shop. Welp...just so happens that the roadster was gone when he came out to go home for the day - stolen, never to be found. :thumbdown:

Chupacabra

11-21-2008, 06:32 PM

[QUOTE=Chupacabra;180835]

So you must consider a low to mid 15 second, 93 MPH (in the 1/4 mile) a "fast car." :rolleyes:

A new, bone stock Camry V6 will run mid 14s @ 100 MPH right out of the box. That's enough to embarrass a bone stock SHO.

So by your standards the new V6 Camry must be a race car.

I OWNED A SHO; it was a 1995 that I bought brand new. My 2006 V6/6 speed Accord coupe was a significantly faster car. Both are dog A** slow compared to my '09 'Vette and even that isn't overly "fast" by some of today's standards.

Here, compare the Taurus SHO test results with those of a new Camry V6; it's not even close:

SHO:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CDSHO.jpg

So are you willing to race my 4 cylinder?

09TRD

11-21-2008, 06:43 PM

One of my favorite muscle cars....loved the 66 SS.

The '66 SS 396 wasn't as fast a new, bone stock, V6 Camry, though.

It FELT faster because the old cars had lousy suspension and were noisy. The '66 SS 396 was 350 or pounds heavier than a new Camry V6 and it made less power...

Look, here's a vintage engine dyno test of a "350 HP" 396. (This one was a 1970 example, which was actually a 402 CID engine because it was factory over-bored by .030" that year.) It could only manage 288 peak HP in it's "as delivered" state and that's WITHOUT the factory exhaust system in place. (Figure 260 HP with the full exhaust system in place.) MOST SS 396s were the "325 HP" versions and made even less power!

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/350HP396DYNO-2.jpg

09TRD

11-21-2008, 06:54 PM

Here's a vintage road test of a 1966 SS 396; this one had the "360 HP" 396.

It ran a 15.85 @ 91 MPH; many modern, garden variety 4 cylinder cars (e.g. 4 cylinder, 5 speed Nissan Altima) could run with that.

Most of these old engines were DOGS by modern standards. The few that did go were rare, expensive and never made more than 375 SAE NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). Most of them made much, much less.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CARS66SS3961.jpg

drbilal

11-22-2008, 06:30 AM

Relax guys, you both have nice cars.

Now, lets see some pics of the the yaris.

Bob_VT

11-22-2008, 06:33 AM

Would like to see a picture of the Yaris parked nose to nose with the Vette...............:needpics:

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

Chupacabra

11-22-2008, 09:41 AM

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

:wink::laugh:

09TRD

11-22-2008, 06:59 PM

Would like to see a picture of the Yaris parked nose to nose with the Vette...............:needpics:

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

I'll snap a picture of both cars together next week and will post it.

I have HUNDREDS of "magazine reviews" from "the muscle car era," have driven many of them and have a mechanical engineering degree on top of it.

Your "opinions" of those old boats, while common, is based primarily in myth and legend and, as such, is essentially baseless.

Here is the absolute king of "the muscle car era." The engine option (RPO ZL1) cost more than an entire base Camaro of the period and was all but useless on the street. It would barely idle, woudn't start in cold weather and fouled plugs quicker than a rattlesnake can bite. In its "as delivered" state it made a whole 376 SAE NET HP (as measured at the flywheel and in its "as delivered" state), despite the fact that it was essentially a racing engine with an exhaust system. Figure 320 HP at the drivewheels as measured on a modern chassis dyno.:thumbdown:

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

That's chicken feed by modern, high performance street car standards. Your favored "1966 SS 396" made but a fraction of that peak power and was nothing more than a glorified station wagon engine wrapped in a cheap car with some fancy trim and a lot of advertising hype.

So is this (315 peak drivewheel HP from a certified production line stock 426 Hemi): http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/index.html

My LS3 Corvette will put 380+ drivewheel HP to the ground without any real effort and will do it on 91 octane unleaded gas (as opposed to leaded racing fuel) and with just 6.2 liters and with catalytic converters and all other modern emissions equipment in place).

And that Corvette, while fast, is relatively mundane by modern performance standards (not to mention poorly built).

You've got a whole lot of learning to do if you don't understand why modern engines make a lot more power per unit of displacement than the old crap did. (Modern computational software and the cylinder head/chamber design breakthroughs that software has yielded represent the single greatest advantage in power and efficiency.)

Chupacabra

11-22-2008, 07:55 PM

I have HUNDREDS of "magazine reviews" from "the muscle car era," have driven many of them and have a mechanical engineering degree on top of it.

I find this quite humorous. Magazine articles and ME degrees....exactly as predicted....a "Joe Pro." Do you know how many idiots that I deal with daily with basic ME degrees?....C'mon man. Just because somebody has an ME degree doesn't mean shit....it means that they are able to do fancy math equations that are meaningless 90% of the time.

Maybe I'll post up how I have 2 "Advanced" Engineering degrees, a BSBA and an MBA. Maybe that'll buy me some more credibility. :rolleyes:

Still waiting to hear about your vette taking on my whimpy, slow 4 cylinder....It's never to late for me to add another vette to my collection...

Bob_VT

11-22-2008, 08:53 PM

It is the fine line between practice and theory....... I was right!

All of the consumer magazine tests tell us that the Yaris gets 36-37 mpg but many of us get more....... I guess in 20 years we can reference those magazine articles too.

I worked for a Chev dealer back in 2005. The Corvettes were nice and they maintained over 6000 profit on the front side and 5500 on the dealers back end profit. It meant that every vette that went out the door even 500 under invoice gave the dealer 5000 in his profit. If a customer wanted to take delivery in Bowling Green we would arrange that too. It was a scam.

09TRD

11-23-2008, 08:36 AM

The Corvettes were nice and they maintained over 6000 profit on the front side and 5500 on the dealers back end profit. It meant that every vette that went out the door even 500 under invoice gave the dealer 5000 in his profit. If a customer wanted to take delivery in Bowling Green we would arrange that too. It was a scam.

You're referring to the dealer holdback, which on the Corvette (and all other Chevy products) is 3% of MSRP; that's not even close to the "$5,500" you claim.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/incentives/holdback/index.html

Thus, a Corvette with an MSRP of $50K would have a $1,500 holdback.

It's not fixed as you suggested, either, but is based solely on the (varying by options) MSRP.

Furthermore, there's no "scam" involved," since every American manufacturer has dealer holdbacks and has had them for many decades. It's part of the business.

The Bowling Green trip you're referring to is actually an RPO option called "museum delivery." I didn't get that. The only people who do get it willingly request and pay for it.

You can avoid replies such as these in the future by performing some fact checking before you type. :iono:

09TRD

11-23-2008, 09:23 AM

Still waiting to hear about your vette taking on my whimpy, slow 4 cylinder....It's never to late for me to add another vette to my collection...

Your entire premise is beyond ludicrous.

As you can see, a new Z51 equipped Corvette like mine is fully capable of putting the NEW M3 away on a road racing circuit. And the new M3 is much, much faster than the 4 cylinder M3 from the late 1980s.

In the real world, an old M3 would be hard pressed to stay with the VW R32 in that test.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/122224/1656509/version/1/file/The+Lightning+Lap%2C+2008+Results.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/the_lightning_lap_2008_feature

Black Yaris

11-23-2008, 09:35 AM

Still think it is funny that you can go buy a 15 year old TSI Talon, slap a boost controler and AFC for $1500-2000 and blow the doors off that vette

09TRD

11-23-2008, 09:45 AM

Still think it is funny that you can go buy a 15 year old TSI Talon, slap a boost controler and AFC for $1500-2000 and blow the doors off that vette

Here's a TSi similar to what you've described; it needs a mix of 110 octane leaded racing fuel in order to trap @ just 111 MPH:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Eagle-Talon-Timeslip-6229.html

The modified TSi would have to trap @ 117 MPH or so through the 1/4 mile and go on to a top speed of 190 MPH in order to stay even with the 'Vette in a straight line over any appreciable length of time. (AWD gives the TSi and advantage off the line.)

Neither the TSi's brakes nor suspension are remotely competitive with the Corvette's.

Here's a TSi similar to what you've described; it needs a mix of 110 octane leaded racing fuel in order to trap @ just 111 MPH:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Eagle-Talon-Timeslip-6229.html

Almost anything will go if you throw enough boost in it and use the required racing fuel. How durable it will be is another question altogether, though.

Black Yaris

11-23-2008, 10:11 AM

Here's a TSi similar to what you've described; it needs a mix of 110 octane leaded racing fuel in order to trap @ just 111 MPH:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Eagle-Talon-Timeslip-6229.html

The modified TSi would have to trap @ 117 MPH or so through the 1/4 mile and go on to a top speed of 190 MPH in order to stay even with the 'Vette in a straight line over any appreciable length of time. (AWD gives the TSi and advantage off the line.)

Neither the TSi's brakes nor suspension are remotely competitive with the Corvette's.

Here's a TSi similar to what you've described; it needs a mix of 110 octane leaded racing fuel in order to trap @ just 111 MPH:

http://www.dragtimes.com/Eagle-Talon-Timeslip-6229.html

Almost anything will go if you throw enough boost in it and use the required racing fuel. How durable it will be is another question altogether, though.

true...... I just find it funny that kids around these parts buy these cheepo cars and drive around looking for Vette's, Mustangs and what not and whomp all over them from light to light

as for durability, DSM's FTL:thumbdown:

Chupacabra

11-23-2008, 10:50 AM

Your entire premise is beyond ludicrous.

As you can see, a new Z51 equipped Corvette like mine is fully capable of putting the NEW M3 away on a road racing circuit. And the new M3 is much, much faster than the 4 cylinder M3 from the late 1980s.

In the real world, an old M3 would be hard pressed to stay with the VW R32 in that test.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/122224/1656509/version/1/file/The+Lightning+Lap%2C+2008+Results.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/the_lightning_lap_2008_feature

It's apparent that you are completely absent of any "real life" experience. My offer still stands....AAMOF, I'll hand you a half lap of the course. I can arrange it before the snow falls. A VW R32 wouldn't even come close to an e30 M3 on the track...especially in half-capable hands. Again....I am willing to pay for everything....your transportation to the track (and the car), any octane fuel you wish, I'll suit you up and everything. Like I mentioned...just make sure that you have a way to get home after I make you look silly. A naturally aspirated 4 cylinder car would make you look silly....what a beautiful thing.

09TRD

11-23-2008, 11:53 AM

It's apparent that you are completely absent of any "real life" experience. My offer still stands....AAMOF, I'll hand you a half lap of the course. I can arrange it before the snow falls. A VW R32 wouldn't even come close to an e30 M3 on the track...especially in half-capable hands. Again....I am willing to pay for everything....your transportation to the track (and the car), any octane fuel you wish, I'll suit you up and everything. Like I mentioned...just make sure that you have a way to get home after I make you look silly. A naturally aspirated 4 cylinder car would make you look silly....what a beautiful thing.

A 20 year old, 192 HP, 4 cylinder BMW isn't in the same performance league as a new Corvette by any stretch of the imagination.

Period.

An E30 M3 in anything resembling stock form would have had great difficult staying with a C4 Corvette (L98 - 240 - 250 HP) from the same period (late 1980s).

That's been proven and documented on countless occasions.

Bob_VT

11-23-2008, 12:04 PM

You're referring to the dealer holdback, which on the Corvette (and all other Chevy products) is 3% of MSRP; that's not even close to the "$5,500" you claim.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/incentives/holdback/index.html

Thus, a Corvette with an MSRP of $50K would have a $1,500 holdback.

It's not fixed as you suggested, either, but is based solely on the (varying by options) MSRP.

Furthermore, there's no "scam" involved," since every American manufacturer has dealer holdbacks and has had them for many decades. It's part of the business.

The Bowling Green trip you're referring to is actually an RPO option called "museum delivery." I didn't get that. The only people who do get it willingly request and pay for it.

You can avoid replies such as these in the future by performing some fact checking before you type. :iono:

Obviously you have never worked at a dealership. Dealer holdback is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the backend is what the dealer gets from GM...... it has nothing to do with the consumer. There is an average backend on a Silverado of a few grand too. Do you really think a dealer is only going to make 1500 on the holdback? That would not cover the overhead.

We would offer the Bowling Green delivery to customers who requested it. Personally I think you are just a wanna be ..... all mouth ....... as I read through I see more and more links and references. You are just full of stories yet you claim to have had all these cars....... didn't you mention that the yaris is a single season car and you have also owned Before that I owned a 2007 Acura TL Type S. I've also owned three Accords, a Taurus SHO and two 5.0 Mustangs - all purchased new..... and you now go to a Yaris? Either you have more money than brains or you have a trust fund.

Get a life.

Where is the picture of the Yaris with the vette?

09TRD

11-23-2008, 12:18 PM

09TRD

11-23-2008, 12:26 PM

It's apparent that you are completely absent of any "real life" experience. My offer still stands....AAMOF, I'll hand you a half lap of the course. I can arrange it before the snow falls. A VW R32 wouldn't even come close to an e30 M3 on the track...especially in half-capable hands. Again....I am willing to pay for everything....your transportation to the track (and the car), any octane fuel you wish, I'll suit you up and everything. Like I mentioned...just make sure that you have a way to get home after I make you look silly. A naturally aspirated 4 cylinder car would make you look silly....what a beautiful thing.

This R32 is significantly quicker than the old M3 by every measure, has much stronger brakes and significantly more grip. Only its (easily defeated) governor keeps its top speed below that of the M3:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/vw_audi_performance/volkswagen_r32_short_take_road_test+t-specs+page-2.html

The current generation Z51 Corvette dramatically outperforms both cars by every conceivable performance measure.

1988 E30 M3 (pathetic by modern performance car standards):
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/img004.jpg

New base engine Corvette:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/08Z51.jpg

Chupacabra

11-23-2008, 12:33 PM

I am still waiting for you to accept my invitation....??????? Let's do it! All these articles are good for a laugh but let's see the rubber hit the road.

09TRD

11-23-2008, 01:06 PM

Obviously you have never worked at a dealership. Dealer holdback is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the backend is what the dealer gets from GM...... it has nothing to do with the consumer. There is an average backend on a Silverado of a few grand too. Do you really think a dealer is only going to make 1500 on the holdback? That would not cover the overhead.

We would offer the Bowling Green delivery to customers who requested it. Personally I think you are just a wanna be ..... all mouth ....... as I read through I see more and more links and references. You are just full of stories yet you claim to have had all these cars....... didn't you mention that the yaris is a single season car and you have also owned Before that I owned a 2007 Acura TL Type S. I've also owned three Accords, a Taurus SHO and two 5.0 Mustangs - all purchased new..... and you now go to a Yaris? Either you have more money than brains or you have a trust fund.

Get a life.

Where is the picture of the Yaris with the vette?

My Yaris is presently having a stereo installed in it, as documented elsewhere on this site. I'll snap a photo of it next week; meanwhile, here's the purchase and sales agreement (with sensitive info folded over/blanked out).

I'm also posting a pic of my Acura TL Type S; as you can see, the plate is the same as what I've got on my Corvette. That's because I traded the Acura for the 'Vette.

I bought the Yaris because I wanted a nice, small, economical, front drive car to offset the 'Vette, which I purchased as a "summer car."

