Stock Yaris as fast as stock 1982 Z28 Camaro/Trans Am!!

[427chev]

Some of the younger members on the board may be unaware of the fact that the performance of today's Yaris is on par with many V8 "performance cars" from the later 1970s through earlier 1980s.

I drove enough of these to know that my 5 speed manual Yaris is TRULY at least as quick as some of those cars, including this one.

This is a 1982 Z28 Camaro equipped with the optional "performance" engine (Throttle Body Injected 5.0 liter V8). The car required 9.7 seconds to hot 60 MPH and barely cracked 80 MPH through the quarter.

http://www.thirdgen.org/1982camaroz28-mt-january1982

[marcus]

yaris is a bit faster then.. some people can do 8.5 sec fr 0-60m/h on this car stock.

[427chev]

yaris is a bit faster then.. some people can do 8.5 sec fr 0-60m/h on this car stock.

Some of the lightly equipped, 5 speed manual LG4 (base engine) Z28s and T/As fitted with the performance axle ratio could run it in about 8.5 seconds.

A friend of mine had a brand new Z28 just like that in 1983...

My Yaris feels virtually identical in terms of acceleration, which I think is rather amusing considering that it's a 1.5 liter economy car.

Engines have come a long in the last 15 years - despite the fact that emission requirements keep getting tighter.

[Yaris Hilton]

I've been saying my Yaris sedan feels like the '71 Ford LTD with a premium gas burning 429 I drove in the early '80s. I used to joke about painting numbers on the side of that big brown bomb, because it was as fast as any of the "performance cars" being sold then, which I used to blow away with my big dresser Harley. Top speed's about the same as that 7 liter Ford, also.

People who complain about the Yaris being "slow and sluggish" have never driven an early '80s Diesel Chevette.

[regal]

I agree that the Yaris is very peppy for an economy car. It really feels more powerful than my 93 Civic EX which was rated at 125HP, I think possibly that engine HP was measured/rated higher back then?

[427chev]

I've been saying my Yaris sedan feels like the '71 Ford LTD with a premium gas burning 429 I drove in the early '80s. I used to joke about painting numbers on the side of that big brown bomb, because it was as fast as any of the "performance cars" being sold then, which I used to blow away with my big dresser Harley. Top speed's about the same as that 7 liter Ford, also.

People who complain about the Yaris being "slow and sluggish" have never driven an early '80s Diesel Chevette.

My grandfather (and later, my parents) bought a new 1969 Chevrolet Impala with the optional "300 HP (Gross) 350, Turbohydramatic 350 and F41 suspension. The car felt reasonably fast by early to mid 1980s standards.

I'm certain that my Yaris is quicker - albeit ever so slightly.

The Yaris 5 speed manual is not a slow car. I have owned several fast cars, two of which were quite fast. While the Yaris is much slower, it's still not "slow" and it feels responsive and "peppy" in virtually every gear in ever speed. It will move out pretty good if it's redlined in every gear.

I really like the car.

I originally purchased it as a "winter car." The new GM performance car I bought was so problematic that I dumped it after 3 months and decided to drive the Yaris year-'round for now.:thumbup:

[SpaceShot]

I checked into it before buying my Yaris, and the HP/weight ratio is within 1% of the mid size SUV I gave up.

The Suzuki XL-7 had a 2.8L V-6, but it also weighed in at a paunchy 4400 lb, even before I put any gear in it. (equivalent to a Rav4 Limited today)
I certainly feel that my Yaris 5 speed is every bit as quick as the Suzuki was, just the profile of the power curve is slightly different.

What surprises me is how versatile the little package is. You can optimize FE with driving style, tire pressure, and weight trimming; or go completely the other way with intakes or forced induction and low profile tires with good suspension components and make quite a worthwhile street racer out of it.

[cfiimei]

Those were the years of horribly inefficient smog pumps and emission devices. I remember reading a review of the early 80's T/A... "You can still spin the tires on wet pavement!" Garbage trucks could outrun those things.

[supmet]

camaros have always been slow stock :P

I'm too lazy to look, but I can guarantee an 82 5.0 mustang would beat the yaris down the quarter

[Yaris Hilton]

Perhaps so, but even the V8 Mustangs were pretty lethargic in those days.

[SailDesign]

I'm too lazy to look, but I can guarantee an 82 5.0 mustang would beat the yaris down the quarter

And I can guarantee that the Yaris will beat it on any course involving corners.. :biggrin:

[427chev]

camaros have always been slow stock :P



Go drive a bone stock LS1 Camaro (1998 - 2002 Z28 or SS) and see if you still believe that.

A few ticked into the high twelves right out of the box...

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

Go drive a bone stock LS1 Camaro (1998 - 2002 Z28 or SS) and see if you still believe that.

A few ticked into the high twelves right out of the box...

you were talking about the 80's remember not 20 years later........

[500snakz]

You people are SICK!

[41magmag41]

Well i could get my 10 speed bike to 60 in about 9.5 seconds down hill and with a good tail wind. LOL

[TOUGEghost]

I'm too lazy to look, but I can guarantee an 82 5.0 mustang would beat the yaris down the quarter

There's a guy here who races one of those mustangs... it's loud as hell but runs 15's. So it would actually be a close race. :laugh:

[Mad Goon]

Hmm.. I never considered 80's camaros and mustangs "performance" cars, although the 86 did the quarter in like 14.5 and the 60 sprint in like 6.1.... Sure the MII front suspension is a popular swap, but really now... xD

[427chev]

Hmm.. I never considered 80's camaros and mustangs "performance" cars...

They were "performance cars" in their day.

[gaffo]

They were "performance cars" in their day.

not really. They were Joe 6-pack pozer performance cars at best.

the real deal was in the 80's as it is now: Porche 911, 944 S, and for the American version the Corvette.

Ford did have its Pantara in the late 60's and early 70's - but when they dropped that Pantara they also left the true performance car arena. Mustang is like the camaro - a poser "poor mans" "sports car".

any pantara, porsche (excluding the POS 924 and 914 VW forgeries), Corvette or Lotus could run circles around those pozer cars.

just sayin.

[jambo101]

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htmNot sure what the 1/4 mile times are for the Yaris but this chart gives those times for various past and present stock production cars,if the Yaris can better a 14 second 1/4 mile time it may be quicker than a few on the list.

[427chev]

not really. They were Joe 6-pack pozer performance cars at best.

the real deal was in the 80's as it is now: Porche 911, 944 S, and for the American version the Corvette...
just sayin.

With all due respect, that statement is rooted in pure ignorance and unmitigated bias.

"CAR AND DRIVER" named the 1984 Z28 "the best handling American car" at that time; the 944 (which costs roughly twice as much) narrowly beat it for "best handling car." They judged the Z28's overall handling traits superior to the Corvette's.

http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlingamericancar-caranddriver-may1984
http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlingamericancarpart2-caranddriver-oct1984

Furthermore, an L69 equipped F-body (e.g. Z28 or Trans Am) was QUICKER than an '82 or '84 Corvette. (There was no 1983 model year Corvette.) The L69 F bodies were also quicker than any 944 except for the turbos and were only a few ticks off from the 911s of the day.
http://www.thirdgen.org/mustangvscamaro-caranddriver-june1983
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=978&page_number=7

I suppose you're going to tell me that my '98 LS1/1LE/6 speed Z28 was also a "Joe six pack pozer" - right? (BTW: The correct spelling is poseur.)

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hartley/iroc/z28vs911.html

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/SMALLERCOLORZ28.JPG

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

my 83 1/2 monte carlo ss came with that L69 motor and its 190 horses......

[427chev]

my 83 1/2 monte carlo ss came with that L69 motor and its 190 horses......

The Monte Carlo's L69 was rated at 175 HP in the 1983 model year. It was rated at 180 HP from the 1984 through the last (1988) model year.

http://www.montecarloss.com/SS_FAQ_4.html#1

The Camaro's L69 was rated at 190 HP; the Camaro was a significantly lighter and far more aero car, though. And unlike the Monte, the Camaro's L69 was available with a 5 speed manual.

A 5 speed L69 Camaro (or Firebird) would walk all over a Monte SS in the straights and far more so in the twisties.

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

take it easy gearhead, i never said anything about the car being faster than your precious camaro. my 83 1/2 came with the 180 horse motor so i stand corrected but my added mods put it well over 190. which brings to mind that i shit all over automatic f-bodys and the cocky 5 speed owners that missed a shift.:biggrin:

[gaffo]

With all due respect, that statement is rooted in pure ignorance and unmitigated bias.

"CAR AND DRIVER" named the 1984 Z28 "the best handling American car" at that time; the 944 (which costs roughly twice as much) narrowly beat it for "best handling car." They judged the Z28's overall handling traits superior to the Corvette's.

http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlingamericancar-caranddriver-may1984
http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandlingamericancarpart2-caranddriver-oct1984

Furthermore, an L69 equipped F-body (e.g. Z28 or Trans Am) was QUICKER than an '82 or '84 Corvette. (There was no 1983 model year Corvette.) The L69 F bodies were also quicker than any 944 except for the turbos and were only a few ticks off from the 911s of the day.
http://www.thirdgen.org/mustangvscamaro-caranddriver-june1983
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=978&page_number=7

I suppose you're going to tell me that my '98 LS1/1LE/6 speed Z28 was also a "Joe six pack pozer" - right? (BTW: The correct spelling is poseur.)

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hartley/iroc/z28vs911.html

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/SMALLERCOLORZ28.JPG


Your are entitle to your opinion, and you can call me a smob or whatever if you like.

but I've driven both the 944 (in the 80's - my dad had one - unreliable car BTW) and the Z28 (again in the 80's my roomate had one and I drive another one as a rental for a week).

no doubt about it, the 944 had more power from a stop light and handled better. its lack of power steering made it difficult for ladies though. it was a heavy car to not have power steering, especially at low speed. 944 only had a 4-banger but its power band was way the hell up near the redline.

in fact the 944 had the same displacement as my old Truimph TR7 and had a much heavier body wieght. Even so the 944 could run circles around my Truimph!! My TR7 utterly lacked the massive power around 4500 rpm that the 944 had.


just sayin.


- go ahead and play Spell Nazi again if it makes you feel good.

[427chev]

Your are entitle to your opinion, and you can call me a smob or whatever if you like.

but I've driven both the 944 (in the 80's - my dad had one - unreliable car BTW) and the Z28 (again in the 80's my roomate had one and I drive another one as a rental for a week).

no doubt about it, the 944 had more power from a stop light and handled better. its lack of power steering made it difficult for ladies though. it was a heavy car to not have power steering, especially at low speed. 944 only had a 4-banger but its power band was way the hell up near the redline.

in fact the 944 had the same displacement as my old Truimph TR7 and had a much heavier body wieght. Even so the 944 could run circles around my Truimph!! My TR7 utterly lacked the massive power around 4500 rpm that the 944 had.


just sayin.


- go ahead and play Spell Nazi again if it makes you feel good.


A base 944 was no match for an L69 Camaro in terms of acceleration.

One had to get the order the Turbo S version of the 944 to accomplish that task.

In fact, a BASE model 944 (0-60 MPH in 8.9 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16.6 seconds) was about as quick a bone stock Yaris 5 speed:

http://autoatlanta.com/model/944catalog/R&T/R&T1.html

[500snakz]

Is the yaris as fast as this too?

[Astroman]

I've been saying my Yaris sedan feels like the '71 Ford LTD with a premium gas burning 429 I drove in the early '80s. I used to joke about painting numbers on the side of that big brown bomb, because it was as fast as any of the "performance cars" being sold then, which I used to blow away with my big dresser Harley. Top speed's about the same as that 7 liter Ford, also.

People who complain about the Yaris being "slow and sluggish" have never driven an early '80s Diesel Chevette.

I actually still own my first car, which is the lower model '71 Ford Galaxie 500 which had the 5.8 liter Windsor V8. That engine died and it's now got a 351M/400, and will be painted within a month. Used to pack eight people easy in that car, 4 in the front seat, 4 in back :laugh:

[Yaris Hilton]

I miss that old LTD. Wish I had it back.

[SailDesign]

Is the yaris as fast as this too?

Not in a straight line, I'm sure. But in the corners? I'd put money on the Yaris, especially if it was as prepped as that truck is compared to its "base model."

[500snakz]

Not in a straight line, I'm sure. But in the corners? I'd put money on the Yaris, especially if it was as prepped as that truck is compared to its "base model."



The truck IS 100% stock. It is now, and allways will be, the same as it came from the factory.
305/40/22 tires
Bilstein shocks with vertical rear end shock.(reduces wheel hop)
4:11 rear gears
4" aluminun drive shaft
t56 6 speed tranny
Dana 60 rear
Performance 4 piston brakes
15" brake rotors on front and 14" on back
Hurst shifter
0-60 in 4.9-5.0
2" lower than a stock ram
505ci (8.3) liter v10 motor
500 hp stock
High bolstered leather bucket seats
Adjustable performance aluminum pedals
Rear spoiler adds 165 lb of downforce
Had it to 152 mph
And can still haul things..

Dont put your money on a yaris...I have both.
I love my yaris for highway and work commute and fuel millage, but it is not fast and it wasn't intended to be. The yaris fits my needs perfectly for that.

[SailDesign]

The truck IS 100% stock. It is now, and allways will be, the same as it came from the factory.


Sure - no argument - but it is NOT the "base model" of it's type.

[500snakz]

Sure - no argument - but it is NOT the "base model" of it's type.

There was only one model srt10 available in 04.(base model srt10) They made 3057 that year.
Is the yaris as fast as the base model ram truck?(non srt10)

[SailDesign]

Is the yaris as fast as the base model ram truck?(non srt10)

Now you're getting it. :smile:
I still doubt the Yaris is as fast in a straight line (althuogh I'd be happy to be proven wrong), but I know it is better through the twisties. No doubt at all.

[33OH]

If we're just going to start arguing about all of the cars/trucks that can beat a 1.5L ~100 HP engine, get ready for a very long thread. :redface:

[detroiter]

A 500hp Viper engine sure is pretty big without a doubt...but I've yet to see anyone mention how much the Ram SRT-10 weighs. So I'll have to say it myself

5,100 lbs anyone? :)

[neo1985]

There was only one model srt10 available in 04.(base model srt10) They made 3057 that year.
Is the yaris as fast as the base model ram truck?(non srt10)

im sure any other car in my house is faster than ur errrr.... dodge... rammm

[GeneW]

Some of the younger members on the board may be unaware of the fact that the performance of today's Yaris is on par with many V8 "performance cars" from the later 1970s through earlier 1980s.

I drove enough of these to know that my 5 speed manual Yaris is TRULY at least as quick as some of those cars, including this one.

This is a 1982 Z28 Camaro equipped with the optional "performance" engine (Throttle Body Injected 5.0 liter V8). The car required 9.7 seconds to hot 60 MPH and barely cracked 80 MPH through the quarter.

http://www.thirdgen.org/1982camaroz28-mt-january1982

Per your source the 82 camaro had a bhp of 162 horsepower. That's not much more than a Yaris's 106 horse, about a half more of the Yaris's HP.

The curb weight for an 82 camaro is about 3192 pounds, versus a Yaris's, what, 2300 pounds?

The horsepower to weight ratio of the Yaris is 0.046 and for the Camaro it's 0.051. The Yaris probably has a much lower drag coefficient than the more boxy Camaro.

So it's not surprising that the Yaris could compete with an 82 Camaro.

Gene

[500snakz]

im sure any other car in my house is faster than ur errrr.... dodge... rammm

Yep...I bet they are. :respekt:

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

im sure any other car in my house is faster than ur errrr.... dodge... rammm

you must not know what a viper motor ram truck can do......

[WolfWings]

in fact the 944 had the same displacement as my old Truimph TR7 and had a much heavier body wieght. Even so the 944 could run circles around my Truimph!! My TR7 utterly lacked the massive power around 4500 rpm that the 944 had.

The Turbo models were quite peaky, but it's very startling to see the power curves on the NA models though, even the weakling 2.5l engines. They're this flat torque curve from below 2k all the way up to the mid 5k's. Most highway-speed and mountain driving would involve 2nd and 3rd gear and running that poor motor up and down the tach quite widely.

:burnrubber: Then there's the LS1-swapped 944's, those are beasts and you can kiss 1st gear goodbye. Treat them like a 4-speed with a REALLY fucked-up shift pattern, unless you're in a burnout contest.

[427chev]

Per your source the 82 camaro had a bhp of 162 horsepower. That's not much more than a Yaris's 106 horse, about a half more of the Yaris's HP.

The curb weight for an 82 camaro is about 3192 pounds, versus a Yaris's, what, 2300 pounds?

The horsepower to weight ratio of the Yaris is 0.046 and for the Camaro it's 0.051. The Yaris probably has a much lower drag coefficient than the more boxy Camaro.

So it's not surprising that the Yaris could compete with an 82 Camaro.

Gene

The weight-to-power ratio would have to be about the same in order for performance to be about the same.

The Z28 Camaro in that road test was fitted with the optional "crossfire injection" engine that was rated @ 165 SAE Net HP - but could only be had with a power sapping automatic.

The base engine cars were rates @ 145 HP, but could be had with the 5 speed manual trans, which also reduced weight a bit.

I just think it's interesting that a 1.5 liter economy car (Yaris) that some people might label as "slow" is actually every bit as quick as some 5.0 liter V8 performance cars from the early 1980s.

I'm old enough to have driven those Z28 Camaros back when they were new, and did in fact drive MANY of them. My Yaris is certainly every bit as quick, though the my Yaris has stronger brakes. Of course, the Z28's high speed stability was vastly superior to that of my TRD suspended Yaris, but that's another story.

[Yaris Hilton]

Maybe someone can find a nice stock '82 Camaro and match 'em up on the track. Anyway, the stock Yaris is plenty powerful to suit me.

[eric81]

Even if the weight to power ratio came out to the same, that is only good for first gear. If even first gear. The gearing of a car, how much resistance you have against the engine (air flow restrictions, rotating mass, gear ratios, etc...) also matter a lot. The yaris does 32 mph in first gear, 61 in second, and close to 90 in third. I haven't removed the limiter yet, so I have no clue where 4th stops, except the whole car tops at 117 (stupid govener). Now, once you take into effect drag coefficients, and weight, and top RPM, and all the other bits, the only real info that counts in the end is the 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, and 0-60 times. My Yaris is far from stock, and before I had my header on there, I killed my boss's (somewhere around 2000) mustang. It was all stock, and was a 5 gear manual like my Yaris. His car weighed a LOT more, and we were already going about 50. I switched to 2nd (close to top of that gear, and he hit 3rd, and I blew past him, slowing when I got to 80+ mph. He chewed me a new one when he finally got to work later. Then, I've had a civic destroy my car at a light. I wrap around turns though, and everyone hates it when I do that, so I do it all the time. You should hear my wife freak out when she's in the car and I put the car to it's max around a corner. She'll grab the door, the dash, me, EVERYTHING within reach and start yelling like crazy for me to slow down. My car does seem to be suffering here in Colorado though. I have to get the MAP sensor reset. My car is used to 10 ft of elevation, now I'm at 4,700 ft. A little less air up here. But back to the subject... it isn't the BHP, or the weight, or the year... in the end, it's everything all wrapped into one giant number. So, yes, this could go on forever. Everyone should also rip out the smaller of the two air filters in their stock intake. Yes, there are two. The second one is for "blow back" or some junk like that. Take it out and you will see the tach move just a little faster.

[eric81]

Oh yeah... and my step dad rebuilds and races older cars, like camaro's, mustangs, chevelles, a 1923 T-bucket, and his last prize, a 1978 Malibu Classic that ran the 1/4 in less than 9 sec, with over 800 HP on the tires. Were talking a 350 engine, bored out, 1 inch cams, twin 4 barrel 550 cfm each eddelbrochs, 6:71 blower, 4 gear rock crusher hurst tranny, and so much other stuff, I don't even know what some of it was. He did have the engine linked to the frame 3 times with a chain to keep it from flying off though. It was strong, fast, loud, and weighed over 3,500 lbs. Then he sold it, and the guy who bought it blew the engine up in less than 2 hours. Sad, sad day at my house.

[GeneW]

The weight-to-power ratio would have to be about the same in order for performance to be about the same.

No, not quite, at least as how I see it.

Hp/Weight will give you a basis of comparison, but sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper for the details.

As one of the younger folk here proved to me, an AWD configuration does do a better job of transferring power to the street. Saw that when a Subaru with less HP but AWD matched a new Vette that had more HP but RW.

They finished the quarter in the same time, but the Subaru's top speed was markedly slower. The Subaru simply did a better job of transferring the HP to the road than the Vette or maybe the acceleration curves were different. I'd have to measure it all.

The Yaris probably has a lot lower coefficient of drag than those older boxier Camaros. Less loss of power during the acceleration phase.

The real test is to drag race them.

The Z28 Camaro in that road test was fitted with the optional "crossfire injection" engine that was rated @ 165 SAE Net HP - but could only be had with a power sapping automatic.

The base engine cars were rates @ 145 HP, but could be had with the 5 speed manual trans, which also reduced weight a bit.

I'm sure once the warranty ran out and the owners were not expected to submit to emissions checks that some folks put a five speed into their Camaros. Others bought those "chips" which they put into the ECUs.

I recall the computer in my 82 Regal. It was pretty primitive. Don't know if it was the same or a similar ECU to the Camaros. Probably they were pretty close.

I just think it's interesting that a 1.5 liter economy car (Yaris) that some people might label as "slow" is actually every bit as quick as some 5.0 liter V8 performance cars from the early 1980s.

I'm old enough to have driven those Z28 Camaros back when they were new, and did in fact drive MANY of them. My Yaris is certainly every bit as quick, though the my Yaris has stronger brakes. Of course, the Z28's high speed stability was vastly superior to that of my TRD suspended Yaris, but that's another story.

Yeah, I've noticed that my Yaris gets a bit squirrelly above about 90 miles per hour. I have soft winter tires so I don't push my luck for very long at higher speeds and at warmer temps.

I too have driven some of the performance cars and the "butt dyno" is stronger than a Yaris.

Do you have ABS? I do not but the Yaris brakes are pretty responsive.

Gene

[supmet]

Yeah, I've noticed that my Yaris gets a bit squirrelly above about 90 miles per hour. I have soft winter tires so I don't push my luck for very long at higher speeds and at warmer temps.

Get a sway bar.

[427chev]

Even if the weight to power ratio came out to the same, that is only good for first gear. If even first gear. The gearing of a car, how much resistance you have against...

No, not quite, at least as how I see it.

Hp/Weight will give you a basis of comparison, but sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper for the details.

As one of the younger folk here proved to me, an AWD configuration does do a better job of transferring power to the street. ..


Differences in gearing and traction could significantly alter ET (time to distance), though Trap Speed (speed to distance) would remain relatively unchanged. It is for that reason that Trap Speed (along with vehicle weight) provides such a good estimate of actual peak engine horsepower.

Hale's Formula (as used by the Moroso Power/Speed Calculator):

Peak Flywheel HP = (1/4 mile Trap Speed/234)^3 * Race Weight

Example.

A stick shift, bone stock Yaris 2 door hatch traps @ roughly 81 MPH and weighs ~ 2,500 pounds with a driver and a full tank of gas

(81 MPH/234)^3 * 2,500 pounds = 103.69 peak flywheel HP

Toyota rates the Yaris @ 106 peak flywheel HP (SAE certified).

I'd call that pretty close.

The formula seemingly doesn't "work" with pre-1972 model year American cars because those published figures (SAE Gross) were essentially meaningless. Similarly some non-SAE certified SAE net figures may also be less than truthful, though far less so than the old SAE Gross figures. In either case, Hale's formula gives an excellent approximation of TRUE "as installed" peak engine HP.

[GeneW]

Differences in gearing and traction could significantly alter ET (time to distance), though Trap Speed (speed to distance) would remain relatively unchanged. It is for that reason that Trap Speed (along with vehicle weight) provides such a good estimate of actual peak engine horsepower.

Hale's Formula (as used by the Moroso Power/Speed Calculator):

Peak Flywheel HP = (1/4 mile Trap Speed/234)^3 * Race Weight

Example.

A stick shift, bone stock Yaris 2 door hatch traps @ roughly 81 MPH and weighs ~ 2,500 pounds with a driver and a full tank of gas

(81 MPH/234)^3 * 2,500 pounds = 103.69 peak flywheel HP

Toyota rates the Yaris @ 106 peak flywheel HP (SAE certified).

I'd call that pretty close.

I'd agree that the formula is within a reasonable variation about two percent difference. Close enough for "Government Work" as we used to say.

The formula seemingly doesn't "work" with pre-1972 model year American cars because those published figures (SAE Gross) were essentially meaningless. Similarly some non-SAE certified SAE net figures may also be less than truthful, though far less so than the old SAE Gross figures. In either case, Hale's formula gives an excellent approximation of TRUE "as installed" peak engine HP.

I recall hearing this story myself but I'm unclear about the circumstances. I've heard histories and opinions about it in the past but I'm unclear myself about when HP calculations and measurement standards were changed, but I have heard that they were changed.

Gene

[427chev]

...I recall hearing this story myself but I'm unclear about the circumstances. I've heard histories and opinions about it in the past but I'm unclear myself about when HP calculations and measurement standards were changed, but I have heard that they were changed.

Gene

The "legendary" 7.0 liter (427 cid), aluminum block/head ZL1 (a whole 69 of them were sold to the public) was essentially a street legal Chevy racing engine, circa 1969. As such, it was arguably the most powerful "production engine" of the entire "muscle car" era. The engine option was more expensive than an entire base model Camaro. The engine required 103 octane minimum (RON) gasoline per Chevrolet and would barely run on the street without over-heating, fouling plugs, etc. Urban legend would have us believe that the ZL1 was "under-rated (@ 430 Gross HP) for insurance purposes and actually produced 575 HP."

A quick check of the facts proves otherwise and demonstrates just how weak the old engines were by modern standards. (Consider than a base engine, 6.2 liter LS3 Corvette produces 430 REAL (certified SAE Net HP) from 91 octane unleaded gas and will idle all day in traffic with the AC on while meeting stringent, modern day emissions and fuel economy standards.)

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

A good running, well tuned but production line stock '69 - '71 street hemi made slightly less power than that and it was all downhill from there.

A good article addressing the Gross HP issue:

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/455oldsand340MOPARCSERE.JPG

[eric81]

THIS is good stuff. People doing REAL research, and then sharing that information and intelligence with everyone else, and NOT being jerks or idiots about it. I left this website awhile ago because it seemed to be going down the hole, with everyone being grumpy, stuck up, and somehow no one really knew what they were talking about. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to do real research and not use any name calling or rudeness to make their points.

Also, their is a very large difference in the power curves of a lot of these cars. I noticed I seem to have no power until over 3,000 RPM's, then at about 5,000 (maybe a little higher than that, but not much) until 6,500 where it peaks, the power seems to die off a tad. I mean, it still accelerates, just not as quick as the mid to mid-high range. Maybe it's the CAI, header, and muffler messing with that part, but that is what I noticed. I also drove an '07 WRX STi, and it had PLENTY of power all the way through, with very little loss of power on the bottom end. The SRT4 on the other hand, had no power until well over 3,500 rpm's, then almost too much power to handle the car properly, especially while turning, cornering, or changing lanes. My step dad's '03 Z-28 had lots of power throughout, and was RWD, but not overly so (mostly because of illegal tires on it to keep it stuck to the road) and it was just a tad heavy in corners. Still, I am a fan of the lightness and pure power of the 4 cylinder world. Hence, I have the infamously undersized 1.5L 1nz-fe engine, and it still produces as much power (close to, anyways) as the older 2.0L engines, and even some of the larger older 4 cylinder engines.

[427chev]

THIS is good stuff. People doing REAL research, and then sharing that information and intelligence with everyone else, and NOT being jerks or idiots about it. I left this website awhile ago because it seemed to be going down the hole, with everyone being grumpy, stuck up, and somehow no one really knew what they were talking about. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to do real research and not use any name calling or rudeness to make their points.

Also, their is a very large difference in the power curves of a lot of these cars. I noticed I seem to have no power until over 3,000 RPM's, then at about 5,000 (maybe a little higher than that, but not much) until 6,500 where it peaks, the power seems to die off a tad. I mean, it still accelerates, just not as quick as the mid to mid-high range. Maybe it's the CAI, header, and muffler messing with that part, but that is what I noticed. I also drove an '07 WRX STi, and it had PLENTY of power all the way through, with very little loss of power on the bottom end. The SRT4 on the other hand, had no power until well over 3,500 rpm's, then almost too much power to handle the car properly, especially while turning, cornering, or changing lanes. My step dad's '03 Z-28 had lots of power throughout, and was RWD, but not overly so (mostly because of illegal tires on it to keep it stuck to the road) and it was just a tad heavy in corners. Still, I am a fan of the lightness and pure power of the 4 cylinder world. Hence, I have the infamously undersized 1.5L 1nz-fe engine, and it still produces as much power (close to, anyways) as the older 2.0L engines, and even some of the larger older 4 cylinder engines.

The "amazing" thing about Hale's formula is that is doesn't care about the shape of the power curve, gearing or anything else.

Peak Flywheel HP ~ = (Trap Speed in the quarter mile/234)^3 * Race Weight

I've had a lot of TRULY fast cars and bought this Yaris as a commuter.

I really like the little car.

The stock suspension wasn't for me, so I went with the full dealer-installed TRD suspension. I am VERY impressed with the resulting ride/handing trade-off.

I paid a good upholsterer $125 to (dramatically) improve the stock driver's seat, installed the leather TRD shift knob, a decent stereo with four Infiniti Kappas and called it a day.

I average 35 MPH in mixed driving, stay ahead of anyone who isn't making a dedicated effort to beat me and save $$$ for savings/investing.

You wouldn't believe how BAD some of the hyped cars are. My '07 Acura TL Type S was WAY too soft (springs and dampers) in the front and the hyped Brembo brakes couldn't hold a candle to my Yaris's brakes. The TRD Yaris's suspension represents a vastly superior compromise.

There is beauty in simplicity and headaches in complexity. I know because I've owned lots of both. :smile:

My TRD Yaris is the best car I've owned since my '99 1LE Z28 Camaro.

[Yaris Hilton]

Hale's formula doesn't take into account the shape of the power curve. It works well when comparing similar cars, which should have similarly shaped power curves, but average horsepower over the distance is what produces the top end speed. That's a result of average acceleration over the distance.

[427chev]

Hale's formula doesn't take into account the shape of the power curve. It works well when comparing similar cars, which should have similarly shaped power curves, but average horsepower over the distance is what produces the top end speed. That's a result of average acceleration over the distance.

As illustrated below, the formula works quite well when actual trap speed results are compared against published peak SAE NET peak power figures (preferably Certified SAE NET) - regardless of engine type. If it doesn't then the power rating itself is suspicious [e.g. BMW 335i, which produces more than the claimed (but not SAE certified] 300 HP.

Example 1: Few modern performance passenger car engines are as peaky (and produce less torque) than the Honda S2000's 2.2 liter DOHC 4 cylinder:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/japanese_performance/2008_honda_s2000_cr_short_take_road_test+t-specs+page-2.html

Curb weight (car with a full tank of gas) is 2,792 pounds, so we'll figure an even 3,000 pounds with a driver and test equipment added. Trap speed was 99 MPH.

Peak Engine HP = (99/234)^3 * 3,000 pounds = 227 HP. Honda rates it at 237 SAE Certified SAE NET HP


Example 2: This new Corvette features a 6.2 liter V8 that offers a very differently shaped power curve (and far more torque) than the Honda S2000's high revving 4 cylinder. Curb weight is 3,299 pounds, so we'll figure an even 3,500 pounds with driver and test equipment. Trap speed was 116 MPH.

http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/4221/61798/version/1/file/0709_checor_z51_08_ss.pdf

Peak Engine HP = (116/234)^3 * 3,500 pounds = 426 HP. Chevrolet rates it as 436 SAE Certified SAE NET HP.


That phenomenon is attributable to the affect that gearing has on drivewheel torque, relative to vehicle speed. Your point would be more valid if cars didn't use transmissions, but they do. Note: The formula doesn't work as well for large trucks (due to big tires and lots of aero drag) nor was it intended to.

[360cubes]

I liked almost all of Csaba's articles. It's too bad that as of this month he's retired from C&D!

Still, forget the 1982 Z28 and such, they're no longer produced. Not that I say they're bad or terrible rides, as they were once top notch in their day. The new camaro V6 puts out over 300hp and does 0-60 in 6sec flat with an AUTO!! Too bad the roofline's too low for me to sit up properly. It was tempting but again, too big for the wife to drive.

[427chev]

I liked almost all of Csaba's articles. It's too bad that as of this month he's retired from C&D!

Still, forget the 1982 Z28 and such, they're no longer produced. Not that I say they're bad or terrible rides, as they were once top notch in their day. The new camaro V6 puts out over 300hp and does 0-60 in 6sec flat with an AUTO!! Too bad the roofline's too low for me to sit up properly. It was tempting but again, too big for the wife to drive.

I bought a new 2009 Corvette last summer and sold it after 3 months after taking it back to the dealership 8 times for a host of problems, not the least of which was a seat that was so bad that I couldn't sit in it.

I will NEVER own another GM car after that experience (and the $10K hit I took).:mad:

[CtrlAltDefeat]

you must not know what a viper motor ram truck can do......

suck down gas faster then you can pump it? :biggrin:

[CtrlAltDefeat]

I must interject here that my little yaris beat a 2005 monte carlo... Although I must admit it was an automatic and had the smallest engine they came with that year. A 180HP 3.4L V6...

[LEXX]

Mine goes 0-60 around 5 secs sometimes a little under depending on the day.

The only car that ever gave me any competition was a mean sounding 2011 mustang with probably about 400 -500 hp (everything else just totally disappears in my rearview mirror). And even he had a hard time passing me. He was a car length behind me off of the light until about 65 mph... and even then he only got a nose length ahead topping out at 70 until he decided to veer off a side road. Probably freaked out because a Yaris was so hard to overtake. My engine was hot by that time anyway from taking off 5 minutes earlier from a car who completely disappeared in my rearview. If the Mustang had caught me while my engine was warmer he might not of passed me at all before turning. Just hung next to me.

And I live around a good amount of hi performance exotics. Lambos.... Ferraris that come out in the spring and summer. I passed a lambo revving around a curve at the mall once (small space) and probably made the driver pee in his pants a little when he saw what flew up in his rear view mirror and passed him on the right. Then he probably laughed after seeing what it was when he was stopped behind me :)~. If we had been on the highway I obviously wouldve got left at 80 miles an hour. But I doubt theres any other stock economy cars that can hang like that with an exotic.

I havent got left yet.

With just 15 inch rims, hi performance tires, a perfect low centered alignment, and an oil change with a certain mix of oil and techron fuel system cleaner my car is hard to beat by anything on the road.

I should get some of the footage up on Youtube but I can't figure out how people are attaching the camera phones to the dashboard and shooting it. The dash on the yaris sucks. Would have to get a friend to tape it but then the extra weight would probably kill the race a little :o/

[brg88tx]

i can vouch for this. my first car was a 84 camaro (not z28) and it was SLOWWW.

i remember i raced a friends chevy cavalier and a new (at the time) 3 banger geo metro and they both blew me away.

[firemachine69]

Some of the younger members on the board may be unaware of the fact that the performance of today's Yaris is on par with many V8 "performance cars" from the later 1970s through earlier 1980s.

I drove enough of these to know that my 5 speed manual Yaris is TRULY at least as quick as some of those cars, including this one.

This is a 1982 Z28 Camaro equipped with the optional "performance" engine (Throttle Body Injected 5.0 liter V8). The car required 9.7 seconds to hot 60 MPH and barely cracked 80 MPH through the quarter.

http://www.thirdgen.org/1982camaroz28-mt-january1982

It was the introduction of emissions' stuff... Seriously, check the 60-70 cars...

[CtrlAltDefeat]

Holy thread resurrection Batman! lol but seriously LEXX, I love my Yaris and it is surprisingly quick, but your story sounds a little hard to believe... I have never felt drag racing was the Yaris' forte. It eats curves with mild upgrades, but drag racing a 400 - 500 hp mustang... dunno...

[why?]

most of what he wrote was a joke. Sarcasm doesn't translate well, but yea, early 80's sports cars were anything but sporty, just take a look at the numbers.

http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-chevy-camaro? The bottom three versions of the 82 camaro has less hp than a Yaris. And this is when rules on measuring hp was anything but normalized. Everything in that era has bad hp numbers compared to before smog rules and to when manufacturers figured them out.

[Profotoiam]

lexx is on a good one



Mine goes 0-60 around 5 secs sometimes a little under depending on the day.

The only car that ever gave me any competition was a mean sounding 2011 mustang with probably about 400 -500 hp (everything else just totally disappears in my rearview mirror). And even he had a hard time passing me. He was a car length behind me off of the light until about 65 mph... and even then he only got a nose length ahead topping out at 70 until he decided to veer off a side road. Probably freaked out because a Yaris was so hard to overtake. My engine was hot by that time anyway from taking off 5 minutes earlier from a car who completely disappeared in my rearview. If the Mustang had caught me while my engine was warmer he might not of passed me at all before turning. Just hung next to me.

And I live around a good amount of hi performance exotics. Lambos.... Ferraris that come out in the spring and summer. I passed a lambo revving around a curve at the mall once (small space) and probably made the driver pee in his pants a little when he saw what flew up in his rear view mirror and passed him on the right. Then he probably laughed after seeing what it was when he was stopped behind me :)~. If we had been on the highway I obviously wouldve got left at 80 miles an hour. But I doubt theres any other stock economy cars that can hang like that with an exotic.

I havent got left yet.

With just 15 inch rims, hi performance tires, a perfect low centered alignment, and an oil change with a certain mix of oil and techron fuel system cleaner my car is hard to beat by anything on the road.

I should get some of the footage up on Youtube but I can't figure out how people are attaching the camera phones to the dashboard and shooting it. The dash on the yaris sucks. Would have to get a friend to tape it but then the extra weight would probably kill the race a little :o/

[joe keeney]

I say not only fast but handeling is unbeliveable. Me and moma rolling down hwy 96 out of Jasper pouring rain. Were doing around 65 I see headligths in my rearview mirror, weaving in and out of traffic. Pulled up along side a kid in a 325 i bmw. He want to roll so we did. At 95 he can,t hold in the rain, so I showed him my tail lights and pull away from the driving machine. Yaris in Texas you got to love it.

[chaditotx]

There's only one car that really stood out to me in the eighty's, prolly a 1987 Buick Grand National. Everything else seemed to be smogged to death.
Even 60's and 70's weren't all that. The technology wasn't there. Getting over 100 horses out of a 1.5 liter would have been some serious rocket science back in the day.

[tooter]

Well i could get my 10 speed bike to 60 in about 9.5 seconds down hill and with a good tail wind. LOL

I could get my bicycle from zero to 60 in under 6 seconds by riding it off a cliff...:tongue:

...but I could only do it once. :eek:

[racerb]

There's only one car that really stood out to me in the eighty's, prolly a 1987 Buick Grand National. Everything else seemed to be smogged to death.
Even 60's and 70's weren't all that. The technology wasn't there. Getting over 100 horses out of a 1.5 liter would have been some serious rocket science back in the day.

My Dad had been a Buick Mechanic back in the day, when the Grand National came out he had renewed faith in the brand. But as happened so often back then, GM Corperate killed this car because it was faster and much cheaper than the Corvette. Even today the Buick Grand National is still one sweet ride and pulls huge numbers on Barrett-Jackson.

racerb :w00t:

[RikBakke]

For 1978, the Ford Fiesta was faster in 0-60mph than the tricked out Mustang II V8.

[TPA5]

I could get my bicycle from zero to 60 in under 6 seconds by riding it off a cliff...:tongue:

...but I could only do it once. :eek:

:laughabove:


Very interesting thread, it's funny to think our little cars have the same pep as V8's.

Still, there's something to be said for sound...and rear-wheel drive burnouts. Plus, the torque put out by a V8 will be more than a humble 4-cyl (At least, I'm guessing. Haven't checked the torque specs for the cars mentioned). In any case, it's pretty cool how far technology has come in terms of smaller engines making the same 0-60, but with 45mpg.

[tooter]

It was the introduction of emissions' stuff... Seriously, check the 60-70 cars...

The cutoff for the good ones was about 1972. After that came the government mandated EGR pumps. It took a lot of years to refine the emissions equipment.

[LEXX]

Holy thread resurrection Batman! lol but seriously LEXX, I love my Yaris and it is surprisingly quick, but your story sounds a little hard to believe... I have never felt drag racing was the Yaris' forte. It eats curves with mild upgrades, but drag racing a 400 - 500 hp mustang... dunno...


lol didnt see the date stamped on this thing. 3 YEARS AGO. I dont even remember how I found it. Probably through a search for something else.

Yea I know most people wont believe it unless they see it. That's why I love pulling off these guys with whats supposed to be hi performance cars and they get left like a family sedan. They dont believe it either when it happens to them lol. But it's an everyday thing for me so it's no biggie. The car's been driving like that everyday for the last year I've been keeping it up.

I'll get some footage up on youtube and link it in here.

[why?]

There's only one car that really stood out to me in the eighty's, prolly a 1987 Buick Grand National. Everything else seemed to be smogged to death.
Even 60's and 70's weren't all that. The technology wasn't there. Getting over 100 horses out of a 1.5 liter would have been some serious rocket science back in the day.

You weren't paying enough attention. All the Japanese sports cars were pretty awesome. Supras and Z's and Rx7's. Not only had power but could actually also handle.
My Dad had been a Buick Mechanic back in the day, when the Grand National came out he had renewed faith in the brand. But as happened so often back then, GM Corperate killed this car because it was faster and much cheaper than the Corvette. Even today the Buick Grand National is still one sweet ride and pulls huge numbers on Barrett-Jackson.

racerb :w00t:

There were so few of them built. And then of course the GNX was even harder to find. Sexy as hell cars.