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

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by 427chev

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]

Originally Posted by gaffo

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/besthandling...driver-may1984
http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandling...driver-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/mustangvscam...river-june1983
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&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

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

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

[427chev]

Originally Posted by BLAZINBLUEVITZ

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.

[gaffo]

Originally Posted by 427chev

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/besthandling...driver-may1984
http://www.thirdgen.org/besthandling...driver-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/mustangvscam...river-june1983
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&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

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]

Originally Posted by gaffo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Yaris Hilton]

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

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by 500snakz

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]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

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]

Originally Posted by 500snakz

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]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

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]

Originally Posted by 500snakz

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

Now you're getting it.
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.

[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? :)