Opinions on Celica 1.8 VVTLi ?

[Octoposse]

Seem to be some bargains about . . .

What are they like? Underpowered for a sports coupe or overpowered for front wheel drive?

Any common faults to look out for . . . and what's the turning circle like (my astonishingly ill thought out my garage is at right angles to a narrow lane)?

Thanks

"George"

[ScoobieWRX]

Really lovely looking coupe, handles like a Go-Kart, 190bhp version not a huge amount quicker than the 140 version which is more frugal, lovely to drive, and would be my choice.

My missus had a met blue 140bhp version (right colour), and it was a cracking car with a surprising amount of boot space. Turning circle is very good and very easy/light to manouvre for parking in tight spaces.

Great motor!!

[shadowninja]

Are there 2 or 3 seats in the rear? Got a friend who might be interested if it has 3 seats...

[ScoobieWRX]

You could squeeze 3 very slim midgets in the back, or potentially 2 larger ones instead. Plenty of room there for a couple of young kids but no more.

[rsstman]

ScoobieWRX said:

Really lovely looking coupe, handles like a Go-Kart, 190bhp version not a huge amount quicker than the 140 version which is more frugal, lovely to drive, and would be my choice.

My missus had a met blue 140bhp version (right colour), and it was a cracking car with a surprising amount of boot space. Turning circle is very good and very easy/light to manouvre for parking in tight spaces.

Great motor!!

im pretty sure you feel that 50bhp.

190bhp has a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds ....which is quick by modern standards.
140bhp has a 0-60 time of 8.7 seconds ....which was quickish in the 1980`s for a hottish hatch.

and i expect at least 2-3 seconds to 100mph and about the same on a quarter mile. which is a lot more in terms of car lengths than it sounds in seconds.

easy car to manouver although a bit long for tight angles, and a decent car if you like the looks of them. (i think they are a bit of a marmite car in the looks department).

[shadowninja]

ScoobieWRX said:

You could squeeze 3 very slim midgets in the back, or potentially 2 larger ones instead. Plenty of room there for a couple of young kids but no more.

And legally? Seatbelts etc...

[ScoobieWRX]

Yep has seatbelts

[ScoobieWRX]

rsstman said:

ScoobieWRX said:

Really lovely looking coupe, handles like a Go-Kart, 190bhp version not a huge amount quicker than the 140 version which is more frugal, lovely to drive, and would be my choice.

My missus had a met blue 140bhp version (right colour), and it was a cracking car with a surprising amount of boot space. Turning circle is very good and very easy/light to manouvre for parking in tight spaces.

Great motor!!

im pretty sure you feel that 50bhp.

190bhp has a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds ....which is quick by modern standards.
140bhp has a 0-60 time of 8.7 seconds ....which was quickish in the 1980`s for a hottish hatch.

and i expect at least 2-3 seconds to 100mph and about the same on a quarter mile. which is a lot more in terms of car lengths than it sounds in seconds.

easy car to manouver although a bit long for tight angles, and a decent car if you like the looks of them. (i think they are a bit of a marmite car in the looks department).

I think in the realworld i.e. on UK roads not circuits or tracks/strips, the gap would be less apparent despite the 0-60 figures. A well driven 140bhp version would give a 190bhp version a run for it's money. 50bhp is 50bhp i agree but trying to lay down 190bhp effectively through the front wheels only is no mean feat even by todays standards, so IMHO 140bhp is more manageable. They only weigh 1145Kg comapred to 1215Kg for the 190 version so pretty light when on the move, and in a car like that 140bhp and 70Kg(11 stones!!) difference in weight makes up some very useful ground, and i won't mention the 37mpg. Oops too late

[shadowninja]

ScoobieWRX said:

Yep has seatbelts

3 seatbelts? Cool!

[ScoobieWRX]

2 seatbelts if i remember rightly. Well i'll blame the missus anyway as she has just told me 2 belts

[ad551]

ScoobieWRX said:

2 seatbelts if i remember rightly. Well i'll blame the missus anyway as she has just told me 2 belts

Only 2 seats in the back. No chance of anyone sitting in the middle!

[ad551]

I've posted this before on this thread, and got a bit overexcited, but:

* People say the interior is plastic-y - they're right. But it is all well put together, no rattles at all in my 2001 car. Plus everything is where you expect it and easy to use. The seats are nice, you sit very low and at night, it can actually feel quite special with the orange dials and the rev counter that goes up to 9k rpm smile.
* The engine is awesome - when you're in the mood for it! It definitely runs better on V-Power/Tesco 99. Lift is addictive - over 6k rpm and it just takes off...brilliant feeling, and sounds amazing as well! As other people have alluded to though, if you're trying to extract all the performance it can be quite hard work. I've only managed once (once in six months!) to stay in 'lift' between first and second gear. The shift isn't very sweet and you have to be completely precise to make it fast enough, which is difficult when the car is accelerating as hard as it does. Above second it isn't an issue, you've got time to concentrate and get it right. Drive it gently and you'll get around 36mpg, the lowest I have had so far is 29 although that might change when I take it to my first trackday in a few weeks. It is fine around town as well. Surprisingly tractable, although when you just want to get somewhere with the minimum of fuss sometimes it would be nicer to be in an diesel something or other.
* Handling? Check out my car history, it isn't difficult to say it is the best handling car I've driven. It feels great on the road though, the ride isn't bad at all, you get a good feeling of what is going on, it corners nice and flat, and the grip seems good. I'm not expert, but it got pretty good write ups from most of the motoring magazines.
* Reliability...it's a Toyota! Pre-facelift 140s have a habit of drinking oil, apart from that they're mechanically trouble free. Standard brakes aren't great though and the wheels corrode like crazy.

eta: the turning circle is excellent, better than my old Golf was. They're surprisingly easy to park as well.

Edited by ad551 on Wednesday 19th November 11:14

[rsstman]

ScoobieWRX said:

I think in the realworld i.e. on UK roads not circuits or tracks/strips, the gap would be less apparent despite the 0-60 figures. A well driven 140bhp version would give a 190bhp version a run for it's money. 50bhp is 50bhp i agree but trying to lay down 190bhp effectively through the front wheels only is no mean feat even by todays standards, so IMHO 140bhp is more manageable. They only weigh 1145Kg comapred to 1215Kg for the 190 version so pretty light when on the move, and in a car like that 140bhp and 70Kg(11 stones!!) difference in weight makes up some very useful ground, and i won't mention the 37mpg. Oops too late

you really think laying down 190bhp and not a lot of torque is a problem through the front wheels? my focus st handles 222bhp and more torque with no problem at all and i can lay it down "effectively" as you say with no drama at all in any weather (but icey) on uk roads.

have you driven many reasonably powerful front wheels drive cars? i would assume not as my focus st is no more fuss than the fiesta zetec-s with 105bhp that i had before it, it just goes faster when you put your foot down.

i would say that 50bhp would make a big difference as it is like the power of a small engined punto, corsa, fiesta, etc.

in the "realword" you can floor a reasonably high powered fwd car with little or no fuss and 140bhp is measley compared.

but you are very right on fuel economy if you care about that sort of thing.

come on, surely you are not really serious that you would prefer the 140bhp version over the 190 "on uk roads"? there are loads of fwd cars with over 180bhp or so and i have never heard that they have a problem dealing with the power. except perhaps the vxr`s. 140 bhp was a lot when the cars weighed 800-900kgs and had no traction control or other electronic aids in the 1980`s but times have changed dramatically.

[Technonotice]

The high lift cam engine in the 190 is superb but does require you to give it beans to get the most out of it.

A very underated car, you can keep up with most things on a b road blast.

[pbirkett]

Hmm, I'd have to disagree that the 190 "isn't much faster" than the 140 version, if my experiences with the Celica T-Sport and MR2 Mk3 were anything to go by.

The MR2, despite being more than 200 kg lighter than the Celica, felt dog slow compared to the T-Sport 190. I'd imagine with even the 140 Celica being a lot heavier than an MR2, that difference would only be more exagerrated still.

I'd expect a T-Sport to hit 0-100 mph in around 17-18 seconds. I'd think a 140 would be lucky to do it in much less than 25 seconds. The MR2 really was dog slow, so the Celica, doesnt bear thinking about.

Back on topic, the T-Sport I drove is a nice enough car, and in a car with 189 bhp and about 1 lb/ft of torque at 6,000,000 rpm, it has no problems at all putting its power down. Spoiled by a truly atrocious gearbox with pointlessly tall ratios for a 6-speed sports car, and gears that were reluctant to engage. I was told I would "get used to it". Since I have never had to "get used to it" in any other car, I call bullst with that one.

Biggest problem the Celica has is the fact a late DC2 Integra Type-R is cheaper, faster, and way better to drive. Indeed, thats what I eventually bought.

[bint]

Lift bolts. Small things, but if you don't check they've been replaced (on pre 2002 models IIRC) for the uprated ones, you can end up with an expensive bill.

Ask on www.celica-club.co.uk for the lowdown on these cars, you will get a balanced view and lots of useful information.

[Gillet]

Can definately recommend a Celica Gen 7, some people say they're marmite to look at, but they are good looking motors, only people who disagree are the Gen 6, bug eyed looking rally types(nothing wrong with that).

difference between 140 and 190 is DEFINATELY noticable as i've had both, down at low revs you won't notice a difference, but get it up to 6k rpm and you'll be leaving the 140 for dust.
Petrol wise, my 140 did roughly 430 miles to a tank(motorway miles), my 190 now does roughly 390 miles, so no difference at all really.

Handling is fantastic(out handles a Civic Type R, have done it many a time), turning circle is pretty good, and with the back seats down you will not believe how much load room you have, i regularly use mine for its van-like qualities.

[Octoposse]

Gillet said:

Handling is fantastic(out handles a Civic Type R, have done it many a time), turning circle is pretty good, and with the back seats down you will not believe how much load room you have, i regularly use mine for its van-like qualities.

Thanks - looked at two on Saturday, but didn't like spec on one and mileage on the other! O/h smitten with red leather interior on one we saw advertised but I assume they're incredibly rare?

So still looking . . . final agreement in the house is that we're going to buy the first 'perfect' Celica 190, Impreza P1 / RB5 / WRX (with leather!) or Audi TT 225 we find. (Yes, I know they're very different cars, but we like them all and can finally afford something decent after years of Fiat Uno followed by elderly Mondeo (both good cars in their way I hasten to add!)).

Edited by Octoposse on Monday 24th November 16:39

[Ry_B]

I think outhandling the type r would be down to driver tbh

[TPB1]

Have a look at 5th Gen Prelude Vti's/Motegi's, great chassis, great engine and very good vfm.

I had one a couple of years ago and it was fantastic...