Toyota Celica 1999 vs Nissan 200 SX 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 7.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan 200 SX is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Celica engine produces 57 HP less power than Nissan 200 SX, whereas torque is 93 NM less than Nissan 200 SX. Due to the lower power, Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan 200 SX, which means that by driving the Toyota Celica over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 2.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan 200 SX. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 600 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 (Nissan 200 SX) 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. | |||
| 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 | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.30 m | |
| Toyota Celica is 18 cm shorter than the Nissan 200 SX, 1 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Celica is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 307 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 9.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.8 metres more than that of the Nissan 200 SX, which means Toyota Celica can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`780 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
Nissan 200 SX has
| |