Toyota Celica 1999 vs BMW 3 series 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Celica engine produces 50 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 108 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 1.4 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 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Corolla Verso | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 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. Toyota Celica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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: | 4.34 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 15 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`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |