Yaris weight compared to early fun Japanese cars

[IllusionX]

my suzuki swift was 1900lbs :( but i had 96HP 1.6L engine. :)

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by IllusionX

my suzuki swift was 1900lbs :( but i had 96HP 1.6L engine. :)

My 2001 Swift hatch was just a bit lighter with the 79HP 1.3L and a 5-speed Manual.

[IllusionX]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

My 2001 Swift hatch was just a bit lighter with the 79HP 1.3L and a 5-speed Manual.

Mine was a 93.

[why?]

heh, this is my first real compact car. But it is easy to make lighter cars more fun.

The biggest problem the car industry has today is idiotic government regulations that add insane amounts of weight to cars.

[ilikerice]

I want to take the Abarth axle back and put it on my yaris... it sounds AMAZING!

[ilikerice]

My friend got one and I got to drive it around. It is fun, but I personally hate the way it looks. Still fun to drive. All i need is a turbo to match the performance of that little rocket

[tooter]

A 2012 Yaris base model 2 door 5 speed manual weighs 2,295 lbs.

The engine is factory rated at 106hp at the output shaft.

Which yields .046hp/lb.

This is the benchmark by which we can accurately compare other cars, simply by knowing their weight and horsepower.

Compare our Yaris benchmark to Rigaud's 1750lbs and 95 h.p. Honda Civic.

.054hp/lb.

The Honda has a 17% better power/weight ratio than the Yaris.

Illusionx's 1900lb 96hp Suzuki Swift

.051hp/lb.

Or a 10% better power to weight ratio.


A 2012 Fiat base model 2 door weighs 2,363lbs. and 101hp.

For .042hp/lb.

Or 9% worse power to weight ratio.





It's a fun game to play.

Greg

[roxy1]

I will take the extra weight of todays cars. those sub 2000 lb cars were not very safe. fun, sure, but im glad I never got in a serious accident with my 89 civic or I may not be here typing this...or I would be doing so with one of those mouth controlled devices.

[Thirty-Nine]

Originally Posted by ilikerice

My friend got one and I got to drive it around. It is fun, but I personally hate the way it looks. Still fun to drive. All i need is a turbo to match the performance of that little rocket

Well, a turbo, an LSD, bigger brakes, faster steering rack ... but who's counting?

[ilikerice]

Originally Posted by Thirty-Nine

Well, a turbo, an LSD, bigger brakes, faster steering rack ... but who's counting?

Lets just say there is also an Abarth that come to our autocross events in stc class. He doesn't come close to my raw times.

I will still take a yaris over a Abarth any day

[Thirty-Nine]

Originally Posted by ilikerice

Lets just say there is also an Abarth that come to our autocross events in stc class. He doesn't come close to my raw times.

I will still take a yaris over a Abarth any day

Sounds like you're a better driver!

Don't get me wrong, I still love my Yaris, and would totally rock a new Yaris SE. I love how lightweight and tossable they are. But in the hands of a capable driver, the Abarth will wipe the floor with a stock Yaris. I know it's keyboard racing, but the specs really are in the Abarth's favor.

[Jason@SportsCar]

Originally Posted by ilikerice

Lets just say there is also an Abarth that come to our autocross events in stc class. He doesn't come close to my raw times.

I will still take a yaris over a Abarth any day

Are both cars prepared equally?
Is the same person driving both cars?

This is poor comparison. The driver has more impact than anything else in Solo. A newbie in a shinny new Z06 Corvette could get beat by a Yaris, it means nothing unless all things are equal.

The Yaris should not be compared to an Abarth, it is much more similar to the standard 500. Same course, same driver, same level of car prep: the Yaris will beat the 500, but the Abarth will beat the Yaris.

[ilikerice]

Originally Posted by Jason@SportsCar

Are both cars prepared equally?
Is the same person driving both cars?

This is poor comparison. The driver has more impact than anything else in Solo. A newbie in a shinny new Z06 Corvette could get beat by a Yaris, it means nothing unless all things are equal.

The Yaris should not be compared to an Abarth, it is much more similar to the standard 500. Same course, same driver, same level of car prep: the Yaris will beat the 500, but the Abarth will beat the Yaris.

All true facts... It is a crappy comparison.

I will still pick the yaris over an Abarth.. unless they change the look of it. It looks like a baseball cap to me still..

[MiSFiTx87]

Anyone know how our yaris compare (hp/lb ratio) to earlier toyota liftbacks from the past? Fwd Starlet, fx16,glanza


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[why?]

Originally Posted by MiSFiTx87

Anyone know how our yaris compare to earlier toyota liftbacks from the past? Starlet, fx16,glanza


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in what ways do you mean? the starlet was rwd, so it doesn't count. it is heavier than the tercel, paseo, echo, etc. gets worse gas mileage than all of those as well.

[tooter]

Originally Posted by MiSFiTx87

Anyone know how our yaris compare (hp/lb ratio) to earlier toyota liftbacks from the past? Fwd Starlet...

I always thought Starlets were cool little cars... the essence of cheap simple basic frugal transportation.





It had a 1 liter engine that made 44 horsepower and the 2 door 4 speed manual transmission base model weighed 1,620 lbs.

That comes to .027 hp/lb. or 60% of the Yaris .046hp/lb.

...but the gas mileage rating was 38/52 ! Yikes!

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by tooter

I always thought Starlets were cool little cars... the essence of cheap simple basic frugal transportation.





It had a 1 liter engine that made 44 horsepower and the 2 door 4 speed manual transmission base model weighed 1,620 lbs.

That comes to .027 hp/lb. or 60% of the Yaris .046hp/lb.

...but the gas mileage rating was 38/52 ! Yikes!

well, that was before a revised epa cycle in the late 80's, then of course a more heavily revised epa protocol for 2008. so, that 38/52 would be much lower under todays testing cycle.

of course, nobody can make a car that light today....or that unsafe.

[IllusionX]

Originally Posted by roxy1

well, that was before a revised epa cycle in the late 80's, then of course a more heavily revised epa protocol for 2008. so, that 38/52 would be much lower under todays testing cycle.



of course, nobody can make a car that light today....or that unsafe.

I think if you were to drive and calculate your mpg, it would still be pretty amazing.


Either way.. Achieving good mileage with crap fuel efficiency. Imagine the same engine properly managed?