BMW 3 series 1986 vs Toyota Celica 1991
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 226 NM | 186 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| BMW 3 series engine produces 14 HP more power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Toyota Celica. Despite the higher power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 500 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Celica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 15 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. | |||
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`675 | 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
| |