Toyota Celica 1994 vs BMW 3 series 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.8 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 | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Celica engine produces 77 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 126 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 9.8 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Celica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Celica consumes 1.2 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 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Celica consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Celica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 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. | |||
| 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 | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.30 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is smaller. Toyota Celica is 7 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Celica is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 283 litres | 410 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Toyota Celica has 127 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`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |