Toyota Celica 1999 vs Honda Prelude 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 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 | 133 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 179 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Celica engine produces 10 HP more power than Honda Prelude, but torque is 7 NM less than Honda Prelude. Thanks to more power Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Prelude, which means that by driving the Toyota Celica over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Prelude. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Celica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 Honda Prelude engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 13 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 | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is smaller. Toyota Celica is 20 cm shorter than the Honda Prelude, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.6 metres less than that of the Honda Prelude, which means Toyota Celica can be easier 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 (€): | 2200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
Honda Prelude has
| |