May Car and Driver: 02 Celica slowest [Archive]

msilvia

04-01-2002, 11:33 AM

Yeah. Like he said.

If you people care about drag racing (competitively, against others) so much you all bought the wrong damn car. A 02 Mustang GT would thoroughly beat all those cars in the 1/4... does that make the whole FWD I4/V6 segment an embarrassment?

If you really need to be able to prove the size of your penis by being a few tenths of a second ahead at every stoplight encounter then I suggest you find a musclecar.

The Celi may not be as fast straight line, but if it's still lighter and better handling by all indications, it's still tops AFAIC.

BTW, when's that issue supposed to hit shelves?

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by autxr
Wah.

I wish all you cry babies would shut up and quit yer bitchin.

Autxr,
I own a 2000, so it doesn

Zorn

04-01-2002, 12:14 PM

I didn't find any of autxr's comments insulting - but very factual, someone needs to stop being so sensitive.

autxr

04-01-2002, 12:35 PM

The rev limit makes no difference in the slalom time, the braking distance, the skid pad number, the highway ride, etc. It hurts the 0-60 and 1/4 mile a bit, and the top speed.

The top speed is a non issue to normal drivers who try to keep it within 40 or 50 mph of the speed limit (and on any road course in the US where you would be lucky to see 120 mph).

Someone posted their opinion to start this thread, I posted mine. As for the car being a "worse performer" for 2002, it shouldn't be when magazine racing is involved.

If the 2002 model can rev to 7800 rpm then the auto mags will get the same test numbers, they never did rev it beyond that. Car and Driver has always had crummy acceleration numbers for the GTS (because they shift at the indicated redline, not the inflated fuel cut).

We all get used to the fact the early models will rev to 8400 rpm even though it is clearly marked to redline at 7800. If we drove by the tach the new models are no different than the old ones.

It is curious that they give the Matrix the higher redline. Curious, not the downfall of Toyota, just curious (probably is a marketing decision).

Scott

CelicaDetective

04-01-2002, 12:37 PM

Yes, it performs great in other areas ... just saying that the 2002 is getting 0-60 times mid to upper 7 seconds vs. the original 6.5 for 00 and 01. Plus the redline limited top-speed of 129.

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Zorn
I didn't find any of autxr's comments insulting - but very factual, someone needs to stop being so sensitive.

Hehe. Hmmm...I'm not sure about you, but last time I checked, saying "shut up and quit yer bitching" is insulting. Does a comment like that really contribute any interesting and intelligent ideas to this discussion? Nah, I didn't think so.

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 12:55 PM

Here's something to think about: If Porsche suddenly lowered the straightline acceleration abilities of the 911 as a half-assed and ineffective solution to some alleged problem with the car, or if GM suddenly did the same thing with the Corvette for an equally inane reason, don't you think owners of those cars would be a little ticked off? You better believe it.

Like I said, it doesn't affect me personally one bit, since I have a 2000 GT-S , but I can sympathize with the 2002 owners out there.

SlasherX

04-01-2002, 01:09 PM

so basically i can whup an 02 GT-S at teh track, huh? :D

gtsaction

04-01-2002, 01:12 PM

Tell that to EzRidA, who stomps an RSX, etc... in these vids of his 2002 GTS.

http://www.newcelica.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14554

Brett

04-01-2002, 01:48 PM

Gtsaction - he has intake and exhaust he he said his best track time was like a 15.5 or something?(Correct me if I am wrong) Its cool that he beat them, but its street racing so its not saying much at all.

djm221

04-01-2002, 02:05 PM

Problem is, a lot of the target consumers for these car views the acceleration numbers as one of the most important things in overall performance. Toyota shot themselves in the foot since they make the car slower in a straightline, maybe slower around a track too since there is usable power up to 8,200RPMs. That isn't going to help sell cars to younger people. If only Toyota marketing was as good as their manufacturing :rolleyes:

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by djm221
Problem is, a lot of the target consumers for these car views the acceleration numbers as one of the most important things in overall performance. Toyota shot themselves in the foot since they make the car slower in a straightline, maybe slower around a track too since there is usable power up to 8,200RPMs. That isn't going to help sell cars to younger people. If only Toyota marketing was as good as their manufacturing :rolleyes:

Excellent point. Toyota is very concerned that younger consumers don't buy their cars, yet they make silly moves like this. In addition, they have the opportunity to utilize TRD to help woo younger consumers interested in performance, but they fail to do that, too. No one says this is the downfall of Toyota, but it is very short-sighted on their part.

EzRidA

04-01-2002, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Brett
Gtsaction - he has intake and exhaust he he said his best track time was like a 15.5 or something?(Correct me if I am wrong) Its cool that he beat them, but its street racing so its not saying much at all.

Remember that the 15.5 was my first time ever at the track. Since then I have learned how to launch my car properly. I'm sure I can hit at least a 14.9. Also when I ran the 15.5 at the track I only had a CAI. By the way being in Florida it's not easy to get favorable weather to run. That night was in the low to mid 80's and humidity was 95%. Not exactly prime racing conditions.

You are right however that anything happens in street racing. Personally I feel I showed the a 02' can still represent for Celica's. Let's leave it at that.

-Dan

Edit: For me my I/E makes up for the lack of 500 rpm that I'm missing. So consider me a stock GT-S. If you want to read more go to clubrsx and look for the racing stories.

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by msilvia
Yeah. Like he said.

If you people care about drag racing (competitively, against others) so much you all bought the wrong damn car. A 02 Mustang GT would thoroughly beat all those cars in the 1/4... does that make the whole FWD I4/V6 segment an embarrassment?

If you really need to be able to prove the size of your penis by being a few tenths of a second ahead at every stoplight encounter then I suggest you find a musclecar.

I 've heard this argument before, but I don't agree with it. If Ford somehow downgraded the handling ability of the Mustang GT for some boneheaded reason, I don't think it would make sense to say to pissed-off Stang owners, "Well, if you cared about handling at all, you f'ed up and bought the wrong car."

Hell, if a car is originally capable of better performance, why shouldn't owners be pissed-off if some of that performance was taken from them.

t2000gts

04-01-2002, 04:34 PM

i think the 7800rpm rev limiter hurts the car in all racing.

ESPECIALLY real circuit racing. for one thing, you're shifting out of 3rd at 80mph. that little extra oomph the old GT-S had from 80 to 88mph was probably the most important part in the powerband in terms of acceleration relative to other cars. you can see this difference in '02 GT-S(s) trapping under 90mph sometimes in the quarter mile.

the ET only changed a few tenths, but those mph make a bigger difference on a track. whereas the old GT-S could be very potent in that little range from 75-90mph, especially if you use an overtaking scenario where draft comes into play, it would pick up that ~10mph damn quick. i'd say it's almost a second difference in acceleration from 75 to 90 in the old GTS and 75-90 in the new GT-S. it's equivalent to the difference from going 7800-8300rpm in 3rd, and going through the same speeds but in 4th under 6800rpm.

you've just lost 500rpm of lift there. in a car with a powerband that starts at 6200rpm.

overall lap times would be similar, because driver error is a much much more potent factor, but if you have two equal drivers who know how to drive their celicas, i bet it's quite a noticeable difference.

you got the same problem at the top of 4th which you should hit at some tracks.

the ET of the 2002 GT-S shows the 1->2 shift problem exacerbated, but the trap speeds show that it's not just the 1->2 shift that's being hurt. if i was racing often on tracks, i wouldn't need many modifications to get a good driving experience (as long as i could drive) but top on my list would be a 8500rpm rev limiter, LSD, tires, intake/exhaust, minor suspension work (just some slightly stiffer springs and maybe a strut bar). in that order.

i think the only thing the 02 should still perform as well as (or as bad as ) the '00-'01 in autox.:chuckles:

Coolwheels00

04-01-2002, 07:29 PM

you guys realize that in the article that the Celi was hitting rev limit at 7500, not 7800. Toyota said it was a computer glitch in that particular car. So yes, there 1/4 mile test really sucked. Imagine shifting your Celi at 7500. It's not even at peak hp yet.

kizzy

04-01-2002, 07:41 PM

Toyota did something bad?

Maybe they dropped their Rev Limiter down 500, but in turn it probably saved a ton of money on replacing engines for people who can't drive worth a damn. Remember that above all, Toyota is still a company. It slowed down a car that was causing them a lot of liability issues. They fixed a problem, give them credit. They're still going to be behind their warranty, which is more than Acura/Honda can say. Anyhow, I see what Toyota did in gimping the Rev Lim in '02 as a sound business move, but if you guys don't like it, don't consider buying the car. There are many more cars out there that you can invest a good 23k-25k in... like a 94 Rx-7 Tourin :)

marcus_GTS

04-01-2002, 08:12 PM

you guys realize that in the article that the Celi was hitting rev limit at 7500, not 7800

Yeah, but it is interesting that SCC encountered exactly the same "computer glitch". I suspect that it may actually be cutting off at 7800 rpm, but only showing 7500 on the tach. Factory tachs tend to have pretty poor response time.

ringthree

04-01-2002, 08:33 PM

As usually I totally agree with what Keyshawn said.

Keyshawn

04-01-2002, 08:43 PM

msilvia

04-01-2002, 08:53 PM

I 've heard this argument before, but I don't agree with it. If Ford somehow downgraded the handling ability of the Mustang GT for some boneheaded reason, I don't think it would make sense to say to pissed-off Stang owners, "Well, if you cared about handling at all, you f'ed up and bought the wrong car."

That's very true. But people are acting like Toyota has entirely ruined the Celica somehow. Yeah, it sucks to have it downgraded, but it's also not as if a few extra tenths in the quarter really affects what the Celica seemed to be all about, either.

The level of outrage seems disproportionate to the problem.

Willis5050

04-01-2002, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by kizzy
Toyota did something bad?

Maybe they dropped their Rev Limiter down 500, but in turn it probably saved a ton of money on replacing engines for people who can't drive worth a damn. Remember that above all, Toyota is still a company. It slowed down a car that was causing them a lot of liability issues. They fixed a problem, give them credit. They're still going to be behind their warranty, which is more than Acura/Honda can say. Anyhow, I see what Toyota did in gimping the Rev Lim in '02 as a sound business move, but if you guys don't like it, don't consider buying the car. There are many more cars out there that you can invest a good 23k-25k in... like a 94 Rx-7 Tourin :)

The way I see it, dropping the redline was just a quick bandaid to a rather vague problem. Did toyota give too much credit to American drivers when the car came out? Could the powertrain be designed better? Yes and yes. Personally, I would have liked to have seen if just widening the shift gates would have alleviated much of the problem. But, to strip the performance model of the characteristic that most distinguishes the car from its competition (most of the time) was not the smartest business move. Now the margin between the GT and the GTS becomes narrower, but the price premeium remains the same. If toyota is going to chop off the top of the powerband, they should at least do us the favor of re-engineering the power curves to at least match the performance of the previous version.

Well, this puts me in a strange position. I am in the process of going through arbitration with Toyota with my 2000, and if they offer me a new car, I don't know if I want to take it. Yeah, it will be tough to say goodbye to that 500 rpm, but the principle of the whole situation eats at me too. I guess the GTS will go the way of the SE-R; a good start but then it gradually runs out of steam. I don't know what I am gonna do, but the competition is looking a whole lot more appealing at this point.

Yeah, Toyota is in the business of making money. I have got 5-6 more good cars to buy in my life (probably more), and if toyota loses my support now, all of those cars will be bought from different brands. Good business sense, lose em while they are young, and then have to fight to win them back when they get older.

bxmart9

04-01-2002, 11:01 PM

Yeah, I don't think SCC's car was having any ecu glitches either. Thats just how the 02's are now. I would not buy a new celica. Only a 2000 or 2001. I would rather buy a 99 or 00 si than the 02 celi. the si is just as quick and has a much more boost freindly compression ratio. It's really ticks me off that toyota fuked the celi up like this. Someone better devellop an aftermarket ecu for these cars. If not the celicas future looks very dim to me.

tofu

04-01-2002, 11:12 PM

i have an 02 and i think ive been robbed...i had a 2.0 60ft time and still only ran a 15.4...the trap speed is significantly lower due to the limiter...It was my first time at the track but with the low trap speed i cant improve too much. I bought the car expecting to be able to beat most imports like preludes, gsrs, and other cars in its class but because of the 500 rpms i find myself having trouble keeping up with them. To me, it really suks and i wish i got the 01 model instead even though i still really like my car.

Keyshawn

04-02-2002, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Willis5050

The way I see it, dropping the redline was just a quick bandaid to a rather vague problem. Did toyota give too much credit to American drivers when the car came out? Could the powertrain be designed better? Yes and yes. Personally, I would have liked to have seen if just widening the shift gates would have alleviated much of the problem. But, to strip the performance model of the characteristic that most distinguishes the car from its competition (most of the time) was not the smartest business move. Now the margin between the GT and the GTS becomes narrower, but the price premeium remains the same. If toyota is going to chop off the top of the powerband, they should at least do us the favor of re-engineering the power curves to at least match the performance of the previous version.

Well, this puts me in a strange position. I am in the process of going through arbitration with Toyota with my 2000, and if they offer me a new car, I don't know if I want to take it. Yeah, it will be tough to say goodbye to that 500 rpm, but the principle of the whole situation eats at me too. I guess the GTS will go the way of the SE-R; a good start but then it gradually runs out of steam. I don't know what I am gonna do, but the competition is looking a whole lot more appealing at this point.

Yeah, Toyota is in the business of making money. I have got 5-6 more good cars to buy in my life (probably more), and if toyota loses my support now, all of those cars will be bought from different brands. Good business sense, lose em while they are young, and then have to fight to win them back when they get older.

Virtually every single word in this post reflects my own views about this situation, especially the ideas you expressed in that final paragraph. Very thought-provoking stuff, Willis5050!

cybrpunk

04-02-2002, 03:09 AM

Okay guys,

Here's the real deal on why GT-S owners are pissed...

GT-S w/ 7500rpm rev limiter = A well driven 5spd GT

And that's the plain truth as far as the 2002 GT-S is concerned.

I would be pissed off also if I bought a 2002 GT-S only to realize that a well driven GT can hang with me.

Sorry guys, but if you're not staying in that lift after every shift, your GT-S is just another GT... :)

larryd

04-02-2002, 04:22 AM

no.. its not.. even if the GT can keep up it cant keep up on a highway run.. and regardless.. there aint no feeling like lift :)

jotan82

04-02-2002, 05:17 AM

are there any 14 sec. O2 GTS's out there?

Willis5050

04-02-2002, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Keyshawn

Virtually every single word in this post reflects my own views about this situation, especially the ideas you expressed in that final paragraph. Very thought-provoking stuff, Willis5050!

Thanks Keyshawn!

t2000gts

04-02-2002, 09:11 AM

the '02 tranny does have different gates. if anything, i'd tell them to fix your '00 and put a new tranny in, get best of both worlds :D

racinjason

04-02-2002, 09:19 AM

First off guys. Lowering the fuel cut to 7500 will not stop misshifts. You can still go to 7500 in 3rd gear. Shift for 4th and end up in 2nd. Your still gonna blow the motor regardless if your at 75,78,81 etc. This just makes the driver try harder than before to stay in the lift with even faster and more forceful shifting. I always have shifted between 8,000 and 8,100. No higher. There is no need to. Being able to go higher like in the Matrix definately makes it easier. The "change" Toyota made to the ECU's is definately a big mistake on thier part. And I hope it hurts thier sales. I still do not believe this is the cars fault. Nobody else has a problem with the 6speed anywhere in the world other than the US. I think it's a difference in the driver. This can't always be explained by this as there are good drivers who have misshifted. But I still think it's a lack of training and experience that leads to these problems.

It's also a shame that Toyota won't allow TRD to get more involved with this car. They will build superchargers and everything else for the trucks, and family cars but little for the performance cars. I think they need to get more involved like SVT does for Ford. They actually design the Real performance cars for Ford. They also need to work with the aftermarket more.

Jesse IL

04-02-2002, 10:06 AM

Have you guys thought that lowering the fuel cut by 500 rpm may not be targeted at directly preventing damage? By dropping the rev limit by 500 rpm, the only people you piss off are the people like us who like to drive the car all the way to fuel cut and race really hard. You prevent damage by turning people like us away from buying the car. This also probably decreases the number of people complaining about bad synchros.

Also, my tachometer definitely reads low, by 200 rpm. I've dynoed my car and lift kicks in at 6200 rpm, not 6000 like on the tach. My rev limiter also hits at an indicated 8100 or so rpm.

yakkosmurf

04-02-2002, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by msilvia

If you really need to be able to prove the size of your penis by being a few tenths of a second ahead at every stoplight encounter then I suggest you find a musclecar.

I agree, but it is these morons that you rely on to buy lots of parts to make their car a few tenths faster. That makes the aftermarket support for the car more broad and cheaper since the production runs will be larger. I hate ricers since they give Honda owners who are serious about performance a bad name. Everyone assumes you're a ricer... However, these guys are very responsible for the large assortment of Honda aftermarket parts and the lower price of these items.

yakkosmurf

04-02-2002, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Jesse IL
Have you guys thought that lowering the fuel cut by 500 rpm may not be targeted at directly preventing damage? By dropping the rev limit by 500 rpm, the only people you piss off are the people like us who like to drive the car all the way to fuel cut and race really hard. You prevent damage by turning people like us away from buying the car. This also probably decreases the number of people complaining about bad synchros.

Also, my tachometer definitely reads low, by 200 rpm. I've dynoed my car and lift kicks in at 6200 rpm, not 6000 like on the tach. My rev limiter also hits at an indicated 8100 or so rpm.

Very good thought. I doubt it's the case, but it may be part of the reason.

Btw, what did you dyno at?

EzRidA

04-02-2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by jotan82
are there any 14 sec. O2 GTS's out there?

I hope and think I should be able to. Now I just have to wait for it to stop raining. I might go to moroso tommorow night.

-Dan

Keyshawn

04-02-2002, 12:01 PM

Racinjason,
Excellent points. I agree completely.

Originally posted by racinjason
First off guys. Lowering the fuel cut to 7500 will not stop misshifts. You can still go to 7500 in 3rd gear. Shift for 4th and end up in 2nd. Your still gonna blow the motor regardless if your at 75,78,81 etc. This just makes the driver try harder than before to stay in the lift with even faster and more forceful shifting. I always have shifted between 8,000 and 8,100. No higher. There is no need to. Being able to go higher like in the Matrix definately makes it easier. The "change" Toyota made to the ECU's is definately a big mistake on thier part. And I hope it hurts thier sales. I still do not believe this is the cars fault. Nobody else has a problem with the 6speed anywhere in the world other than the US. I think it's a difference in the driver. This can't always be explained by this as there are good drivers who have misshifted. But I still think it's a lack of training and experience that leads to these problems.

It's also a shame that Toyota won't allow TRD to get more involved with this car. They will build superchargers and everything else for the trucks, and family cars but little for the performance cars. I think they need to get more involved like SVT does for Ford. They actually design the Real performance cars for Ford. They also need to work with the aftermarket more.

gts24

04-02-2002, 12:09 PM

This is such a band aid effect it ain't even funny.

To those of you saying the 1/4 mile time doesn't matter?! Go take a look at clubrsx.com . First I'm not saying I give a rat's ass what they think about my car. But look at what happens. Younger uneducated prospective car buyer, looks at all magazines and see's that the Toyota Celica is gettin it's ass spanked in every single article... WHICH CAR ARE THEY GUNNA BUY?

Yes they should be smarter, and come to places like newcelica.org and get educated on the how's and why's about our car.

But I bet I'm not the only newcelica.org user that has mentioned the site to somebody WITH a celica and they go ---huh???! what's that?

The fact of the matter is , that Toyota will lose sales because of this, and it's just stupid. They'll sell a nasty station wagon with an 8100 rpm red line and yet they sell a sports compact car that has been around as long as Toyota USA with a lower redline and rev limiter.. STUPID AS HELL IF YOU ASK ME.

cybrpunk

04-02-2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by larryd
no.. its not.. even if the GT can keep up it cant keep up on a highway run.. and regardless.. there aint no feeling like lift :)

That's true, but in regards to 0-60mph, and 1/4 mile times, the 2002 GT-S and GT should only be about 2-3 tenths off.

Is the '02 GT-S worth paying $4000 more than a GT for a 3 tenths of a difference? NO WAY!

Atleast you guys get 6spd, aluminum pedals, and good highway acceleration you'll hardly even use. :cool:

msilvia

04-02-2002, 02:08 PM

Go take a look at clubrsx.com . First I'm not saying I give a rat's ass what they think about my car. But look at what happens. Younger uneducated prospective car buyer, looks at all magazines and see's that the Toyota Celica is gettin it's ass spanked in every single article... WHICH CAR ARE THEY GUNNA BUY?

So lemme get this straight... tons of people on this forum are always going on and on about how they hate the typical honda driver, and that they'd never buy a honda cuz it's too ricey or whatever... but now it's bad that all the ignorant 16 year olds with mommy's money aren't running to the Celica? Is that really what you want? You really wanna see riced out Toyotas everywhere with teenagers trying to look all thug at every light?

Obscurity is almost universally a blessing. The things that give you a proliferation of bolt-on stuff and other benefits carry a high price, like Yakko said. For example, the 240SX community right now is kinda collectively cringing over all the SCC/Super Street coverage they're suddenly getting. Most of them liked it better before the sudden and growing influx of JDM/Drift/Initial D posers. There's a sort of morbid deathwatch awaiting the inevitable introduction of the first S13/S14 altezza tails. :)

Is the '02 GT-S worth paying $4000 more than a GT for a 3 tenths of a difference? NO WAY!

Bear in mind that you've gotta throw in power accessories and such for extra on the GT, which eats into the price diff a bit. Also, rear drums.

TRD Liquid Silver

04-02-2002, 06:06 PM

the real reason why they dropped the limit from 8400 to 7700rpms was to protect future mis-shifters. the 00-01 gts that were blowing the motors were spinning between 9600-10,000rpms. the motor is capable of spinning to 9500rpms w/o a problem. by reducing the rev-limit the engine can safely mis-shift @7700rpms and not blow the motor because it would still be spinning within the boundaries of the 2zz-ge 9500rpms.

2000-01 GTS
3rd gear @8300rpms mishift to 2nd and the motor will spin anywhere between 9600-10,000rpms

2002 GTS
3rd gear @7700rpms mis-shift to 2nd and the motor will spin below 9500rpms. the safe point of the 2zz-ge

the matrix on the other hand has wider gates than the 2001-2002 GTS. if you remember the 2001 was the first to get the revised gates cause of the mis-shifters. the 2003 matrix xrs 6speed is so wide that it's almost impossible to mis-shift. this is in comparison to my 2000 GTS..

Keyshawn

04-02-2002, 06:16 PM

Hmmm....where did you get that information about what rpm the engine would land on in a misshift? Also, where did you find out that the 2zz can safely rev to 9500, but not above? I'd like to know more about that. Also, why didn't Toyota just do the same shift gate fix that they did with the Matrix, thus leaving the rev limiter untouched?

Originally posted by TRD Liquid Silver
the real reason why they dropped the limit from 8400 to 7700rpms was to protect future mis-shifters. the 00-01 gts that were blowing the motors were spinning between 9600-10,000rpms. the motor is capable of spinning to 9500rpms w/o a problem. by reducing the rev-limit the engine can safely mis-shift @7700rpms and not blow the motor because it would still be spinning within the boundaries of the 2zz-ge 9500rpms.

2000-01 GTS
3rd gear @8300rpms mishift to 2nd and the motor will spin anywhere between 9600-10,000rpms

2002 GTS
3rd gear @7700rpms mis-shift to 2nd and the motor will spin below 9500rpms. the safe point of the 2zz-ge

the matrix on the other hand has wider gates than the 2001-2002 GTS. if you remember the 2001 was the first to get the revised gates cause of the mis-shifters. the 2003 matrix xrs 6speed is so wide that it's almost impossible to mis-shift. this is in comparison to my 2000 GTS..

TRD Liquid Silver

04-02-2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Keyshawn
Hmmm....where did you get that information about what rpm the engine would land on in a misshift? Also, where did you find out that the 2zz can safely rev to 9500, but not above? I'd like to know more about that. Also, why didn't Toyota just do the same shift gate fix that they did with the Matrix, thus leaving the rev limiter untouched?

from all the blown motors we have in the service dept. all cars have a black box that can determine what gear and speed the mis-shifted occured. the factory service rep who looks over warranty issues on toyota's is the one that explained the safe point of the 2zz-ge.

i don't know why they didn't use the gates of the matrix on the 2002. one thing about the 6 speed Matrix after i drove it. it's a lot easier to keep on the 2nd cam on the 1-2 shift. even kleeftonsi who drove my car and a 2002 gts couldn't keep the 2nd cam, but on the matrix he was landing between 6-6200rpms on every 1-2 shift. go figure..

Keyshawn

04-02-2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by TRD Liquid Silver

i don't know why they didn't use the gates of the matrix on the 2002. one thing about the 6 speed Matrix after i drove it. it's a lot easier to keep on the 2nd cam on the 1-2 shift. even kleeftonsi who drove my car and a 2002 gts couldn't keep the 2nd cam, but on the matrix he was landing between 6-6200rpms on every 1-2 shift. go figure..

Sounds like that would've been the perfect solution to the misshift dilemma, instead of all that lower rev-limit crap they pulled. I wonder why Toyota did not see that.

Chui

04-02-2002, 09:07 PM

Good points all. I see both sides of the debate and I agree with both sides. autxr thinks like I do: handling, braking, the 'feel' of the driver experience when you push the car. While I'm not a big autocrosser I attend when I get a day or two notice.

Most people are more into "the numbers" which invariably are straight line figures like 0 to 60 [TOTALLY USELESS] and 1/4 mile. What they've done would NOT stop me from buying one, though. Why? For the very reasons that autxr mentioned. Is it worth $4k more than a GT? Not if you're an autocrosser. It may be the setup to have actually.

The only downside is that it was touted as an ITR competitor and now it's demasculated somewhat - on public blvds, at least. It still brakes, steers and corners as well as it always did and for that I'm happy.

gts24

04-02-2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by msilvia

So lemme get this straight... tons of people on this forum are always going on and on about how they hate the typical honda driver, and that they'd never buy a honda cuz it's too ricey or whatever... but now it's bad that all the ignorant 16 year olds with mommy's money aren't running to the Celica? Is that really what you want? You really wanna see riced out Toyotas everywhere with teenagers trying to look all thug at every light?

Obscurity is almost universally a blessing. The things that give you a proliferation of bolt-on stuff and other benefits carry a high price, like Yakko said. For example, the 240SX community right now is kinda collectively cringing over all the SCC/Super Street coverage they're suddenly getting. Most of them liked it better before the sudden and growing influx of JDM/Drift/Initial D posers. There's a sort of morbid deathwatch awaiting the inevitable introduction of the first S13/S14 altezza tails.

Honestly, yes. I'd love to see more sales of this car. Simply because the more that are on the road, the more possibility I have for aftermarket parts and modifications. I dunno, I definitely hear what you are saying and I don't want a buncha riced out Celica's runnin around.
I dunno, it's just a stupid move in general by Toyota. I know this car isn't for straight line speed, but It was holding it's own for those that wanted to have some fun with it ,,, in the straight line. Now it's just a joke in a way. :(

larryd

04-02-2002, 10:05 PM

i think that the reason they lowered the redline in the 02 GTS is to deter people from running the car to redline and causing problems with the engine just being beat on and then to inhibit racing in one way or another to prevent mis shifts.. the only problem with this logic is take my mis shift when I did it.. 4th to 3rd at 110mph @ 8300rpms.. say I was only at 7700 rpms.. that would still be over 100mph and 3rd or 2nd cant hold that so thats still an overrev situation..

cybrpunk

04-02-2002, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by msilvia
Bear in mind that you've gotta throw in power accessories and such for extra on the GT, which eats into the price diff a bit. Also, rear drums.

I beg to differ!

I, and most GT owners can get a fully loaded 5spd GT for under $19,000. Spoiler, power windows, doors, moon roof...the works!

Plus, I even did my own Drum-to-disc conversion on my GT. I'm the very first person to have 4 wheel disc brakes on a 2000 GT with pics to prove it! (sorry, just a little proud of that accomplishment :) )

Fully loaded 5spd GT $18,500

Ingen CAI $230

Drum-to-disc conversion with C/D rotors, HP pads, and braided brake lines $1,600

GT-S aluminum pedals $97
-----------------------------------------------Toatal = $20,427

Fully loaded '02 GT-S $24,200
My fully loaded GTw/ extras $20,427
-------------------------------------------------Differene = $3773

So in conclusion, Would you pay $4000 more for a '02 GT-S?
HELL NO! :)

eDriXxxX

04-03-2002, 01:21 AM

I think another stupid thing is that Toyota never said anything about changes..they said that 00-02 were exactly alike..which was why i decided to buy the 02, thinking that it was exactly the same in every way..but that it'd have a higher resale value..but what do i get when i finally break it in and starting mashing it? fuel cut-off which, to me it seems, kicks in before 7800...which really takes away from the enjoyment of driving the car. Its not only that it cant compete with the other cars in its class now, in terms of straight line acceleration, but you really have to watch your tach, and becareful to shift before 7600 or else your car stutters. They take away from the performance of the car, and they charge even more for it. Its not a matter of racing, since im not an avid "street racer" but it just really sucks ass to do that to us.

daSchtick

04-03-2002, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by cybrpunk

I beg to differ!

I, and most GT owners can get a fully loaded 5spd GT for under $19,000. Spoiler, power windows, doors, moon roof...the works!

Plus, I even did my own Drum-to-disc conversion on my GT. I'm the very first person to have 4 wheel disc brakes on a 2000 GT with pics to prove it! (sorry, just a little proud of that accomplishment :) )

Fully loaded 5spd GT $18,500

Ingen CAI $230

Drum-to-disc conversion with C/D rotors, HP pads, and braided brake lines $1,600

GT-S aluminum pedals $97
-----------------------------------------------Toatal = $20,427

Fully loaded '02 GT-S $24,200
My fully loaded GTw/ extras $20,427
-------------------------------------------------Differene = $3773

So in conclusion, Would you pay $4000 more for a '02 GT-S?
HELL NO! :)

Your not comparing apples to apples, my friend. You have compared a GT transaction price to GT-S MSRP. Well, if you figure what you can get a GT-S for (I got my 2001 GT-S, 6M fully loaded minus side airbags for 21,800), we are only $1600 apart (I deducted your CAI).

For $1600, I've got 40 HP on you no matter how you cut it, 16" wheels, leather, and a nice red "GT-S" badge on the back of my car, which helps resale value. $1600 well spent IMO. If you compare numbers without your rear disc brake conversion, the difference becomes $3200, but now I have rear discs on you also.

Out of curiosity, I visited edmunds.com, and priced out both cars loaded (minus action package - both cars, minus side air bags - GT-S), and the results become even more favorable.

If you compare MSRP to MSRP, a loaded GT, 5M = $21,480
plus your 'extras':
Drum-to-disc conversion with C/D rotors, HP pads, and braided brake lines $1,600
GT-S aluminum pedals $97
now adds up to $23,177.

A loaded GT-S is $24,395.

Now you see grasshopper, the 'real' difference at MSRP is only $1218.

Come into the light my friend.

daSchtick

04-03-2002, 05:07 AM

BTW, where is my May issue of Car and Driver? I keep checking my mail, but it's never there! I'll bet it's in the men's room at the post office. :confused: I tought I saw a new Tiburon there!

cybrpunk

04-03-2002, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by daSchtick

Your not comparing apples to apples, my friend. You have compared a GT transaction price to GT-S MSRP. Well, if you figure what you can get a GT-S for (I got my 2001 GT-S, 6M fully loaded minus side airbags for 21,800), we are only $1600 apart (I deducted your CAI).

For $1600, I've got 40 HP on you no matter how you cut it, 16" wheels, leather, and a nice red "GT-S" badge on the back of my car, which helps resale value. $1600 well spent IMO. If you compare numbers without your rear disc brake conversion, the difference becomes $3200, but now I have rear discs on you also.

Out of curiosity, I visited edmunds.com, and priced out both cars loaded (minus action package - both cars, minus side air bags - GT-S), and the results become even more favorable.

If you compare MSRP to MSRP, a loaded GT, 5M = $21,480
plus your 'extras':
Drum-to-disc conversion with C/D rotors, HP pads, and braided brake lines $1,600
GT-S aluminum pedals $97
now adds up to $23,177.

A loaded GT-S is $24,395.

Now you see grasshopper, the 'real' difference at MSRP is only $1218.

Come into the light my friend.

Oh well,
I guess that red "GT-S" badge is worth $1218 more to most people.

The point im trying to say is that most people on this board are more concerned about stright line performance then overall performance.

This lower rev limiter changed the playing field a little now.
It went from,

GT-S vs. Type-R -to- GT-S vs. '00 Civic Si

the '02 GT-S will barely crawl by the Si in highway speeds like the Si does the GT. You'll only see the difference after 100+ mph. I say this from several experiences with Si's. That's past the 1/4 mile on all 3 cars stock!

Appreciate the GT-S for what it is.

yakkosmurf

04-03-2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by cybrpunk

This lower rev limiter changed the playing field a little now.
It went from,

GT-S vs. Type-R -to- GT-S vs. '00 Civic Si

Very true. The GSR owners are laughing now too.

autxr

04-03-2002, 01:10 PM

The point im trying to say is that most people on this board are more concerned about stright line performance then overall performance.

Ignorance is bliss.

CelicaDetective

04-03-2002, 01:27 PM

A balance of straight line performance and handling and braking is key. I would put speed as one of the more important characteristics. If it's a SLOW car, I don't care if it does awesome on the skidpad, BUt I DO care about handling. If you can't accelerate then you just plain suck.

Mike

daSchtick

04-03-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by cybrpunk

The point im trying to say is that most people on this board are more concerned about stright line performance then overall performance.

Appreciate the GT-S for what it is.

Agreed. Not to sound snobbish, but I don't really care what the findings are for the new model, as it does not affect my cutoff, or change how my particular car performs. In fact, I wouldn't care if the whole line disappeared for 2003. I would still like my car just the same.

I also agree that too many people focus primarily on acceleration, not the package as a whole. I bought the car based on the combination of it's acceleration, extremely nimble handling, braking, styling, features, mileage, ultility, and reliability. If you want a car that is faster than the GT-S, then you are looking at the wrong car. The GT-S is far from the fastest car out there, and with the power band located so high in the RPM range, it will not be a great drag racer either. But if you "appreciate the GT-S for what it is", a nimble, fun, economy sport hatch that can be driven hard daily, and not drain your wallet, you will realize that it is a good combination of strengths. Remeber, the Celica is based on the Corolla platform also, so economy is inherently a part of the mix.

If acceleration is your primary goal, then a high performance 6 cylinder (no Slasher, I said high-performance :)), or V8 is what you need. But you will pay a penalty in other areas due to increased weight, reduced fuel economy, and probably higher insurance and maintainance costs.

ArtmanTRD

04-03-2002, 10:35 PM

Crap I hate my car. I paid like $26,000 for my 2002 GTS. Im young, and I personally hate toyota with a passion now. I will never buy from those jerks again. I hate you Toyota sooooo much, im gonna put a bullet in my head.

bxmart9

04-03-2002, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by eDriXxxX
I think another stupid thing is that Toyota never said anything about changes..they said that 00-02 were exactly alike..which was why i decided to buy the 02, thinking that it was exactly the same in every way..but that it'd have a higher resale value..but what do i get when i finally break it in and starting mashing it? fuel cut-off which, to me it seems, kicks in before 7800...which really takes away from the enjoyment of driving the car. Its not only that it cant compete with the other cars in its class now, in terms of straight line acceleration, but you really have to watch your tach, and becareful to shift before 7600 or else your car stutters. They take away from the performance of the car, and they charge even more for it. Its not a matter of racing, since im not an avid "street racer" but it just really sucks ass to do that to us.

Yeah, raelly shi**y of toyota, I feel sorry for all the people that don't even realize they have a lower rev limit in their brand new car. A celica is more expensive than the matrix, and people pay more money for the performance that the celica offers over the matrix only to be screwed out of it. I think it's really shady how toyota says there are no changes. I'm suprised that people aren't trying to sue them for this.

eDriXxxX

04-03-2002, 11:18 PM

I agree with those who say that they bought the celica not because of straight line performance, but because of the whole package...handling, fuel economy, styling..and so on. So did I..but at the same time thinking that i would be getting the performance that i paid for, not a premature rev limiter, that limits the already lacking power of the celica. I think widening the shift gates was enough..i have never misshifted and i always find the correct gears, but i constantly have to pay attention to my tach since the fuel cutoff goes off so early. If anyone has figured out a way to fix this, please let us know! Im bringing my car in to the dealer this weekend, and i plan to ask them about it..not that i expect them to know anything about it. What toyota did, to me, doesnt seem like a fix but more like a nuisance.

Keyshawn

04-04-2002, 06:52 AM

Regardless of what type of performance the Celica is built for, downgrading any part of that performance sucks for 2002 owners. I don't blame 'em at all for being pissed, especially when 2000-2001 models are rolling around with ALL the capabilities that this car was MEANT to have. Yeah, it wasn't designed to be a straight line car like a Mustang, but it WAS designed to out-acclerate GSR's and Si's and get high 14's, low 15's in the quarter mile. It no longer does that.

To tell you the truth, it sucks EVEN MORE for Toyota, and the reputation it was trying to build for the Celica as a compact performance car. What do you think the average person is more likely to look at when reading a review in a car mag; 0-60 and 1/4 times, or slalom times and braking? Of course, enthusiasts would see that acceleration ain't the whole package, but guess what. There are a helluva lot more average car buyers than there are enthusiasts. Toyota just lost a whole lotta sales for themselves.

yakkosmurf

04-04-2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by bxmart9

I'm suprised that people aren't trying to sue them for this.
One what grounds. The stats on both cars are provided by Toyota and readily available. A test drive of both cars will show the differences too. What are you going to sue about? If you don't like the way the 2002 GTS performs, then don't buy one. You can't sue because they won't sell the product exactly as you want it. They are not being deceitful about how things are.

msilvia

04-04-2002, 08:37 AM

Sounds to me like they're being very deceitful. Haven't they claimed in two magazines now that the sudden 7500 fuel cutoff was just an odd glitch? And I thought they had never admitted (anywhere, ever) that they changed a thing on the 2002?

I don't know what damages you could sue for... except maybe to say that the redline being higher than the fuel cutoff advertises something other than what you bought, but that wouldn't be much of a case.

What I'm really surprised people aren't doing is organizing a letter writing campaign - not to Toyota, but to every magazine being told the rev issues are an isolated glitch. Especially a few from the site admins and such on official nc.org letterhead, backed by lots of follow up members from other Celica owners. Toyota dealers won't care how much you guys whine about this, but if you generate some actual bad press in a mag like C&D - especially if it shows that Toyota has been basically lying to its customers and the reviewing mags - then you may be able to get a change in 2003 at least. Better yet, maybe a recall/TSB/dealer fix for the "glitch" on all 2002s, since that would be potentially the only way Toyota could end up not looking criminal.

Keyshawn

04-04-2002, 08:44 AM

I was thinking that same thing, msilvia. Turning this concern into a form of action such as a letter campaign to the car mags is a worthwhile idea. It ain't whining if people do something to try to change the situation.

CelicaDetective

04-04-2002, 09:10 AM

Maybe it was a glitch. Since 2 *major* magazines have reported it, more are to follow, and I am sure that Toyota is reading.

The fact that the Hyandia Tiburon can beat the Celica GTS is a straight line because of the rev limiter should cause Toyota to evasively correct the problem - and better yet, offer a higher level of trim to make up for the bad error. The car's main target was to fight the Integra. Now there's the RSX. And it doesn't even battle the Integra with that rev limiter issue.

I give Toyota till model year 2003 to fix the problem, then I will take my business elsewhere if they do not.

M

yakkosmurf

04-04-2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by CelicaDetective
The fact that the Hyandia Tiburon can beat the Celica GTS is a straight line because of the rev limiter should cause Toyota to evasively correct the problem - and better yet, offer a higher level of trim to make up for the bad error.
This is not really a fair statement. Hyundai has made the Tib much better lately. That as much as anything is why it's faster than the 02 GTS. The gains by the 03 Tib are much greater than the losses by the 02 GTS.

Keyshawn

04-04-2002, 12:58 PM

I doubt Toyota will do anything until the consumers themselves make some noise about it. Our money is what is most important to them.

Originally posted by CelicaDetective
Maybe it was a glitch. Since 2 *major* magazines have reported it, more are to follow, and I am sure that Toyota is reading.

The fact that the Hyandia Tiburon can beat the Celica GTS is a straight line because of the rev limiter should cause Toyota to evasively correct the problem - and better yet, offer a higher level of trim to make up for the bad error. The car's main target was to fight the Integra. Now there's the RSX. And it doesn't even battle the Integra with that rev limiter issue.

I give Toyota till model year 2003 to fix the problem, then I will take my business elsewhere if they do not.

M

yakkosmurf

04-05-2002, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Keyshawn
I doubt Toyota will do anything until the consumers themselves make some noise about it. Our money is what is most important to them.

Your money is a small drop in the bucket. They don't sell nearly as many Celicas as they do Camrys and SUVs. Also the profit margin on the Camry and SUV is much higher. Selling a few less Celicas is not going to make them notice much. Besides, the percentage of Celica owners that care about the rev limiter issue is a definite minority. 75% of Celica owners aren't that performance minded. Would you not agree that most of the ones you see around your town are not driven by car enthusiasts? Just trying to provide perspective.

daSchtick

04-05-2002, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

Your money is a small drop in the bucket. They don't sell nearly as many Celicas as they do Camrys and SUVs. Also the profit margin on the Camry and SUV is much higher. Selling a few less Celicas is not going to make them notice much. Besides, the percentage of Celica owners that care about the rev limiter issue is a definite minority. 75% of Celica owners aren't that performance minded. Would you not agree that most of the ones you see around your town are not driven by car enthusiasts? Just trying to provide perspective.

This is true. I never see any modified Celicas where I live, but lots of stock ones, and of those, most are GT's. Most people just buy the car and use it, just as they would with any appliance. They buy it for it's styling, and it's "Toyota" nameplate.

The people on this board are defintely a minority of Celica owners. Our car is one of our hobbies, and as with any hobby, we focus much more on it than the average owner. I'd venture to say that 95% of Celica owners don't even realize this is an issue.

Keyshawn

04-05-2002, 07:15 AM

Great points, yakko. However, I think that most people that buy a Celica have at least a passing or slight interest in performance, at least enough to look at the acceleration times in a mag. If they weren't at least interested in "looking like someone" who wants a performance car, they wouldn't be shopping for a Celica in the first place. Instead, they'd be looking at cars that have more interior space, better gas mileage, and are more practical for the same price. Instead of a GT, they'd get a more practical Civic or Corolla. Instead of GT-S, they'd look at an Accord or Camry.

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

Your money is a small drop in the bucket. They don't sell nearly as many Celicas as they do Camrys and SUVs. Also the profit margin on the Camry and SUV is much higher. Selling a few less Celicas is not going to make them notice much. Besides, the percentage of Celica owners that care about the rev limiter issue is a definite minority. 75% of Celica owners aren't that performance minded. Would you not agree that most of the ones you see around your town are not driven by car enthusiasts? Just trying to provide perspective.

yakkosmurf

04-05-2002, 07:54 AM

Keyshawn,

I have to agree with daSchtick on this one. I think his 95% might be a little high, but it's somewhere between 75% and 95%. The majority of Celica owners aren't interested in the level of performance that's affected by the rev limiter. I know two female GTS owners myself who love driving their car, but don't ever push it to the redline. (Both drive 2000 6-speeds by the way). Maybe the 95% number isn't so far off after all.

I'm not trying to discourage you from attempting to get Toyota to change the rev limiter. I think they've messed up a very capable performer. The 2000 GTS suffers from too narrow a powerband, and they just made the problem worse. Good luck in getting some action on this, but I just don't realistically see it happening.

gts24

04-05-2002, 08:37 AM

In all of this, let's start discussing this.

Why the hell does the XRS Matrix and Vibe GT have an 8100 rpm redline?

I mean, if Toyota took steps to guard against misshifts in this car, maybe thats why. (what steps and how though?!)

OR

It's just some stupid strategy to get people sucker punched into reading the first round of reviews (which of course will promote better times), buying the car, then they'll pull a fast one and lower the rev limiter later on in the model years.

This point has me fuming. I love the Celica and I just don't see what Toyota is thinking by doing this crap.

Keyshawn

04-05-2002, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
Keyshawn,

I'm not trying to discourage you from attempting to get Toyota to change the rev limiter. I think they've messed up a very capable performer. The 2000 GTS suffers from too narrow a powerband, and they just made the problem worse. Good luck in getting some action on this, but I just don't realistically see it happening.

Understood, yakko. It's probably a longshot. But you know me. I don't give up easily. Thank you for your insight on this topic.

msilvia

04-05-2002, 08:44 AM

Yakko,

I agree that the bottom line on the celica doesn't make much of a difference, which is why I suggested that bad press may be more effective. C&D drivers are a minority too, but automakers do care quite a bit about what is printed in those magazines. Ultimately, any bad press that brings to light how shady Toyota has been with the Celica will reflect on the rest of the brand, so it's more likely to be worth Toyota's notice. They have a very carefully constructed reputation that's worth more than any current line they have going.

Willis5050

04-05-2002, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by gts24
In all of this, let's start discussing this.

Why the hell does the XRS Matrix and Vibe GT have an 8100 rpm redline?

I mean, if Toyota took steps to guard against misshifts in this car, maybe thats why. (what steps and how though?!)

OR

It's just some stupid strategy to get people sucker punched into reading the first round of reviews (which of course will promote better times), buying the car, then they'll pull a fast one and lower the rev limiter later on in the model years.

This point has me fuming. I love the Celica and I just don't see what Toyota is thinking by doing this crap.

My guess to that whole issue is that the Matrix/Vibe had final design specs ready before the whole Celica debacle came about. It is probably a different design team, in perhaps a different location who really didn't know the celica situation as it was happening. Heck nobody would know if it weren't for the rags and us enthusiasts. The communication between teams was probably either very understated or even nonexistant. So, the Matrix/Vibe just went to production without these funny and very specialized "modifications" that were performed on the Celica. Stranger things have happened in the bellies of big businesses.

yakkosmurf

04-05-2002, 09:32 AM

Very good point. I didn't think of that, but this is a perfectly reasonable explanation. In any company, communication between groups working on similar, yet different projects is frequently non-existent.

SlasherX

04-05-2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by daSchtick

I also agree that too many people focus primarily on acceleration, not the package as a whole. I bought the car based on the combination of it's acceleration, extremely nimble handling, braking, styling, features, mileage, ultility, and reliability. If you want a car that is faster than the GT-S, then you are looking at the wrong car. The GT-S is far from the fastest car out there, and with the power band located so high in the RPM range, it will not be a great drag racer either. But if you "appreciate the GT-S for what it is", a nimble, fun, economy sport hatch that can be driven hard daily, and not drain your wallet, you will realize that it is a good combination of strengths. Remeber, the Celica is based on the Corolla platform also, so economy is inherently a part of the mix.

If acceleration is your primary goal, then a high performance 6 cylinder (no Slasher, I said high-performance :)), or V8 is what you need. But you will pay a penalty in other areas due to increased weight, reduced fuel economy, and probably higher insurance and maintainance costs.

Agree 100%

DeadOn

04-06-2002, 12:04 AM

Because of the lower fuel cut off, my guess is that the test drivers have to do a 2nd-3rd shift to hit 60 mph - I think 60 mph is like 7800-7900 rpms. This is probably the bulk of the increased time. I wonder what a 0-55 mph time or a 0-80 mph tome would compare with a 00 or 01.

I think the 1/4 mile times also require an additional shift in a similar fashion. It is interesting that there doesn't seem to be as much difference in the 1/4 mile times between the 00 & 02 celicas, as the 0-60 mph I have seen.

What I'm saying is the additionAL SHIFT POINT PROBABLY PLAYS MORE OF A ROLE IN THE TIMES THAN THE EXTRA 300-400 RPM THAT YPU LAND CLOSER TO LIFT.

Anybody got any other opinions on this?

autxr

04-06-2002, 06:04 AM

Dead On has an interesting point, and for 0-60 that is probably very true. The 1/4 mile will still require the same number of shifts, I was always grabbing 4th at the end of the run, but nowhere near 5th (90 mph).

SpectraBlueGTS

04-06-2002, 07:10 AM

I would almost have to disagree with the point toyota won't listen.. this car was made for one reason to bring Youth back to toyota.. though it isn't a high margin car its sole purpose was to get a younger gen looking at toyota.. if toyota doesn't respond to the youth about this problem ( assuming they actaully bring it up to toyota) then they loose their target market more than likely for good.. which means the car to them was useless.. I for one would find it VERY difficult to ever buy from toyota if I felt shafted in this fashion.. they should respond to the target market for it is THIER future. we can take thier cars or leave their cars.. we will go with the Company that responds to us.. and makes cars for us.. the intention was to bring the biggest future markets back to them GEN X and GEN Y. they know what we want but we as a market must get them to do it and I think the only way to do it is complain as a body. remember the average age of a toyota buyer is 48. they want the average age to be back down in the late 20s and early 30s so that they keep selling thier cars. that is a big reason why Scion is coming as well. they will listen if we got together collectively. I thought toyota was one of the best cars on the road (they are) and I loved my Celica but Toyota has to do something about the way the service departments treat kids as well.. because I felt when my syncros went out that they blamed it all on me and didn't want to service my car. EVEN though it was in thier books that i had come in 3 or 4 times before for a mis adjusted Clutch cause It wasn't fully disengaging. sometimes at stop lights the car would start to pull forward by itself and I would actaully have to push it INTO the floor board carpet farther ot get it not to.. and after all that I STILL paid for a clutch. Because of the Service I would find it hard to ever get another toyota. The service department treated it as if there is NO way a toyota could ever have a problem so it had to be caused by me. they only replaced 1st and 2nd syncros even though I told them 3rd and 4 also grinded sometimes. well 3rd and 4 started to go out later so I decided it wasn't worth the fight and traded it on the Spec V. the reason I say they may listen to us is because they are fixing the missshift problem for most people WHY would they do that and Acura wouldn't? well because they want to keep the market they have given this car too very badly.. so if we got together on the 2002 issue I bet they would respond. :) anyway my 02 cents worth..

Sean
Black Spec V
Traded Spectra Blue GT-S 00 6 spd

yakkosmurf

04-08-2002, 09:58 AM

I disagree. You don't bring the youth back with a $23000 car. You make a real performance version of the Corolla to compete with the Civic crowd. That's where most of the youth is. Down in the teens.

Chui

04-09-2002, 03:59 AM

Good points, DeadOn, autxr and Yakko. Has anyone thought that perhaps SCC and MT used the identical car?

0 to 60 is a near useless metric anyway. Who cares if you have to shift again? I want the best overall acceleration not the best gearing for a metric that I NEVER use anyway. We've allowed ourselves to be bamboozled with all these objective metrics. I don't care as much about my 0 to 60 times, lateral acceleration and brake distances as much as I do the feedback the machine offers and how it responds when I exceed whatever those objective limits are. It's all about exciting, SAFE, FUN, guys.

And much more importantly, not more than 1% of the population has a clue how to effectively use the performance offered in this marketing segment. I'm sorry, but I have to side with autxr on this one.

daSchtick

04-09-2002, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by daSchtick
BTW, where is my May issue of Car and Driver? I keep checking my mail, but it's never there! I'll bet it's in the men's room at the post office. :confused: I tought I saw a new Tiburon there!

Okay, the mailman is done reading my "May" issue, and finally delivered it, and after reading the entire article, I thought that they summed up the car pretty well, and 2nd place isn't so bad. We need to conceed that the RSX does have a better overall power curve, cpu 'glitch' not included, and is more friendly to daily use for 'average' drivers. Everyone is so concerned that it had the slowest 0-60, but it seems that must have been the only thing many of you read, and the last time I checked, 7.3 was pretty quick, especially for a car with a 'glitch'. But for those of you want to 'spec race', how about the skidpad and braking - those were by far the best. The Celica does demand driver involvement, and is not the best choice for a road trip, but for a enthusiast who doesn't mind working for some good power, a class-leading chassis, style, and economy, it is a decent choice. If 0-60 is truly your only measure of peformance and fun, you better grab your woman and your club, leave your cave, and head to your local bowtie dealer - your Camaro is waiting for you, but you'd better hurry. A Grandma driving an LS1 slushbox could smoke ANY of our Celicas, modded or not, any day of the week - don't kid yourselves!

Actually, I think VW has been dealt a disappointing hand. In the last (2) comparos, this one, and the "Hot Hatch" article from a couple of months back - they came in dead last, even though they were equipped with the 1.8T, and turned in some impressive numbers. In this article, I can somewhat understand the last place finish, as the Beetle doesn't even "look fast", and the chassis, suspension, and ergonomics are not up to supporting the power plant. But in the "Hot Hatch" article, the GTI turned in some impressive numbers, got high marks for quality, but was bumped to last by it's body roll (even though it handled good), and sloppy shifter (a VW hallmark). It was bested by the new Civic si (2nd), which had lackluster performance, and the Focus (1st), which handles well and had great road feel, but was considerably weaker in the power area.

There is so much more to driving dynamics than JUST 0-60. Yes, I would never buy a 'performance' car that ran 0-60 in 10 seconds, no matter how perfect it performed in all other categories. But I would consider a car like the Focus SVT, which is around 8.

Keyshawn

04-09-2002, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
I disagree. You don't bring the youth back with a $23000 car. You make a real performance version of the Corolla to compete with the Civic crowd. That's where most of the youth is. Down in the teens.

Not so sure about that. The previous gen Integra GSR (and Type R), which helped cement Acura's/Honda's place with young import enthusiasts, was always a low to mid $20,000 car.

Keyshawn

04-09-2002, 07:31 AM

I definitely considered that SCC and C&D used the same car. However, if it really was a car with an ECU "glitch", Toyota would've swapped it for a "fully functional" Celica right away. Why would Toyota let a defective car represent them in a nationally published car review?

Anyway, 0-60 IS a somewhat useful real world measure, since that approximates the speed one needs to reach when getting on the freeway from a stop on an on-ramp. Of course, no one is gonna go all out and spin their tires trying to reach the speed limit on the freeway, but 0-60 times gives some idea of how quickly a car can do this. 50-70 passing times are also useful for a similar reason.

Also, 60-0 braking distances give consumers an idea of how well a car would stop and avoid an accident, especially on the freeway.

Originally posted by Chui
Good points, DeadOn, autxr and Yakko. Has anyone thought that perhaps SCC and MT used the identical car?

0 to 60 is a near useless metric anyway. Who cares if you have to shift again? I want the best overall acceleration not the best gearing for a metric that I NEVER use anyway. We've allowed ourselves to be bamboozled with all these objective metrics. I don't care as much about my 0 to 60 times, lateral acceleration and brake distances as much as I do the feedback the machine offers and how it responds when I exceed whatever those objective limits are. It's all about exciting, SAFE, FUN, guys.

And much more importantly, not more than 1% of the population has a clue how to effectively use the performance offered in this marketing segment. I'm sorry, but I have to side with autxr on this one.