Iq Engine Type?

[C_U_Jimi]

Hi,

The time has come to change my Aygo. Due to problems with piston slap and a clutch disintegrating, I don't want to buy another Aygo.

When the IQ came out at first, I am sure that I read that it had a Toyota designed 1.0 engine and not the re-badged Daihatsu engine that is fitted to the Aygo.

Now the spec sheet lists the IQ engine with the same type number as the Aygo engine.

Can anyone tell me.................are the latest IQs fitted with the same engine as the Aygo?

[sweet-dentist]

Not shure.. sorry...

But do know that the iQ is built in Japan and the Aygo / 107 / C1 are built somewhere in Hongary or so...

One would expect that they use the same type of engine... but for one .. the CVT is not available on them.. only the robotic gearbox... so... dontknow..

Peter

[johnan]

Hi Jimi,

As far as I am aware the award winning 3 cylinder "Toyota" engine is basically the same engine as the Diahatsu 3 pot which has been around for some time now and is fitted to the Aygo and IQ.

I am not sure if the eastern european built Aygo has engines that are assembled in a different engine plant to those that are fitted to the IQ, but the Aygo has been plagued by failing engine ancillaries such as water pumps, clutches and radiators and so far I have not heard any such problems for the IQ with the 3 cylinder engine.

Piston slap is very rare these days and usually goes away when the engine warms up, as you probably found, but doesn't sound too good!

If the Aygo engines are produced in a non Japanese factory, with a slightly less stringent quality control regime, then that could explain some loose tolerance keeping in piston to bore fit, hence the slap.

It is a brilliant engine so I wouldn't let your Aygo experience put you off an IQ.

I went from an Aygo to an IQ a few years ago and the difference in quailty, comfort , gadgets and character is immense.

John

[marcandsebe]

I had a Daihatsu 3 cylinder engined car once, a GTti Charade. It was a great engine.

Unless you are travelling daily to London, why not go for the 1.33L iQ3. The engine is very good, tax is low and fuel consumption fairly good for the 6 speed manual with stop start. Somewhere on this forum I have read that some owners think the iQ1 & iQ2 is underpowered, especially the multidrive. I can't comment, as I own the iQ3 with multidrive and have not driven a 1.0L version. I just prefer the extra horses of the 1300, plus some on the forum have owned both models, moving up to the iQ3. Perhaps they will reply to this thread.

[johnan]

My usage of the two IQ2s that I have owned is non motorway, mainly 60mph A roads and the 1.0l engine is ideal for me giving all the economy benefits and perfectly acceptable performance which is why I chose the car with that particular engine.

The Aygo was much nippier , being lighter and less "detuned" for emission/economy reasons, and I would have stuck with one of those if I wanted performance but then would not have the refinement of the IQ.

If you need more power then perhaps an IQ is not for you, even the IQ3 is no road burner.

John

[JordaniQ]

The iQ3 is fast if youre willing to sacrifice petrol for the revs..trust me..if it didn't have so much potential, there wouldn't be so much aftermarket support from german and jap tuners

J

[marcandsebe]

My usage of the two IQ2s that I have owned is non motorway, mainly 60mph A roads and the 1.0l engine is ideal for me giving all the economy benefits and perfectly acceptable performance which is why I chose the car with that particular engine.

The Aygo was much nippier , being lighter and less "detuned" for emission/economy reasons, and I would have stuck with one of those if I wanted performance but then would not have the refinement of the IQ.

If you need more power then perhaps an IQ is not for you, even the IQ3 is no road burner.

John

I have the iQ3 multidrive and people are amazed at how quick it is. Ok it's no Gti, but from my driving experience, it's quick enough. I've had Gti's, Lotus etc and know how quick cars can be. But it's more than competent to hold its own. Please follow link to performance figures. Of the 4 configurations available, the 1.33 has more power. I think BHP is about 67 for iQ1 & iQ2 and about 98 for the iQ3

http://s1190.photobucket.com/albums/z459/marcandsebe/?action=view¤t=4a4c61bc.jpg&evt=user_media_share

[s44gtw]

http://www.en.wikipe.../wiki/Toyota_iQ

I have had or used 3 daily drive Multidrives ,

Euro 5 1.0's & a Euro 5 1.3

The Max National speed limit is 70 mph, single carriageways are 60 mph & many towns are 30 or 40 mph max.

All cars/engines being sold in the UK since 2009 do that with easy IME.

30 mph in what ever car you are & any car that can do 100mph can surely travel all day at 70mph (80 mph up a motorway incline if you must.)

Sometimes/mostly surely the 'Torque' available on demand in usable places (rev ramge ) is more important than max BHP when it comes to small engines

1.3 cc 4 cylinder Multidrive iQ

******* note, engine needs revs to have that max bhp

98 PS @ 6000 rpm

124 Nm @ 4400 rpm

1.0 cc 3 cylindr VVTi Multidrive iQ

****** note, engine needs revs to have that max bhp

67 bhp/ 68 PS @ 6000 rpm

91 Nm @ 4800 rpm

my current drive

1390cc

178 bhp DSG

250 Nm @ 2000-4500 rpm

127.7 bhp/litre.

(what ever small car i am driving, they all pull away fast enough when i have a big RR/RRS/X5/Volvo/ etc right up my chuff even when they could just change lane and pass,

& when i make some distance for safety and go back down to my speed, they will still tailgate me or overtake and then go slower than i was going at)

They all take the same time for the same journey because the speed limit is the speed limit and all 3 engines will do that comfortably & safely with enough power to overtake a slower vehicle that is travelling below The National Speed limit on a single carriageway

IME The 1.0cc & the twin charge 1390 cc will use the same fuel & the 1.3 cc will use slightly more

for the same journey done at the same speed.

JIMO the 1.0 Multidrive iiQ is the most fun to drive and the most economic as an everyday car used for mixed driving conditions and roads.

(thats next for fun/handling to my 2006 1.1 Picanto LX Automatic (1086cc) that drives like an original Mini & never returns less than 42mpg)

64 bhp/65 PS @ 5500 rpm,

98 Nm @ 2800 min.

(quoted as 17 s 0-60 and 98 mph max is rubbish just like the iQ quoted 0-60's & Max mph's)

God help you with an iQ when the interior plastics start to rattle & the undertrays start to rattle/squeak.

The Hand Brake cable needs Greased regularly because the rear calipers bind.

suspension squeaks etc etc

(they dont appear to wear well or like Salted UK roads so after winter maintenance is very important)

They are great fun but not the toughest if used hard or on bad road surfaces,

again JIMO they are not going to be a good vehicle by 5 years old, and i cant imagine what a 10 year old one will be like.

george

[tarquin]

Thanks for that George. Now did i hear a teenie squeak this morning

David

[s44gtw]

I am not slagging them.

I love them dearly.

Just feel that they will require fettling and most people on here are doing that allready.

Anything needing doing will be easy to do & not expensive to do, as you already know.

Only thing is,

i feel that as with any vehicle it takes 3 or 4 years untill you know how they will age generally.

Battery life, brake disks/calipers and that type of thing.

Owners of 3 year Old Land Rover products are already learning that nothing has improved over the years. (Disco 3/4, RR, RRS, body off to do any work & high tyre wear and suspension mis-alignment problems)

Buyers of 6 year old ones need to be very careful, & anyone that buys one in a few years when they are 10 years old will need a fat cheque book or their head examined.

eg Air bags have a shelf life.

A 18 year old Granada Scorpio in great condition has now airbags that have exprired & replacement Airbags have the same 'End of life/Use by Date'.

(in this i mean, you can not now replace out of date Airbags because the replacements are the same age, that applies right across a range of vehicles)

UK Government have scrapped the Plan for first MOT @ 4 years and then 2 yearly,

& now it looks like a MOT price is going to take a hike. (£68 possibly!)

The VOSA/DVLA will be stopping MOT's being done very cheeply just shortly.

(or at least monitoring closely the stations offering cheap tests, say under £30)

Lots more not so old cars with electrics, airbags, TPMS, Cats etc will be going off the road in just the next few years.

Pre 1996 cars will most likely keep on going, if the future MOT changes dont totally stuff them up.

george

[marcandsebe]

You obviously like your 1.0L iQ's George and are a law abiding citizen, keeping to the exact speed limits HaHa!! I have had a 3 cylinder before and while it was fun, more fun than the iQ, because it did 0 to 60 in under 8 seconds (Daihatsu Charade GTti - it had a turbo) I ended up having to rebuild the engine, because 3 cylinders wear out quicker than 4 I suppose. If you look at acceleration times from Toyota, the multidrive 1.0L is the slowest and the multidrive 1.33L is the fastest to 62 MPH. If this is not the case, Toyota must be lying. Anyway, having had a 3 cylinder, I did not want one again. And my brother had the Aygo 3 pot and he had problems too. I did not know it was from Daihatsu as people have mentioned here either.

[marcandsebe]

One more thing, as Top Gear has a drag race with super cars, they need to get the 4 models of iQ, 1.0L, 1.33L, Manuals and Multidrives in a drag race to confirm once and for all which has the more power. That would be good viewing for us iQ fans Lol!!

[s44gtw]

Just get 4 people with the 4 different iQ's together and you can each compare and post the results!

(only yourself/car & only 3 others required)

Youtube is full of iQ stuff an i am sure that film would be a hit and very easy to arrange without the need for any TV presenters..

(remember and put the 4 cars with drivers on the scales)

Toyota figures between a 1.3 & a 1.0 Multidrive might just show a small difference, 70Kg Kerb Weight & 60 Kg GVW,

but they fail to show the difference between the weight of an iQ Multidrive against an only slightly heavier iQ2 Multidrive.

Fat drivers like me & no passenger or a light passenger might soon make a difference off the line, just like 4 gallons or 7.5 gallons does.

Tyre size etc.

Just test drive a iQ Multidrive, you might find that 100kg or there about and smaller diameter tyres can make a fair bit of difference at lower speeds when it comes to acceleration & the actual gearing between a 1.0 & a 1.3, might even make a difference at higher speeds and higher revs.

LOL @ Law abiding,

but on an open forum talking about car economy and performance its sometimes better to talk about general driving IMO.

Bit of a simplification that 3 cylinders would/should/could wear quicker than 4.

(Heat/materials & lubrication is rather an involved subject but pretty important)

Where will that leave all these Twin Air vehicles out now

& all the new 2 cylinder & 3 cylinder Fords up to 1600ccc and BMW's with 3 cylinders & up around 500cc per cylinder that are away to come on the market in the UK .

Check out just what the Euro 6 & even worse the Euro 7 engines restrictions/emissions are liable to be.

I have a 51 year old single cylinder thumper that has no bore wear but plenty of use!

Various bikes from having had a Suzuki Kettle & a few twins & Fours so know a little about various cylinder through from my single cylinder 2 stroke mopeds to my LPG V8's.

re

1/4 mile times & 0-60 or 0- terminal speed, well i know quite a bit about that.

But that has lots to do with traction & power to weight.

Not much to do with leaving a junction on a public road in all sorts of road conditions, or keeping your driving licence.

george

[marcandsebe]

Just get 4 people with the 4 different iQ's together and you can each compare and post the results!

(only yourself/car & only 3 others required)

Youtube is full of iQ stuff an i am sure that film would be a hit and very easy to arrange without the need for any TV presenters..

LOL @ Law abiding,

but on an open forum talking about car economy and performance its sometimes better to talk about general driving IMO.

Bit of a simplification that 3 cylinders would/should/could wear quicker than 4.

(Heat/materials & lubrication is rather an involved subject but pretty important)

Where will that leave all these Twin Air vehicles out now

& all the new 2 cylinder & 3 cylinder Fords up to 1600ccc and BMW's with 3 cylinders & up around 500cc per cylinder that are away to come on the market in the UK .

Check out just what the Euro 6 & even worse the Euro 7 engines restrictions/emissions are liable to be.

I have a 51 year old single cylinder thumper that has no bore wear but plenty of use!

Various bikes from having had a Suzuki Kettle & a few twins & Fours so know a little about various cylinder through from my single cylinder 2 stroke mopeds to my LPG V8's.

re

1/4 mile times & 0-60 or 0- terminal speed, well i know quite a bit about that.

But that has lots to do with traction & power to weight.

Not much to do with leaving a junction on a public road in all sorts of road conditions, or keeping your driving licence.

george

That's got you going George HeHe!! Anyway, my ideal iQ would have been the diesel. I think you have that where live. The most powerful of the lot and economical by all accounts. Despite what you say and know, I would not want a 3 cylinder again. Just my opinion.

[marcandsebe]

George

Re. 1/4 mile times & 0-60 or 0- terminal speed, well i know quite a bit about that.

But that has lots to do with traction & power to weight. YOUR QUOTE.

I'm just going by the Toyota figures which states that the Multidrive iQ1 & 2 is slower to 62 MPH than Multidrive iQ3. That's almost 4 seconds. Now if it was the 100m's final in the Olympics, that 4 seconds would be a lot, probably somewhere between coming first and coming last.

Anyway the diesel is probably the fastest.

[s44gtw]

Simple idea from a simple kind of person that prefers actual times/speeds rather than theory & manufacturers official figures.

(since they never actually give MPG from testing on roads,

rather sat inside on a rolling road with a computer programme controlling things.)

Take your iQ out someplace & with GPS check if your vehicle is quicker, slower or match the given Toyota figures.

I dont claim or really even care that an iQ is faster or slower than a iQ3, it may be faster than an iQ 2 though, and on a back road leave behind a iQ3 with its different performance.

Thats all theory tho, i have tried a few and have my opinions and experiences and just prefered driving the smaller engined car..

george

[marcandsebe]

Like I prefer a slightly bigger engined car George. Like I said, I would have brought the 1.4L diesel if it was for sale over here.

If the iQ1 & 2 has enough power, why do people want to turbo charge it?

[s44gtw]

I dont think anyone said it had 'enough' power.

I just think there is less weight over the front wheels and it steers better and can rev up quicker sometimes when required.

Some form of Traction control/LSD that actually works & that does not or can not cut power via the ECU would be required with more power in my opinion.

I think the CVT as it is, suits the 1.0 better than the 1.3.

Found out at the weekend that a DSG gearbox can be a bad thing in certain corners when 'it' decides to cut power just as you actually need it most as you pull out of a corner.

(this is due to a XDS Electronic 'Differential' that i had never had a problem or noticed before with when nipping on in an Audi or Seat with the same DSG box.)

http://volkswagen.co.uk/technology/braking-and-stability-systems/xds

george

[JordaniQ]

The 1.4 is heavier and slightly less power than the 1.3.

But because of the turbo, it can easily be boosted with a piggyback that alters the boost slightly and readings from the exhaust sensors and whatnot. Doesn't actually replace the existing ecu, just works with it.

Jordan

[marcandsebe]

I dont think anyone said it had 'enough' power.

I just think there is less weight over the front wheels and it steers better and can rev up quicker sometimes when required.

Some form of Traction control/LSD that actually works & that does not or can not cut power via the ECU would be required with more power in my opinion.

I think the CVT as it is, suits the 1.0 better than the 1.3.

Found out at the weekend that a DSG gearbox can be a bad thing in certain corners when 'it' decides to cut power just as you actually need it most as you pull out of a corner.

(this is due to a XDS Electronic 'Differential' that i had never had a problem or noticed before with when nipping on in an Audi or Seat with the same DSG box.)

http://volkswagen.co.uk/technology/braking-and-stability-systems/xds

george

I like the way mine drives with the multidrive. It seems to work fine for me. As I said, I haven't driven the 1.0L multidrive, but if it has less power, as it says in the book, I would not downgrade to the smaller engined car.

[C_U_Jimi]

Thanks everybody for their enthusiastic replies.

I think I should take the IQ range for a test drive to see what suits best.

Although my Aygo was disappointing reliability wise, (piston slap, clutch, water pump, wheel bearing) I do enjoy driving it and especially enjoy outmanouvering bigger cars.

[marcandsebe]

Thanks everybody for their enthusiastic replies.

I think I should take the IQ range for a test drive to see what suits best.

Although my Aygo was disappointing reliability wise, (piston slap, clutch, water pump, wheel bearing) I do enjoy driving it and especially enjoy outmanouvering bigger cars.

You will love the iQ then, as it will outmanoeuvre most cars, especially with the amazing turning circle.

Yes I would test drive all the cars, but leaving out the iQ1. Better spec on the 2 & 3. Try the 5 speed & multidrive 1.0L and the 6 speed & multidrive 1.33. Try and have a good run in all of them. I only tried the 1.33L iQ3 in manual & multidrive, because I knew I wanted the larger engine. I test drove them both for about 45 minutes. I settled for the multidrive in the end and it hasn't disappointed.

[JordaniQ]

I test drove iQ 2 manual, auto and iQ3 manual. Hated the auto so my choice was between a white iQ2 with satnav, or the iQ3 with less toys but bigger engine. Needless to say i picked the iQ3, because i definately felt the power difference and I am used to driving cars with 6 gears. If we arranged a meet, there would be a wide variety to compare i think. Possibly the whole range (minus the 1.4d)

J

[marcandsebe]

I test drove iQ 2 manual, auto and iQ3 manual. Hated the auto so my choice was between a white iQ2 with satnav, or the iQ3 with less toys but bigger engine. Needless to say i picked the iQ3, because i definately felt the power difference and I am used to driving cars with 6 gears. If we arranged a meet, there would be a wide variety to compare i think. Possibly the whole range (minus the 1.4d)

J

Hi Jordan

We tried to arrange a meet once before, but somehow we never met up. It would still be good try it again. I met up with David, AKA Tarquin with his iQ2 Multidrive with nav, leather and lots of improvements. David upgrade my interior light and afterwards I went for short drive in his car. I thought it went quite well, but it was only around the corner and a roundabout and back. It handled very well due to lowered suspension and low profile tyres. I suppose the real test would be on a motorway.

[jwball]

The iQ1 is plenty powerful enough for it's size, not to mention better fuel economy and free road tax.

Plenty of equipment as standard for me, and not as much to go wrong.

At the end of the day if you want a small good quality car then it's ideal, if you want power then it sort of defeats the object, get a golf GTI.