Toyota Celica 1999 vs Mercedes CLK 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 224 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 315 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Celica engine produces 81 HP less power than Mercedes CLK, whereas torque is 143 NM less than Mercedes CLK. Due to the lower power, Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 10.1 | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Toyota Celica consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK, which means that by driving the Toyota Celica over 15,000 km in a year you can save 360 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
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 (Mercedes CLK) 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 | 480'000 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 Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 10 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 8 other car models, including Mercedes C klase, Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML, Chrysler Crossfire | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes CLK might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mercedes CLK 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.34 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.37 m | |
| Toyota Celica is 23 cm shorter than the Mercedes CLK, 2 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Celica is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 420 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.3 metres less than that of the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |