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

[neo1985]

Originally Posted by 500snakz

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by neo1985

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

Yep...I bet they are.

[BLAZINBLUEVITZ]

Originally Posted by neo1985

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]

Originally Posted by gaffo

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.

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]

Originally Posted by GeneW

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]

Originally Posted by 427chev

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.

Originally Posted by 427chev

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.

Originally Posted by 427chev

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]

Originally Posted by GeneW

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

Originally Posted by GeneW

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]

Originally Posted by 427chev

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.

Originally Posted by 427chev

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]

Originally Posted by GeneW

...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:

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/...cs+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/..._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.