Mitsubishi 3000 GT 1992 vs Toyota Celica 2002
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Mitsubishi 3000 GT is available with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Toyota Celica can be equipped with front wheel drive. | |||
| Engines: | 3.0 | 1.8 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 286 HP | 143 - 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 407 NM | 170 - 180 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.9 seconds | 7.4 - 8.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 - 12.4 | 7.7 - 8.4 | |
|
Mitsubishi 3000 GT petrol engines consumes on average 3.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than Toyota Celica. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.35 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.28 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Mitsubishi 3000 GT is larger, but slightly lower. Mitsubishi 3000 GT is 22 cm longer than the Toyota Celica, 10 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi 3000 GT is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi 3000 GT is 1 metres more than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Mitsubishi 3000 GT can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 25 000 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi 3000 GT has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |