I love Toyotas. They make the best vehicles in the world, hands down. But, they always seem to be behind the market in power.
Example: My tundra stock had: 245HP 315ftlbs Torque out of the 4.7L V8
Which is marginally better than standard V8s by the big 3 and pales in comparison with their larger v8's the new titan's standard 5.6L v8:
305HP 379ftlbs torque
The only upside is that the tundra weighs less than the others and is a bit small (many call it the 95% full size truck)
The tundra has help coming for the 2005 model year in an updated 4.7L V8, on which the will add VVT-i. upping output 282 hp and 325 ft-lbs torque.
But still not producing numbers comparing with larger v8s in the larger 1/2 ton trucks.
Similar is true for their other cars.
4 cyl Compact/Sport Coupes & sedans (upgraded performance models) factory North America avaliability:
Subaru WRX STI(turbo): 300hp 300ftlbs torque!!!! Mitsubishi Lancer EVO8: 271HP Honda S2000: 240HP Dodge Neon SRT-4: 230HP Subaru WRX(turbocharged): 227HP Acura RSX Type-S: 200HP Toyota Celica GT-S: 180HP Nissan SE-R Spec-V(N/A): 175HP Toyota Corolla XRS: 170Hp Mazda RX-8: 250HP (rotary engines are often considered comparable to I4 engines of double the displacement – 1.3L rotary similar to a 2.6L I4 Engine)
In this case Toyota has to come up with something to compete. None of the other American models compare with these numbers:
Mid size sport sedans & coupes: Ignoring the 4cyl engines because they are all anemic. Acura CL Type-S: 260HP Lexus SC Coupe: 300HP (but this is a V8) Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS: 240HP Toyota Camary & Solara Sport Coupe: 225HP 3.3L V6 Acura CL Type-S: 260HP Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS: 240HP Nissan Maxima: 265HP Honda Accord Coupe LX-V6: 240HP Pontiac Grand Prix GTP: 260HP Pontiac GTO: 350HP (another v8)
Even comparing the rare roadsters: Mazda MX-5 Miata: 178HP Toyota MR2 Spyder: 138HP
One thing I have found is that independent dyno testing Toyota (and Lexus) is about the only company that consistently has mostly accurate hp ratings on their cars. The domestics and nissan especially seem to overrate their stuff a little bit 5-15HP. But the stuff under the Toyota name still needs more power. They need to build optional performance package cars that have higher output power plants like the other nameplates.
Again I like Toyota because of superior quality so maybe this is the downside of quality.
posted
Well Michelle's Solara Sport now sits in my driveway. And after driving it I can say it's very fast. That V6 3.3 VVT-I engine really delivers. And it gets 30MPG - how do you like them apples......
But I agree with your overall take on Toyota - they are always behind in the performance area.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want fast? Go test drive a WRX even just the standard 227HP car. That thing was VERY fast. Even much faster than the RX-8 I drove a few weeks ago. I couldnt wipe the smile off my face for days.
This was not an attack on micheles new car, congratulations by the way, I just think toyota needs to step it up some. Even their new SCIONs are week high displacement 4cyl engines. None of them within 20hp of 200.
I drove a nissan altima V6 a little over a year ago. 250hp 0-60 in under 6 secconds. But, because of the auto trany it didnt feel that fast, but it was. Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was looking at that tC SCION last night at the dealership. It's only 165HP but there is a turbo version coming out in the fall that looked cool.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you boys both have a good point. I think on certain vehicles, Toyota does need more power (the trucks for example), but for the cars, I think they are about right. The V6 is definately plenty in my car and it's not a light vehicle. Although there may be more horsepower in other vehicles, their gas milage is worse. For example, the Maxima at most will get 28 miles per gallon while my Solara gets 33. I think for most people, in a car, gas mileage is more important then an extra 10 in HP. Obviously, I think you are right with a Truck. When you are pulling something, you want the most HP you can get. No one with a truck really cares about good gas mileage (they only dream about it).
Posts: 109 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can get near 30mpg in my RX-7 on the freeway but only if i drive it the exact oposite of how it should be driven. Unfortunatly i find with how i drive it that it dosnt get much better gas millage than my truck LOL!! I gues shifting and 8000 RPM will do that!! That and also for some reason Mazda engineers tuned it PIG rich air fuel ratios (reason it shoots fire with no cat)
posted
Bring it on Boondock. The only chance you have a beating my car would be right now as I am breaking in the engine. Give me a month and a half and you are toast
Posts: 109 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: Congratulations on your new car!
My Grand Am will still dust you, though...AND I get worse gas mileage.
Hey eric, come on down to DCTC on the 31st and lets give that car of yours a proper workout! Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
When Pontiac gets into the VVT stuff they might be able to get more HP out of the small V6s......
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just returned from a very long road trip in Jeannes WRX and averaged 28 to 30 mpg doing 80-85 most of the trip. I completed 2600 miles in 5 days. This car is a scream to drive, but by the end of the trip I was wishing for more comfortable seats. But gettin after it on switch backs is fun. Also got to see a jeep cherokee fully ablaze at the Utah/Idaho border, had to laugh it must be a jeep thing.
Posts: 88 | From: North Idaho | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen TWO grand cherokees on fire along freeways, and I have only ever seen TWO car fires in progress total.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could only wish for mine to go up in flames. and you guys think your gas milage is bad. In the heep I've achieved an average of 14.6 sence I've owned it according to the on board comp.
The only way to buy a GTO is if you get a manual. whats the point of having all those horses and rear wheel drive if you can't launch it sideways at 60mph Posts: 208 | From: Chaska MN | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
STI is very very fast... It would beat my car 0-60 but my car would most likely scream by it from say 80+. They put such tall gears into it to make them just absolutely nuts from the go with AWD. If it was a rolling start, that is a different story. The regular WRX's are not nearly as fast as the STI's.
Some schmuck in a mustang zoomed by me in Hudson like he was all that last week. I hear this loud whine as he zipped past. Lets just say I was at 100 by the time he was at 60 lol
-------------------- Gisel, I was looking at the picture page and I do have to admit, you look pretty good for a gaming female. Having said that, don't expect any sympathy when we meet on the battlefield. I am a fighter first, lover second. Posts: 2220 | From: Prescott, WI, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Luke of course Hauser's car is faster. But we are talking about stock cars, not ones with turbos etc.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so you understand, luke where hauser's boost level is at now he would run comperable to a stock WRX NON-STI. I have been in both cars and driven the WRX and they felt almost the same as far as accelleration. An STI as well as a an EVO would eat him for lunch. Rolling, dead stop, 0-60, 60-100, top speed (non-governed), 1/4 mile dosnt matter. Those cars a sick fast and keep up with corvettes all day long (except Z06s). The gears in the STI are not that different because it is still a car designed for the street yet also for the track.
If you think GTI's are so fast go drive a stock one and you will realize why it takes so much money to even get to the point where they can run with cars like the STI, EVO, S2000, RX-7 TT, etc at stock levels. Come to one of these events and you will also realize why more than 50% of the cars are turbocharged RX-7s, EVOs, WRXs, etc. There are some GTIs and VWs can be fast cars but with the same ammount of money invested a WRX will always be seconds ahead. Hauser's car, stock, only had 150hp. I know you've driven mikes car and you think it is fast but you need to go drive some other stuff.
All of this is heavly dependent on driver as well. A 50 dry shot and a clutch dump at 6000 rpms and suddenly my naturaly aspirated rotary car is keeping right up with most any GTI turbo 4cyl.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said it would smoke an STI, i said it would be compairable. And it doesnt really matter that its faster stock because the money that is put into the stock GTI plus what it retails for im guessing is about compairable to what a stock one of those costs.
What i did say is that it would smoke all YOUR cars that you are taking out racing to tracks and shit and talking about here like their fucking drag racers.
posted
If mike was at max boost he might be comparable with and STI, things being as they are, he is not.
Mike even admits he would suffer reliability at higher boost levels. The STI engine is designed for the boost levels it runs and can handle them and higher without issue.
If you think he and his car are all that you need talk him into getting his ass out on the track and we'll see if he can keep up with the handling of my RX-7 while pushing over 200hp....
quote:Originally posted by Ender: And it doesnt really matter that its faster stock because the money that is put into the stock GTI plus what it retails for im guessing is about compairable to what a stock one of those costs. :
I would rather have a 300HP AWD car stock for the same money with everything under full waranty than buy a car with HALF the hp drop 10 grand into it just to get near 300hp and have NO WARANTY left because of all the modifications.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted one. BADLY. But, after the STI was announced I didn’t want to settle for the standard WRX. Being that the STI is almost 32k it was 7k more than my truck. Further, I didn’t want to give up having a nice reliable truck/suv with 4wd for winter driving and trips. I had always wanted a tundra access cab since they came out in 1999 and so that seemed to be the sensible choice. Also, at the time thought I would still be wheeling at least every once in a while. The V8 tows the sami quite nicely.
This summer I got the bug again to have some kind of performance car but still didn't want to get rid of my Tundra. I've always had a soft spot for the 2nd gen RX-7 and nothing is more bang for your buck than a rotary motor car. Rotary motors are amazingly simple, light, and powerful engines and are so much fun to wind up to 8500RPMs. The 2nd gen gave me an interesting opportunity to have something cheap to wrench on, as I like working on, and adding upgrades to stuff. I got a good deal on the FC S5 model with the cool rear lights and added horsepower over the RX-7 I had before. I thought about getting the turbo model but with out paying a big premium on a recently rebuilt one i would end up dumping a bunch of money into something just to get it up to the standards of having a reliable platform to start from. (New turbo, engine, etc.) Then build up from there into the 300-400 hp range but that is stupid money. And the 3rd gen RX-7 takes all of that to another level. BIG MONEY
I went with naturally aspirated because, a few upgrades squeeze the available power and then you’re done, without breaking the bank. With a turbo the sky is the limit, yet the reliability is always a question. I did not buy the car to drag race on some backstreet. I bought it to toy with have fun driving (as it is one of the best handling production cars in the world) and for taking to the track for some good fun without getting my self in trouble with boost. It is a great low speed track car that won’t require me to take out a 2nd mortgage.
I think mike got a very fast car for a great price. There is no doubt about that. Is it faster than my naturally aspirated RX-7 straight line performance?, Absoulutly. I just like to give Luke a little crap because he puts it up on some kind of pedestal and it’s not even his car. It’s fast, no doubt. But, it again is based on a platform that was at 150hp stock with a turbo, thus it is kinda in Honda civic territory in that way. A Civic coupe with a turbo at similar boost levels would produce similar results. VW engines are very cool and the GTI definitely has a cult following. It’s all relative to what you want out of your car. And if you have read all the way to the bottom of this I have achieved my goal.
posted
Well Boon, on paper, a race between you and Michelle looks pretty close. A drag race on a straight and level stretch of road is all about horsepower to weight ratios. Yours are pretty similar. Michelle's car makes 225HP and weighs 3425lbs. Eric's makes 175HP and weighs about 3098lbs. I don't know exactly which trim level you have Eric so that's the middle weight of the Grand Ams with your engine. That gives a horsepower to weight ratio of 15.2lbs/HP for Michelle and 17.7lbs/HP for Eric. That number represents the number of pounds of weight each unit of horsepower is required to move. Michelles is slightly better so theoretically, she should win by a small margin.
Eric's power curve looks to be a little steeper though. His engine makes it's full horsepower at 4800 rpm while Michelle's doesn't until 5600. That could be an advantage for Eric because his engine can get to its full power a little faster. Differences in your trannies would probably be the deciding factor. Unfortunatley, they're both automatics
As far as all this horsepower bickering goes, don't forget a very important performance spec - torque. There's a saying I think is very true, "people buy horsepower and drive torque". In daily driving, torque is a lot more important than horsepower. My car is a good example, it only makes about 115HP but because it makes close to 200 ft-lbs of torque at lower rpms, it "feels" fast.
posted
Wow the STI is $32,000? Well that puts it in a slightly different class of sports cars.....
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wanted something that "feels" fast without having to spend a lot of money on it.
The Grand Am with it's V6RAM AIR! is the fastest car I've owned, and it definitely has some get-up.
It is nowhere near the performance level it could be with all the modifications out there, but that's now why I bough it (again). This is also why I bought an automatic.
Anyway, I do love accelerating in that car, and would like to see it's times on the 1/4 mile...
Seriously, any small car with decent HP will feel fast (and is). Hell, my Celica with like 145HP feels fast because it's light, high reving, and a stick Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My RX-7 has ASS for low end torque when compared with cars of the same peak horsepower. But it is also light and well balanced.
After tuning my AFC I know my car has peak horsepower of over 200 at the flywheel. It weights just over 2800lbs soaking wet.
Torque is what makes the car feal fast right of the line but in upper RPM range it's horsepower that gives a real feeling of speed. AKA how badly does the torque curve fall off.
This was my car stock: 160 HP @ 7000 RPM w/ 140 Ft/lb @ 4000 RPM i'll let you know tommorow where it is at now exactly.
I am very confident it can output over 200 with the modifications i have made.
But i can tell ya it pulls harder and harder as it gets up there in RPMs. Above it's peak torque at 4000-4500 rpms it keeps pulling harder and harder all the way into redline. Torque isn't everything unless you are only judging its 0-45mph feal of acceleration.
My only chance in "drag racing" any one is to dump the clutch at about 4500-6000 rpms and hope the tires grab as quickly as possible. Then make sure to shift just above 8000 (into redline). In a 1/4mile race I shuld never get past 2nd gear. Not something i like to do because i have no desire to be rebuilding the transmission every year. The car is a dog below 4000 rpms.
quote:Absoulutly. I just like to give Luke a little crap because he puts it up on some kind of pedestal and it’s not even his car.
No, actually YOU put your cars up on pedistals, which is stupid. I was just using the fact that Mike's car is much faster to make your egotistical car jockeying street racer BS look as dumb as it really is.
-------------------- It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your ass. Posts: 1053 | From: Apple Valley, MN | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My car does look like a high top sneaker doesn't it? Chad is absolutely correct about my car. I run 12-13PSI of boost which is VERY conservative. My car is very quick but not blow your doors off like an STI. That being said, you would need quite a fast car to start with and some nice mods to keep up with me. If I did increase the boost I would be very comparable to an STI. The K04 turbo does not have problems running 19-20+ PSI all day every day. I just choose not to risk running it that high. It is obvious that I would need a few things to happen for me to even consider that. I would need silicon turbo hoses so that they wouldn't expand causing me to lose HP from the pressure. There is a good chance that the hoses I currently have would not handle an increased load very well. I would have to get my chip reflashed to a higher bar program. I would possibly need to get a higher than 4bar fuel pressure regulator.
-------------------- Gisel, I was looking at the picture page and I do have to admit, you look pretty good for a gaming female. Having said that, don't expect any sympathy when we meet on the battlefield. I am a fighter first, lover second. Posts: 2220 | From: Prescott, WI, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The STI has a MSRP of 31,000, but an invoice of 28,000. The straight WRX is 24,000 MSRP and 22,000 (source consumer reports) invoice RX-8 26,000 and 24,000 (source consumer reports) that is with the base motor GTI 180 hp stock 22,000 msrp (source VW America). As we all know you can buy something between Msrp and invoice, sometimes below invoice if it is the end of the model year ex ex.. these cars are all comparble in performance and price new...the all can be 300hp cars for very little money or you can spend your life savings. They all have a cult following and are fun to drive. The sport sedan world ie. grand am and camry/solra are really not comparble to pocket rockets.
Whatever you find fun to drive should be what you own if it puts a smile on your face than it is what you should drive.
That being said our stock WRX would spank all of you But it is not as fun to drive as my VW
[ 08-18-2004, 15:23: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posts: 88 | From: North Idaho | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[knife]](graemlins/knifed.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That and also for some reason Mazda engineers tuned it PIG rich air fuel ratios (reason it shoots fire with no cat) 
![[demon]](graemlins/demon.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[fight]](graemlins/fight.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[gun1]](graemlins/uzi.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[pointedstick]](graemlins/pointedstick.gif)