So far, EVERY accusation or claim you've made has been readily disproved by me. Hint: DROP IT; you won't win.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/YARISPS.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/DSCN0013.jpg

Chupacabra

11-23-2008, 01:25 PM

He might not win but I will. Let's go.....I am ready to snot on an LS3 as my 4th or 5th choice of summer car. Let's set it up!!???? I mean, how could you lose going up against the puny, whimpy e30 M3. It's not fast???? It'd be like racing somebody in a Yaris, right? I am waiting to hear back from you....to see if you will stand by your "objective documentation."

Bob_VT

11-23-2008, 02:54 PM

Your should have kept the Acura

Latka

11-23-2008, 03:46 PM

So uhm... what's with all the e-peenery? This is a site about the Yaris. No need to spew testosterone everywhere.

E30 M3. Cool car. Vette. Cool car. can we move on?

09TRD

11-23-2008, 04:21 PM

Your should have kept the Acura

It handled like a boat, its brakes were sub-par (undersized rotors and noisy pads) and fuel economy was poor (for a V6 powered car).

The front end of the car would actually float and porpoise when driven with any enthusiasm. My two Accords were even worse in that regard. Honda has lost its way in suspension tuning.

The Acura's interior was its greatest strength.

What I should have done is traded the Acura for a 335 iX (AWD) BMW instead of buying the Corvette/Yaris pair.

I still like the Yaris, though.

Chupacabra

11-23-2008, 04:30 PM

Have you driven the IX? It's a DOG for the money...

Bob_VT

11-23-2008, 04:31 PM

It handled like a boat, its brakes were sub-par (undersized rotors and noisy pads) and fuel economy was poor (for a V6 powered car).

The front end of the car would actually float and porpoise when driven with any enthusiasm. My two Accords were even worse in that regard. Honda has lost its way in suspension tuning.

The Acura's interior was its greatest strength.

What I should have done is traded the Acura for a 335 iX (AWD) BMW instead of buying the Corvette/Yaris pair.

I still like the Yaris, though.

I'm surprised but I had heard it was a rough riding car.... The Yaris will be like a go-kart to you with the TRD set up...... and dam near as economical,

09TRD

11-23-2008, 06:44 PM

I'm surprised but I had heard it was a rough riding car....

That's the joke with the Acura.

My Corvette actually rides better than the Acura over many surfaces.

Yet, the Acura still bobbed and floated when driven hard.

The entire suspension was wrong.

The rear was OK in terms of springs and dampers, but it needed more rear bar (too much understeer).

The front needed more spring and even more in terms of damper - particularly rebound.

There wasn't a hint of aluminum in that suspension, either. The front lower control arms and uprights were cast, solid steel.

The car cornered pretty flat and felt reasonably well planted on the open highway, but at best it was nothing more than "a good highway cruiser."

The TRD Yaris is a much better balanced car. The Acura had more lateral grip, but that's solely due to wheels/tires. (I'm running the stock steel wheels and R92 tires on the Yaris.)

The Acura had a nice stereo (Panasonic ELS, which was standard OEM.) It also had nice seats a nice dash layout with decent materials. It was also fairly quiet.

09TRD

11-23-2008, 06:46 PM

Have you driven the IX? It's a DOG for the money...

The 335 Xi runs 0 - 60 in ~ 5.6 seconds and upper 13 second/104 MPH quarter miles.

That's enough to put it on par with the typical, production line stock 426 street hemis from '68 - '71 and enough to SMOKE and old E30 M3 without even trying.

So I wouldn't call it "a dog."

My 'Vette will smoke it, but the BMW is a much nicer car overall.

Chupacabra

11-23-2008, 09:20 PM

The 335 Xi runs 0 - 60 in ~ 5.6 seconds and upper 13 second/104 MPH quarter miles.

That's enough to put it on par with the typical, production line stock 426 street hemis from '68 - '71 and enough to SMOKE and old E30 M3 without even trying.

So I wouldn't call it "a dog."

My 'Vette will smoke it, but the BMW is a much nicer car overall.

You are friggin hysterical man.....what happened - did you run out of magazine articles? Not only would I walk on XI....I would absolutely eat it alive on a racetrack.