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

[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

[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

[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.