Acceleration Figures 1.3 Manual

[MattS]

Hello,

I've been thinking about buying an IQ in the 1.3 manual version (in the UK). I've come across two different 0-60 mph figures online: 13.4s and 11.8s.

On Autotrader, it seems that 2009 & 2010 cars have the slower figure in the stats, while newer models have the faster one. 

Was there a gear ration change sometime during the production years? Is one of the figures just a mistake? 

Thanks.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Pretty sure the 13.4 figure is for the 1.0 and the 11.8 is for the 1.33. Only engine changes were late 2010 when both the engines were upgraded to Optimal Drive standards to improve emissions to Euro5.

[MattS]

19 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Pretty sure the 13.4 figure is for the 1.0 and the 11.8 is for the 1.33. Only engine changes were late 2010 when both the engines were upgraded to Optimal Drive standards to improve emissions to Euro5.

No, 1.0 is 14.7s...

[Soeley]

At one time about 2016 when I had my iQ3, I measured the 0 to 60 on my Scangauge II at 10.6 seconds. I did have an aftermarket exhaust on, but don't know if that made any difference.

[FROSTYBALLS]

Depends where Auto Trader got their figures from. The Auto Express review states:

"The 0-60mph sprint takes less than 14 seconds and the revvy engine is characterful, while plenty of sound deadening and tall gearing make it surprisingly refined at motorway speeds. The 1.33 litre petrol engine offers more impressive performance with a 0-62mph time of 11.8 seconds."

Toyota iQ (2009-2015) review | Auto Express

At the end of the day the difference between 14.7 and 13.4 is academic in the real world.

Different publications have differing figures - if you want to know Toyota's own figures, contact Toyota GB

[Cyker]

Could it be the good ol' 0-60 vs 0-62 mismatch?

I notice this sometimes where lazy auto journalists incorrectly use figures for 0-100kph and 0-60mph interchangeably.

Same issue with HP vs PS.

[Hybrid21]

On 2/6/2023 at 12:15 AM, MattS said:

Hello,

I've been thinking about buying an IQ in the 1.3 manual version (in the UK). I've come across two different 0-60 mph figures online: 13.4s and 11.8s.

On Autotrader, it seems that 2009 & 2010 cars have the slower figure in the stats, while newer models have the faster one. 

Was there a gear ration change sometime during the production years? Is one of the figures just a mistake? 

Thanks.

 

I don't think it really matters that much Matt, they are quite slow and the 0-60 time is pretty academic. 

You are not going to beat anyone away from the lights 😃😃

[MattS]

13 hours ago, Cyker said:

Could it be the good ol' 0-60 vs 0-62 mismatch?

I notice this sometimes where lazy auto journalists incorrectly use figures for 0-100kph and 0-60mph interchangeably.

Same issue with HP vs PS.

I've just googled 0-100km/h figures, and I've found 11.8s (and 11.6s), so I'm guessing  that this is the correct figure more or less. It is also the one that makes more sense.

[MattS]

4 hours ago, Hybrid21 said:

I don't think it really matters that much Matt, they are quite slow and the 0-60 time is pretty academic. 

You are not going to beat anyone away from the lights 😃😃

Well, to be honest, I'm a pretty academic kind of guy. It mostly matters because that if the 1.3 is that sluggish, I'll go for the 1.0. I know the 1.0 engine from the C1 and I quite like it; it's lively. 

[Antonio2]

Hi Matt.

For what it's worth, we own an IQ2 and an IQ3.

The 1.3 as expected has a bit more oomph than the 1.0 IQ2. However, the IQ3 is certainly not as quick as you may expect.

I think that whilst on paper, a 98bhp engine in a small lightweight car sounds a recipe for exciting performance, I think Toyota main aim was to keep emissions sensible with "acceptable" performance.

Interestingly, I personally find the IQ2 is smoother and quieter on the motorway than the 6 speed 1.3 - although at idle, the 3 pot obviously cannot match the 4 pot 1.3's smoothness.

[APS]

7 hours ago, MattS said:

Well, to be honest, I'm a pretty academic kind of guy. It mostly matters because that if the 1.3 is that sluggish, I'll go for the 1.0. I know the 1.0 engine from the C1 and I quite like it; it's lively. 

Numbers don't tell the whole story. The 1.0 and 1.33 are very different in character. While the 1.33 (1NR-FE) is certainly quicker, it is also more "top-endy" with a more pronounced increase in torque at higher RPM (125 Nm at 4,400). The 1.0 (1KR-FE) is more "grunty" for its size and pulls quite evenly across the rev range (95 Nm at 4,600). The latter is really useful in daily city driving where you often pull away from standstill and you never get up to the speeds where you can tell the 1.0 is starting to run out of puff. 

As you can see, even the torque figures don't look good on paper for the little 1.0. But, in practice it is just incredibly flexible and happy to oblige. I'd also say that there are far more 1KR-FE engines out there. It has won numerous awards and has been in production for the past 17 years or so, and is still used in the Aygo X. Should it ever go wrong, you can pick up a good second hand one on eBay for less than the cost of unicorn's bagel. It has also held the title of the world's lightest mass-produced engine (65kg?). Lightness! That's got to count for something?

The 1.33 is arguable a bit better at keeping up with traffic on the M1. Not that the 1.0 can't, you just need to carefully plan overtakings - ideally schedule it in your calendar, call the wife, explain your intentions, and produce a detailed Gantt chart of the manoeuvre. Diligently execute! That said, the iQ isn't the sort of mile muncher your average sales rep would choose. It is a city car. The 1.0 is a city car engine. Your choice. 

 

[Cyker]

I definitly second what APS says about the 1.33 being very 'top-endy'. For something that has 100HP it's surprisingly gutless unless you thrash it to death, and I found its performance a bit disappointing when I had it in a Mk2 Yaris, considering it was supposed to have 100HP vs my old diesel's 74.

People had said in the past the 87HP 1.3L engine that came before it felt more powerful, and now I believe them!

I found the 1.0L surprisingly fun as it is a very rev-happy engine, and it's generally more reliable than the 1.33 as well.

 

[MattS]

 Thanks @APS, @Cyker and especially @Antonio2, Nothing beats the opinion of someone who has both.

After reading your posts, I think that I might just go for the 1.0. 

I'll clarify that I don't *need* to buy an IQ... Our primary car in the family is a BMW 1-Series, and I have an mk3 MR2 as a second car. Since my wife started working from home, we hardly even need two cars. So besides the fact that I sometimes have to stack up my shopping on the passenger seat, I have no use for another car.

I just like small cars, and I don't currently have one. The tax is between nothing and almost nothing, and the insurance is very cheap (especially as a third car), so I figured, why not? My only requirement from my future IQ is that it'll be fun and not cost too much. 

 

[Hybrid21]

21 hours ago, MattS said:

Well, to be honest, I'm a pretty academic kind of guy. It mostly matters because that if the 1.3 is that sluggish, I'll go for the 1.0. I know the 1.0 engine from the C1 and I quite like it; it's lively. 

Hi Matt, I had this IQ from new for about three years as a second car and did about 11000mls.

Never really found it too underpowered and really fun to drive, always looked forward to getting into it, sometimes wish I had held onto it 🙂

I changed it for an MX5, but always look back on it with fond memories, the 0-60 figure really is pretty academic with the IQ 👍