Toyota Celica 1994 vs BMW 3 series 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Celica engine produces 34 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 36 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 9.3 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 BMW 3 series, 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 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 690 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 (BMW 3 series) 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Toyota Avensis, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Carina E | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW 3 series 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.37 m | |
| Toyota Celica is 1 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 4 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Celica is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 283 litres | 435 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Toyota Celica has 152 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 0.4 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Toyota Celica can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`510 | 1`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |