Imports

  • Thread starter Puffy
  • 31,198 comments
  • 3,217,233 views
I think the Fit actually weighs a lot more than the Yaris. Power isn't much different either.

It was the most recent model of the Fit as well, and I do recall it weighing more than the Yaris. And I think it was one of those automatics with the "Sport" paddle shifters or some nonsense.
 
Those ones are CVT. Thinking about it, if left in CVT rather than using the fake paddle shifters and imaginary ratios, it could be quite handy at autocross. You're always in the power band with a CVT (unlike a regular auto that would be hunting for gears all the time and losing drive) and there'd be no taking the hands off the wheel to shift.
 
The new Fit is slightly heavier than the Yaris, but still handles better... the old Fit was hands-down a better car.

There are multiple issues with the Yaris as an autocrosser... you need to modify the suspension, because the stock set is biased towards massive understeer, and allows way too much body roll to utilize the tires properly. The electric power steering is very, very, very numb... and just a few minutes of hard driving will overheat the motor and leave you without assist... (which isn't exactly a bad thing... feels better that way)... but the stock radiator is also undersized, and that saps power, too.

You can make it stick. You can make it quick. You can probably make it competitive. The Mazda2, however, will be better. It's less powerful, but it's lighter and faster at low speeds, and it has sharper handling. The Fit should also be better, too. Both generations have better engines, and the rear suspension is better (toe in under hard cornering, and a rear sway-bar as standard).
 
I like the mazda 2 but I'd probaly go with the 3 if it was down to those two.

I'm not actually looking for a car I just haven't seen many Yaris' tuned at all.
 
All the more reason to use one - to prove it can be done.

Like Niki I'd go with the Mazda 2 though out of the small selection. If the MINI was lighter it'd probably be worth a look too, as they handle very well as standard. And when given a few choice modifications, they're even better.

Before "Cooper Works" was just a factory tuning, the actual JCW garages run by John Cooper's son Mike did a tuning package for the MINI, and they also created the package used in the John Cooper Works Cup that ran for a few years over here.

14_1600.jpg

andyws2.jpg

mini1-1.jpg

mini2.jpg


The last two pics are of the exact car I drove a number of times a few years back. Grip was great, front end went wherever you put it and the back end just followed unless you really provoked it.
 
The 2's only problem is power. In a properly balanced series, with power mods, it should do well.

I like the mazda 2 but I'd probaly go with the 3 if it was down to those two.

I'm not actually looking for a car I just haven't seen many Yaris' tuned at all.

The Mazda2 is better than the previous generation 3, if you're looking at it in terms of the driving experience alone. I don't know about the current one, because the facelift hasn't made it to our market yet... but I'm betting the Mazda2 is still more fun to drive than the current 3. It's all in the weight. The 3, sharing architecture with the Focus, is a big, heavy car. The Mazda2, on the other hand, is feather-light and feels it.
 
Those ones are CVT. Thinking about it, if left in CVT rather than using the fake paddle shifters and imaginary ratios, it could be quite handy at autocross. You're always in the power band with a CVT (unlike a regular auto that would be hunting for gears all the time and losing drive) and there'd be no taking the hands off the wheel to shift.

I think it still loses RPM when you lift off of the accelerator like a regular automatic. It may not hunt for gears, but i don't think it would be any better.
 
Can anyone help me ID this car? I saw it in the Meguro ward of Tokyo, Japan. Not sure what it is though... I want to say a Datsun Blue Bird, but I think that's wrong.

5159941211_401c227e77_b.jpg


this was the emblem on the front grill...

img7022edit.jpg
 
I think it still loses RPM when you lift off of the accelerator like a regular automatic. It may not hunt for gears, but i don't think it would be any better.

You're correct, but as far as I know drive is always maintained so you get some engine braking, even if it's less than you'd get from a manual.

The other thing is of course that generally on an autocross you're either on throttle or brake and not between the two for any significant period, so at least while you're accelerating you'd have drive rather than waiting for the 'box to decide which gear would be most appropriate.
 
215557.jpg


Doesn't look like much, eh?

try this:
2355cc SOCH 8 valve turbo
418bhp@6000, 532nm@4900
0-62 5,5s, 1/4mile 13s flat at ~110mph..
 
Just found this neat little track car:

IMG_3129.jpg

IMG_3126.jpg


523Rwhp13b-re-w.jpg







500+ hp out of that 240SX... or should it be called a 260RX?


IMG_3134.jpg


Yes, that's what you think it is.
 
500+ hp out of that 240SX... or should it be called a 260RX?
Maybe a 130RX since it's still a two-rotor. I saw this car in person recently and it's very nicely put together. I've never seen this swap before so I was super surprised.
 
Why would you put a rotary in anything? He could've had 600hp with pistons.
 
Because it's not a project car unless it breaks down consistently. Maybe he just wasn't achieving that level of unreliability from his piston engine.
 
Why do you think they are unreliable? It's true turbo charged rotary motors don't last too long, but the NA ones can often last up to 200k miles with no problems. And in a racing situation rotaries often outlast the piston motors. (Mazda's 787B is a nice example)
 
Why do you think they are unreliable? It's true turbo charged rotary motors don't last too long, but the NA ones can often last up to 200k miles with no problems. And in a racing situation rotaries often outlast the piston motors. (Mazda's 787B is a nice example)
That's not an example, that's like the only exception.

If rotaries often outlasted piston motors, there would be a lot more out there in current racing series compared to the virtually none at the moment.
 
Why do you think they are unreliable? It's true turbo charged rotary motors don't last too long, but the NA ones can often last up to 200k miles with no problems. And in a racing situation rotaries often outlast the piston motors. (Mazda's 787B is a nice example)
Race-built rotaries are typically one-time-use only. A factory stock engine with relatively low compression and exhaust temperatures can last quite a while, but once those numbers start going up the life of the engine falls drastically. Race built engines are reliable because there's nothing to break, but also reliably short-lived.

As for rotaries in racing, stupendous noise, unbelievably high fuel and oil consumption, and noxious emissions mean they just aren't practical compared to piston engine tech and in some cases don't even conform to open-class rules.
 
Lighter and more compact. Lower C of G and better weight distribution and centralization. Also the RE Amemiya FD has been using a rotary in the Super GT series and JGTC when it was called that. Then there's the Formula Mazda series in the states that use relatively stock rotaries out of the RX-8.
 

Latest Posts

Back