Page 2 of 2

Re: GT vs Base (BrentDev)

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:59 pm
by DABEAR95
quote:No doubt - the Jetta Wagon was a tough close-competition option. The youngster in me also wanted a Wrangler.....- but I can get the GM family discount coupled with the 0% financing - it kinda makes everything slant towards the Vibe.Edit - and Jason....you mean that when you and the Mrs go on a date you dont take your Z????? We always try to take the Vette together whenever we can dump the kid on a babysitter I thought about getting another TDI, but I couldn't pass up the deal I got on the Vibe. GM was buying for market share in December and they were offering the employee price to everyone. Sooo, I took it and the cheap financing too! I'm glad I did, its nice to have a choice and the Vibe is FUN to drive.Yes, we do take the Camaro in the Summer! Its still 40 degrees here and its been such a long winter I can't remember driving it! I usually have it out the beginning of April.I like the Vibe GT overall and with driving nice the mileage is impressive. My mileage has been improving and last tank I got 32MPG 100% city driving of 12 miles one way to work and back. It started around 27 and has been increasing at each tank (break-in I assume) But when I need to scoot its there.Jason

Re: GT vs Base (BrentDev)

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:31 am
by QUIKAG
quote:Oh - and props here to Quikag. He's helped to convince me to get a Vibe - and referred me here from the vette forum. How about this for a comparison? Anyone done a insurance comparison between base and GT?Sorry for the string of questions......Hey BrentDev! Glad you made it over here! Anyway, I enjoy the variety of power between the Vibe and C5. The C5 is out of power at 6000rpm and the Vibe GT is just starting to make some good power as it pops over to the big cam. It's fun. You really can't go wrong with either the base or GT version of the Vibe.

Re: GT vs Base (QUIKAG)

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:48 am
by philndz
quote: And you're saying the 2zz isn't underrated too? I wasn't talked wheel horspower or an extrapolation of wheel horsepower to flywheel horsepower, I was talking RATED horsepower. Please find me a brochure that has the 1ZZ in the Vibe RATED at 140hp. While, it may make 140hp, it's not RATED at 140hp. Jeez.I would have to say my bubble is far from burst.if my base was "RATED" AT 80HP and actually had 140hp, i wouldnt say oh those vibe gt's have an extra 100hp......thats just not true and not right to say....if your gt had 220 hp (stock), i dont think you would refer to in comparison to other cars as having 180hp.....just b/c some owners manual says you have 180hp...if you really had 220 you wouldnt cut youself short....i hope?? im not talking wheel hp or anything complicated either....simply as far as i know the gt makes about 180horse and the base makes more than the advertised 130 horsepower.....and speculation is that is closer to the 140hp output as is the corolla and also the celica gt, the exception is that the latter of the three IS advertised as 140HPi havent seen any indication so say that the 2zz is underated....whereas we have seen indication that the 1zz is....that simply puts them about 40 horsies from each other rather than the 50 stated by the books.....apparently toyota did this b/c they wanted the celica gt to stand out from the corolla....they didnt want celica owners to think their grandma had the same engine and power.....fairly logical in my opinion.....so base owners.....enjoy your extra 10 [approx]

Re: GT vs Base (philndz)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:06 am
by QUIKAG
I agree, Phil. I do believe the 2ZZ is slightly underrated and the 1ZZ is underrated by about 10 fly hp. The 1ZZ bone stock makes around 120 wheel hp which equates to closer to 140 fly hp. The 2ZZ makes right at 155-160 wheel horsepower which is a bit more than 180 fly hp, but not much. My 1997 Prelude was rated at 195 hp and put right at 160 horsepower to the wheels on the dyno. That was with an iceman intake, so I'm thinking Honda actually OVERrated their motors a bit that year. Either way the 1ZZ is a good motor as well as the 2ZZ is a good motor. The only difference is the 2ZZ makes quite a bit more horsepower by revving higher and utilizing the volumetric efficiency of the 'sport' cylinder head and internals.

Re: GT vs Base (QUIKAG)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:48 am
by philndz
i agree with you completely!

Re: GT vs Base (NY Pete)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:08 am
by Project Shadow
That was my thoughts also, I do like the GT but base with S/C should have more power and torque all over the range. I find my base to be almost peppy as it is but more is better!quote:Peronally, I think it's all a mute point when the 1zz S/C comes out. That's the main reason I opted for the base. Less complexity, power at lower RPM range (especially with S/C). To each their own, my personal decision was for the 1zz (with the intent of adding the S/C when it is released).PeteP.S. Plus my car doesn't beep when backing up. haha... j/k

Re: GT vs Base (Project Shadow)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:40 pm
by QUIKAG
All you guys are forgetting the $3k cost of the supercharger when it come out. That will make a base with s/c more expensive than a Vibe GT to begin with. Plus, there is something damn cool about a motor that cruises around town at 2300rpm as gently as a Corolla, but glance down at the tach and there is a wide sweeping band all the way to 8200 rpm with an 8350 rpm fuel cutoff. That is cool to me. A co-worker has an Integra LS not the GS-R, so his redline is like 6800rpm or something like that. Anyway, yesterday towards the end of the day he was talking about how great Honda motors are and how high revving they are, etc. I agree with the statement, Honda motors are awesome and they build some good ones. Well, I asked him how high he thought my PONTIAC VIBE GT revved out to. He didn't know and when I told him 8200rpm his jaw dropped. hehe....

Re: GT vs Base (QUIKAG)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:11 am
by bellwilliam
quote:Well, I asked him how high he thought my PONTIAC VIBE GT revved out to. He didn't know and when I told him 8200rpm his jaw dropped. hehe....but I bet if you told him you have a Toyota (instead of Pontiac) motor, that revs to 8200rpm, he would not even of blinked.

Re: GT vs Base (QUIKAG)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:24 pm
by Project Shadow
Your right, it would make it very similar in overall price. I agree that the GT with its sweet redline is a blast to drive, I don't knock anyone who bought the GT because I almost did...close call for me. I really do think the base with S/C will be quicker overall and give added low RPM torque. Time will tell. And I may never even get a S/C so enjoy the GT! quote:All you guys are forgetting the $3k cost of the supercharger when it come out. That will make a base with s/c more expensive than a Vibe GT to begin with. Plus, there is something damn cool about a motor that cruises around town at 2300rpm as gently as a Corolla, but glance down at the tach and there is a wide sweeping band all the way to 8200 rpm with an 8350 rpm fuel cutoff. That is cool to me. A co-worker has an Integra LS not the GS-R, so his redline is like 6800rpm or something like that. Anyway, yesterday towards the end of the day he was talking about how great Honda motors are and how high revving they are, etc. I agree with the statement, Honda motors are awesome and they build some good ones. Well, I asked him how high he thought my PONTIAC VIBE GT revved out to. He didn't know and when I told him 8200rpm his jaw dropped. hehe....

Re: GT vs Base (Project Shadow)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:44 pm
by meathead333
anyone know if the SC will work on an auto??

Re: GT vs Base (meathead333)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:00 pm
by philndz
yes...it does

Re: GT vs Base (bellwilliam)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:02 pm
by QUIKAG
I did tell him it was the same drivetrain as the Celica GT-S. Otherwise, I'm sure he wouldn't have believed me. He's French. Shadow,I agree that the base Vibe 5-speed with the S/C should be quicker due to the additional torque. The horsepower rating should be similar between a base S/C and GT, but torque will be noticeably bumped on the S/C car. Got to love forced induction.I'm a fan of high revving motors, so the GT with the six-speed manual was a no brainer for me.

Re: GT vs Base

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:51 pm
by slinkston
Damn. There is no reply in general button? Okay, I just deleted the name.Well, when it comes to the 180 hp vs the 130 hp, the number 1 reason I didn't get the 180 hp version is because of my insurance. I'm only 22 and on my insurance I have a totalled car, 2 speeding tickets, 2 accidents, and my vehicle was broken into. I pay a little over $1,400 a year with awesome insurance and $250 deductables.I don't know exactly how much an XRS or GT would have ran me, but my insurance agent says, "Good thing you didn't get the XRS."I'm sure when I'm ready for another vehicle, I'll be 25 hopefully and my insurance will be lower. Also, changing insurance companies will help.-Slink

Re: GT vs Base (slinkston)

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:16 pm
by QUIKAG
I'm 26 and when I turned 25, my insurance dropped about $1k/year, so that was one heck of a birthday present.

Re: GT vs Base (slinkston)

Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:28 am
by ragingfish
quote:I didn't get the 180 hp version is because of my insurance. I'm only 22 and on my insurance I have a totalled car, 2 speeding tickets, 2 accidents, and my vehicle was broken into. I pay a little over $1,400 a year with awesome insurance and $250 deductables.Dude, count your blessings. I am 22, have no moving violations, and only one claim which was an accident in which I was 100% NOT at fault...and I pay almost double that in 1/2 year's time...ah, the joys of living in Jersey.