BMW 3 series 1990 vs Toyota Celica 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 113 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 162 NM | 186 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 43 HP less power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 24 NM less than Toyota Celica. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, BMW 3 series consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | Used also on Toyota Carina E | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Celica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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: | 4.32 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.32 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller, but higher. BMW 3 series is 17 cm shorter than the Toyota Celica, 6 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 312 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 1 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`620 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 11 400 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |