i want a 160!

Ian

Ex. Club Member
Just test drove a 160SR, guy just handed me the keys and said bring it back in 15 lol! Great car, performance is nice id say almost as quick as a saxo VTS, but not quite. I have about £5000 atm, so not too much further to go :). gear change is crap compared to a k11, its like dragging a spoon through water, then it just goes *clunk* into gear. But that won't put me off it ! :D

Ian
 
ive noticed with all new cars the "clunck" as you put it in first/neutral, nothing that tho, lush cars, if you get one new from nissan, if u have a mate hu works at NMUK, they have a deal on at the min n u get like nearly £3000 off, well i did when i asked about them :D
 
Ian said:
gear change is crap compared to a k11, its like dragging a spoon through water, then it just goes *clunk* into gear. But that won't put me off it ! :D
Ian
There all the same. (Renault gearbox) :glare:
 
diecded agaist it. Wasnt too happy with the driving position, and it was expensive for a 5 year old car. 160 SR here i come! :)








well until i change my mind again :D
 
something that i can afford to insure and run though?

plus you know im lazy, i can't be bothered to go more then 40/50 miles away :D

idea's are welcome though :)
 
Almera gti mate, you'll probably pay the same amount for a new car to be honest on the insurance.

Millions on performance jap motors u can buy for that money and insure.
 
dunno, not sure what it would be like around town. 160 gets a good high 30's, might go drive one though :)
 
hmm a tsport is only a 1.5 with 110bhp? I dont see how it could be much quicker unless it was a load lighter. Not really into yaris though :s
 
yaris isn't that much faster than 160 about 3 tenths of a second iirc. i think it might be closer to the 100bhp mark than 110.

its about 60kgs lighter though. knew you'd enjoy the 160 mate. with a new car you get all benifits of no mots and no rust. thats why i went with 160 over another older car.

did you look into loan/finance for the remainer of the cash?
 
its 1.5 with 103bhp. its quicker than the 160sr as yes it is lighter.
160sr is 5% more powerful but 7% heavier. this means the yaris can accelerate faster. 0-60 is just under a second quicker.
 
Ian said:
hmm a tsport is only a 1.5 with 110bhp? I dont see how it could be much quicker unless it was a load lighter. Not really into yaris though :s

Loads of performance enhancing modifications plus a nice super charger kit to go on too :)

Kev
 
theres a supercharger kit for the 160 to :) alot harder to get hold of than the toyota one and a bit more difficult to fit :(

ok, whats the 0-60 on the yaris mate?

edit never mind found it: 8.7 and 107 lb/ft torque
 
One in the TOC I know of has got his to just under 7 seconds with mild tuning.

Kev
 
how much more torque does a 160 have though?

on a different note, i turned the ESP off and span the wheels 2nd gear lol! :) Also saw a VTR when out in it and tried to get it to play, but it wouldnt :(. Would have cained it anyway lol! :)
 
160sr has 7% more torque, but its still behind on the power to weight ratio. so thats why it lags behind still.
i could be tempted by importing a yaris turbo. strange they dont sell them in uk.
150bhp i think they are standard.
 
yaris turbo would be good, 150bhp is about right for them :)

the major downfall of the 160 is its weight, prob from all the extras lol
 
nizzanz1 said:
a 2001 yaris t-sport for £5k no problem. and its quicker than a 160sr.

i beg to differ

edit,my friends have a yaris t-sport and a clio 1.6..mine is the quickest then the clio then the yaris..
 
Tsport is quicker than a 160SR

Oh and the New Tsport Yaris coming out next year is even quicker! Bigger engine and more power! Waiting to stick my order down on one lol
 
cant wait to get it! if it arrives before donny next year i'll take it on the track....maybe some 160sr bashing in order lol forgot to mention its a 1.8 with approx 140-190bhp. Hasnt been confirmed yet.
 

Attachments

  • tsport1.jpg
    tsport1.jpg
    104.9 KB · Views: 167
  • tsport2.jpg
    tsport2.jpg
    95.8 KB · Views: 141
  • tsport3.jpg
    tsport3.jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 145
  • tsport4.jpg
    tsport4.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 149
nismo_k12 said:
1.8 with approx 140-190bhp. Hasnt been confirmed yet.

so that'll be the 1.8 VVTL-i in the celica etc i would presume, as they come in 140 and 190 ps versions.

it will deff kick some serious ass lol.

i must admit that nissan are way out with the 160 its faster than it is on paper so i think it would be very close with the yaris t sport (old).

:)
 
yeah its the engine out of the celica....in a smaller car lol! gonna be mad. Was gonna get a type R but if this has the celica engine its gonna be quicker than the CTR.
 
that looks good. i was reading just now why toyota didnt release the yaris turbo (160bhp) in uk. they said its retail price would have been same as civic type r and mini copper s and they thought it wouldnt sell against these. shows that they are overpricing the standard yaris which all the reviews say they are anyway. they could actually release and sell the turbo and make a profit if they wanted to, with a reduced price. but they would rather have the yaris selling with a big profit from us uk suckers. there are a few countries in europe that have it though i'm not sure which.
wonder what segment they will match this new yaris against. depends on power output i reckon.

Dr Zoidberg said:
so that'll be the 1.8 VVTL-i in the celica etc i would presume, as they come in 140 and 190 ps versions.

it will deff kick some serious ass lol.

i must admit that nissan are way out with the 160 its faster than it is on paper so i think it would be very close with the yaris t sport (old).

:)
VVT-i 140 VVTL-i 190 is how they engines are coded i think. it could do well.
the 190 engine can be got quite cheap in the corrola. but it weighs a ton so not the performance. but likely this yarris will be the heaviest version ever made.

RIK said:
i have tried and tested it,you have read some stats..
you have tried and tested in the wrong way though. your results could not be guaranteed as accurate.
 
nizzanz1 said:
you have tried and tested in the wrong way though. your results could not be guaranteed as accurate.

me infront of,and overtaking yaris and a clio.over and over seems like a fair test....the same way we know the k11 can beat a 1.4 corsa sport
 
i havent got one yet but ive been to the dealership 3 or 4 times in the last 2 months lol....and im going to keep going until they let me put the depoist down. They keep telling me i can put the deposit down after the summer when there allowed to take it but the car isnt due out to early 2007..im guessing Jan or Feb if there willing to take my money at the end of the summer. The moneys burning a hole in my pocket lol gonna be about 15-16K she reckoned.

k12 will go up for sale when its close to the delivery date.

also i need to see how well it will perform agaisnt the new clio sport and corsa vxr.... both are 200bhpish its gonna be a good year for small fast hatchs 2007.
 
from a certain speed to another speed the micra may have the edge. but overall the yaris could be quicker. would need stigg to put them around the topgear track. i think the yaris would edge it.
 
Ian said:
Just test drove a 160SR, guy just handed me the keys and said bring it back in 15 lol! Great car, performance is nice id say almost as quick as a saxo VTS, but not quite. I have about £5000 atm, so not too much further to go :). gear change is crap compared to a k11, its like dragging a spoon through water, then it just goes *clunk* into gear. But that won't put me off it ! :D

Ian

back on topic

the gear box is too "mechanical" for me too.get used to it though

how much was the one you wanted and what spec and year? in you dont mind

nizzanz1 said:
from a certain speed to another speed the micra may have the edge. but overall the yaris could be quicker. would need stigg to put them around the topgear track. i think the yaris would edge it.

back off topic

the c2 vts is 125bhp and it i slower than the 160sr..thers your stats out the window
 
no the vts is quicker.
1.5 seconds 0-60 quicker.
16% more bhp
7% less torque
7% heavier
 
we'll have to differ yet again.

i would estimate than any car aslong as it has more % bhp over the 160sr than % more weight it will beat the 160sr. the 0-60 times prove this correct so far.
 
they mean the 160sr is slower. but id still be up for comparing myself on a track the various cars mentioned. of course there would be different strengths and weaknesses stats alone dont show up. what i will say though is that official timing figures will be correct and you will be wrong when it comes to the times you have taken.
 
nizzanz1 said:
they mean the 160sr is slower. but id still be up for comparing myself on a track the various cars mentioned. of course there would be different strengths and weaknesses stats alone dont show up. what i will say though is that official timing figures will be correct and you will be wrong when it comes to the times you have taken.


your the only person i know to belive official timing figures.if you want to get pedantic every engine is different so do they test them all before they sell them and are they all the same?

i know my timing is way way out i never said it wasnt but i know its quicker than the official time.

even the bhp figures will be out slightly..

you even said it yourself..you said the 160sr is the slowest but they will all be different on a track..so they mean nothing.how many flat straight roads with no wind/rain do you know of?
i tested it on the streets where these cars should be

how many cars have top gear tested and the figures look good on paper but dont reflect in the track times.......
 
Flipping heck take them to santa pod and end this sillyness. Your all fighting over a few 10'ths of a second and a few tiny bhp. Grow up!!!

Ed
 
Back
Top