Ford Cougar 1998 vs Toyota Celica 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 172 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
| Ford Cougar engine produces 27 HP more power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 48 NM more than Toyota Celica. Thanks to more power Ford Cougar reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.9 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Cougar consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Cougar could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Cougar consumes 3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Celica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 Ford Cougar engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Mondeo | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Corolla Verso | |
| 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 Ford Cougar 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. | |||
| Toyota Celica 1999 1.8 engine: The 1ZZ-FE engine is more advanced, lighter, and simpler than its predecessor, emphasizing fuel efficiency and output. However, these improvements have come at the cost of reduced durability compared to earlier cast-iron engines. The engine block features an open-deck cooling design for easier production and lower ... More about Toyota Celica 1999 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Ford Cougar is larger. Ford Cougar is 36 cm longer than the Toyota Celica, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Cougar is 0.5 metres more than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Ford Cougar can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`825 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Cougar has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |