Toyota Celica 2002 vs BMW 3 series 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 192 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.4 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Celica engine produces 42 HP more power than BMW 3 series, but torque is 10 NM less than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 8.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Toyota Celica over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 650 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| 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: | 280'000 km | 420'000 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: | 12 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Corolla | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.35 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is smaller. Toyota Celica is 14 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Celica is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.4 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Toyota Celica can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`865 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |