BMW 3 series 1999 vs Toyota Celica 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 180 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 42 HP less power than Toyota Celica, but torque is 10 NM more than Toyota Celica. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Celica) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a BMW 3 series engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | Used also on Toyota Corolla | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The BMW 3 series engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.35 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.32 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger. BMW 3 series is 14 cm longer than the Toyota Celica, 2 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.4 metres less than that of the Toyota Celica, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`865 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |