Toyota Celica 1995 vs BMW 3 series 1993
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 175 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 186 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Toyota Celica is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Celica engine produces 25 HP more power than BMW 3 series, but torque is 4 NM less than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Toyota Celica reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 9.1 | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Toyota Celica consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Celica could require 120 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| BMW 3 series 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 (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: | 21 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Carina E | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | |
| 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: | 4.50 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.33 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Toyota Celica is larger, but slightly lower. Toyota Celica is 7 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 4 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Celica is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 230 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Celica is 1 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`200 | 1`810 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Celica has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |