Honda Prelude 1996 vs Toyota Celica 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 133 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 179 NM | 172 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is a more dynamic driving. Honda Prelude engine produces 10 HP less power than Toyota Celica, but torque is 7 NM more than Toyota Celica. Due to the lower power, Honda Prelude reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Prelude consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Prelude could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Prelude consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 660 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 Honda Prelude engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.54 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Honda Prelude is larger. Honda Prelude is 20 cm longer than the Toyota Celica, 1 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Prelude is 0.6 metres more than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Honda Prelude can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Prelude has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |