Toyota Celica 1999 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 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 | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Celica engine produces 38 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 27 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Celica could require 75 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 Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 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 | 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 16 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 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| 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 Mazda 3 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. | |||
| 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 Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.34 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is smaller. Toyota Celica is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Celica is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |