Toyota Celica 1999 vs Ford Puma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Celica engine produces 18 HP more power than Ford Puma, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Ford Puma. Thanks to more power Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
By specification Toyota Celica consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Celica could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Puma. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 540 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 650 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 510 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: | 280'000 km | 350'000 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 Puma engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Corolla Verso | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 4.34 m | 3.98 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.34 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is larger, but slightly lower. Toyota Celica is 36 cm longer than the Ford Puma, 7 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Celica is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.4 metres more than that of the Ford Puma, which means Toyota Celica can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
Ford Puma has
| |