GR Yaris Power to weight, a perspective

[Onehp]

Was a bit bored and I wondered how the stock GR Yaris power to weight is compared to other cars from the past or that we may meet on the roads.

In the current climate of ever higher hp cars and lightning fast EV's, it's easy to get the idea that a GR Yaris isn't that brisk in a straight line, 3-pot and all that.

So made a list of some cars that lie around the same power to weight numbers +-5%. Well, I'm actually using weight to power, and the weight is from weighing of mags incl 75kg driver (EU weight), divided by the advertised power. The heaviest GR Yaris is then about 5.3kg/hp and the circuit pack is about 5.1kg/hp. Sometimes I add the latest production year to give clarity to what version of cars are listed.

PS: This list is just for fun, power says far from everything (torque is just as impressive if not more so), and of course not much beats a GR Yaris around the bends or when grip lingers. This one is just to give some perspective purely straight line.

5.5kg/hp
335 iA
C400 4matic
540i xdrive '20
S6 340hp '03
S5 '16
440i xdrive
CL 500

5.4kg/hp
435i
Macan Turbo
Megane RS Throphy EDC '22
S3 '20
545e
E-tron S
Model 3 SR
V60 T6 Polestar
Impreza WRX STI '12
Audi S4 '08
BMW 850 Csi (v12)

5.3kg/hp
GR Yaris Convenience
M5 (E34)
M340i (F30)
993 Carrera
Model S P85
Toyota Supra Bi-turbo '96
S4 Avant '18
V60 II T8 Polestar
Quattroporte V8 '08

5.2kg/hp
M135i xdrive
M550d xdrive
350Z
M235i xdrive
Ferrari 348 TB
Golf7 R DSG

5.1kg/hp
GR Yaris Circuit pack
S6 Avant V8 '18
550i V8 '13
911 930 Turbo
C55 V8 AMG
Kia Stinger GT
A8 W12 L
CLK 55 AMG Cab
RS3 '12
NSX 3.2
Cayman 718 PDK

5kg/hp
M140i xdrive
C43 AMG Coupe '18
S6 '15
E36 M3 II
BMW 650i
Cayenne II GTS

4.9kg/hp
C450 AMG
C43 AMG
300C SRT-8
S500 '17
M140iA
C55 AMG
Model X P90D
Mustang Mach-E GT
V60 II T8 455hp '22
Quattroporte GT-S 440ps '12
370Z Auto
BMW M240i xdrive


Source: zeperfs.com. List not exhaustive, if you find other interesting cars not listed, post below and I'll add them.

 

[GRgrampa]

Apologies if I've posted this before, but since my GRY is due to replace my Evo V1, (sold last year), I did some direct comparisons.

EVO V1RS GR Yaris

Length 4350 /3995

Width 1770 /1805

Height 1415 /1455

Wheelbase 2510 /2560

F. track 1510 /1535

R. track 1505 /1565

Weight 1297 /1280


Yaris =

355mm shorter

35mm wider

40mm higher

50mm longer wheelbase

25mm wider front track

60mm wider rear track

17 kg lighter

 

[Bronson]

Before I bought the GRY I was looking at cars that would meet the 300hp per (metric) tonne standard - also sorry to muck up your measurement system! Even though, stock, the CP is 200hp/t, it’s easily tunable to 250hp/t without major modifications. (Lose 40kg, tune to 300/310hp), but I’m glad I wasn’t so ‘picky’.

 

[Steve]

I remember thinking when I first read about the GR Yaris that it had a very similar output to a Clio V6 255, from half the engine! Then realised it weighed a good 120 kg less despite having four seats and 4WD.

It can also go around a wet roundabout without exiting at the wrong junction. In reverse.

 

[GRunt]

i was doing a comparison in the past too. i was looking for a power to torque sweet spot for turbo charged engines . i was comparing many cars, most of them i've driven myself.

i found the sweet spot for my personal self at just above 220 kW and about just under 400 Nm for about 1.5 t. All above felt ridiculous overpowered and i did not felt confident driving it, all beneath felt like there is missing just an inch. funny enough i was recognizing, that if an engine had about the same amount of HP as it has lb⋅ft it felt most balanced like lets say 300 HP and 300 lb⋅ft (yes i am looking at you Type R). more power than torque pushed the engine more in a high speed, high rpm track oriented engine (yes Type R, i am looking at your 316 HP to 295 lb⋅ft now). Good agility in high rpm but a bit to less low end torque. More torque than power on the other hand pushed the engine more in a touring b-road takeover scandinavian "i am not driving more than 130 km/h" kinda type (Yes V40, now i am looking at your 190 HP and 236 lb⋅ft). Much torque low end but restricted in higher rpm.

So that means (300+300)/2/1,5=200. optimum

But the 1.5 t felt a bit to heavy on breaking and cornering for me and i always wanted a more smaller and lighter car (better feel for dimensions and placement on road in my opinion). so i scaled the power/torque/weight-ratio a bit down and was looking for a 250 HP 250 lb⋅ft 1250 t car.

That would be (250+250/)2/1,25=200. optimum

well... to make it short. that's why i ended up ordering a GRY without ever seen or driven one. (257+266)2/1,28=204.3 ... slightly overperforming

guess i'm a bit of a number nerd after all, but from seeing the specs i normally can tell if i like or dislike something. maybe i am more on the theoretical side.

PS: also did this for NA engines it was more a 300 HP 300 Nm 1,5 t instead of 300 HP 300 lb⋅ft 1,5 t. You could scale this to 200 HP and 200 Nm at 1,0 t. (yes Integra Type R JDM '98 spec R you were pretty damn close)

 

[corroded]

By those calculations, my current and previous cars are 184 and 154 respectively. Not even going to bother with the MK2 Golf

 

[Duke]

My standard dividing line for ‘brisk’ cars has always been 160 hp/tonne, and ‘fast’ cars at 200 hp/tonne.

The GR just squeaks into the ‘fast’ category. Plenty for me in the real world.

Of course, being relatively light it makes good use of every additional hp which is why I’m sure a light tickle to around 300 hp will make a huge difference.

I can’t say I’m not tempted…

 

[Greenthumb]

Mine now has 340-360 hp at 1230 kg. Yes, that's a completely different car, much better. The only problem is I am when I had the Kelford springs installed that I test drove a 400hp one.

There is no way back. The bucket will be emptied next season. The goal is under 1200kg and break the 400 mark.

I'm sure the bucket will be even more fun afterwards.

 

[Onehp]

There is no way back. The bucket will be emptied next season.

Also depends on what season is the next one, depending on circumstances/expectations..

If I was forced to choose, the GRY would only get out during winter, then it is perfect out of the box imo.
For summer, yes it's nicer with more (top end) power/cooling imho. Also depends where it is driven. For autobahn/track one cannot have enough power (if reliability/driveability remains), however for speed restricted real world driving on back/country roads, there is a sweet spot where more power just becomes a tedious exercise in restraint... As per @GRunt above

 

[Greenthumb]

Also depends on what season is the next one, depending on circumstances/expectations..

If I was forced to choose, the GRY would only get out during winter, then it is perfect out of the box imo.
For summer, yes it's nicer with more (top end) power/cooling imho. Also depends where it is driven. For autobahn/track one cannot have enough power (if reliability/driveability remains), however for speed restricted real world driving on back/country roads, there is a sweet spot where more power just becomes a tedious exercise in restraint... As per @GRunt above

I agree with you completely.

I don't drive a meter on the Autobahn. Only tight winding mountain roads. I like to get out of a corner with power and even more power over a steep straight to the next corner. Nothing is more depressing than feeling underpowered .

Maybe a time measurement would even show that I'm not faster because of it, but the fun factor increases a lot FOR ME.

Also, don't forget, my GR is just there to have fun. No freeway, no daily, no errand trips. Just warm up, off to the mountain route and light up.

 

[Onehp]

For steep inclines at height, you need at least 150hp more

 

[Gyp]

Having ridden motorcycles for years I do find these kg/hp figures quite amusing.

Numerically the best ratios I've ridden

- on track race prepared GSXR1000 - 180kg/180hp = 1kg/hp
- on road borrowed H2 - 240kg/200hp = 1.2kg/hp
- on road owned Hayabusa 240kg/173hp = 1.4kg/hp

With 1 wheel drive and no driver aids (except on the H2).

Where it all went wrong was putting my fat arse on them.

 

[Greenthumb]

For steep inclines at height, you need at least 150hp more

Can never be enough.

 

[Onehp]

Yeah motorbikes are something else, most I've done is 140hp/230kg then decided I love life The silly thing is that (hyper) cars are getting so fast, the straight line canyon wide gap is almost completely gone albeit not the price gap

For me the above and also the below number exercise is interesting simply because I catch fooling myself with the relative unassuming nature of this car and the fact I wasn't trying to buy 'fastest car I can get' at all.

When upping power just a little to Corolla GR ME levels as I have done for fun reasons*, the straight line company gets more interesting again, equating to many cars I aspired to as a youth or young adult, a pleasant realisation

(ballpark similar power to weight and performance):

991 Carrera NA
Cayman R
DB7 GT 440hp
E90 M3
Cayman II GTS
TTRS mk1
B7 RS4
F355 Berlinetta
AM V8 Vantage
M3 CSL
Chimaera 500
456 GT
Evo VI RS2
Evora S
1M coupe

*with mostly hardware so still kinda OEM+? Unfair comparison I know although many above NA cars were very limited in their OEM+ tuning potential, so kind of fair That said, NA trumps boosted for me so it's what it is, numbers...

 

[GRunt]

For me personally there is definitely such a thing as to much power. I've driven a BMW G26 with the B58. This thing is a fat lady of roadster at 1.6 t. But it also boasts a whooping 340 HP and 368 ft lb. This was just to much. Sure, if you have more time to getting used to it, it will grow on you and you will get more confidence. But it was so much torque, I was never able to get this thing above 25 to 35 % of what it would be capable of. That was a really frustrating experience.

Also I was driving a JCW Clubman All4 recently. The B48 produces 306 HP and 332 lb ft at a weight of about 1.6 as well. While power and torque to weight was okay, on the top end of okay, the chassis and suspension was nat able to come up to the engine performance. The car was getting very unstable and the steering was really not precise. If it would be tuned down to 220 to 250 HP this would fit better in my opinion.

Both engines had to much torque in my opinion. A bit less and a slightly higher rpm with better power would balance these engines.

So power to weight is often just a blink of the story. If the rest doesn't come up with, the car will not feel great. And on the other hand, when you have way more performance than you can possibly use o the road, it feels as frustrating and depressing as a car that can not come up to potential of own driving, road and conditions.

 

[Yaris San]

"But it was so much torque, I was never able to get this thing above 25 to 35 % of what it would be capable of. "

get the engine remapped by someone who known's how to deliver a more linier torque curve

 

[Steve]

i was doing a comparison in the past too. i was looking for a power to torque sweet spot for turbo charged engines . i was comparing many cars, most of them i've driven myself.

i found the sweet spot for my personal self at just above 220 kW and about just under 400 Nm for about 1.5 t. All above felt ridiculous overpowered and i did not felt confident driving it, all beneath felt like there is missing just an inch. funny enough i was recognizing, that if an engine had about the same amount of HP as it has lb⋅ft it felt most balanced like lets say 300 HP and 300 lb⋅ft (yes i am looking at you Type R). more power than torque pushed the engine more in a high speed, high rpm track oriented engine (yes Type R, i am looking at your 316 HP to 295 lb⋅ft now). Good agility in high rpm but a bit to less low end torque. More torque than power on the other hand pushed the engine more in a touring b-road takeover scandinavian "i am not driving more than 130 km/h" kinda type (Yes V40, now i am looking at your 190 HP and 236 lb⋅ft). Much torque low end but restricted in higher rpm.

So that means (300+300)/2/1,5=200. optimum

But the 1.5 t felt a bit to heavy on breaking and cornering for me and i always wanted a more smaller and lighter car (better feel for dimensions and placement on road in my opinion). so i scaled the power/torque/weight-ratio a bit down and was looking for a 250 HP 250 lb⋅ft 1250 t car.

That would be (250+250/)2/1,25=200. optimum

well... to make it short. that's why i ended up ordering a GRY without ever seen or driven one. (257+266)2/1,28=204.3 ... slightly overperforming

guess i'm a bit of a number nerd after all, but from seeing the specs i normally can tell if i like or dislike something. maybe i am more on the theoretical side.

PS: also did this for NA engines it was more a 300 HP 300 Nm 1,5 t instead of 300 HP 300 lb⋅ft 1,5 t. You could scale this to 200 HP and 200 Nm at 1,0 t. (yes Integra Type R JDM '98 spec R you were pretty damn close)

I think you’re onto something here. I loved my Integra (UKDM so 187 bhp and around 1,100 kg) but it felt a little slow on track, where it would be overtaken by everything on the straights.

The RS Clios, and in fact many other hot hatches, are nearly all around the same 165/170 bhp/tonne mark. Fine on a British B-road but just lacking the grunt needed to feel fast on more flowing roads, they can feel a bit wheezy.

I do think the GR Yaris has the sweet spot with power/weight. I had a Lotus Elan Sprint which couldn’t be more different to the Yaris (apart from a 1.6 litre capacity), yet it also had around the magic 200 bhp/tonne as almost exactly half the power and half the weight. It felt ideal, plenty of acceleration but not dominated by the power delivery.

Yet because the Yaris has such good traction and roadholding manners, I think it could handle an extra 10-20% without upsetting this balance too much. Now that there are proper remaps available I’m tempted to see what it’s like with around 300 bhp.

I’m keeping this car so longevity is important. The Corolla has higher output through essentially a remap/ higher boost but the pistons and oil coolers are uprated.

I know it’s a cheaper option but I don’t want to go down the route of less grippy tyres. Grip is the car’s USP, and I love how much it’s got. A little extra something for the tyres to deal with might be the answer.

 

[GRunt]

"But it was so much torque, I was never able to get this thing above 25 to 35 % of what it would be capable of. "

get the engine remapped by someone who known's how to deliver a more linier torque curve

exactly what i would do. and, don't hit me, what i will do to the GRY when it arrives. slightly reduce output to about 255 HP and 255 ft lb. smooth out the power and torque curve and pull it till red line. pretty much like MPS Engineering did it but with lower output. Good torque plateau from 3k till red line and power linear ascending till red line as well.

 

[GRunt]

"Yet because the Yaris has such good traction and roadholding manners, I think it could handle an extra 10-20% without upsetting this balance too much. "

hm very good point. The japanese spec GRY has 271 PS / 268 HP and 273 lb ft. The others get 261 PS / 257 HP and 266 lb ft. the average between those is very close around 210. so maybe it's well fitting the vary good traction if the GRY. hmm so just optimise curve than without reducing output

 

[Onehp]

I've done something similar to bring it to GRC levels. Hardware (HJS + IC + intake) alone bumps torque to ~395Nm and power to ~280hp, and with programmable box I progressively added some boost above 5500rpm where peak power is reached already, peaking at delta ~0,17bar extra at 7k rpm. Since hardware flows better at high rpm it is mostly OEM levels of load... Result 300/300 hp/lbsft

If you have a good remapper (I haven't nearby) then they can do something similar for sure.