Edmunds Comparo - the Celica came in 3rd overall, but read the comments!

[daSchtick]

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/article.html

I came across this comparo, and although the Celica came in 3rd overall, it was by far the best performer. The things that hurt the overall rating were a high noise level, poor visibility, and lack of features.

"Even the editors' evaluations of individual performance attributes read like a Hollywood awards show. Best suspension? Toyota Celica. Best Steering? Toyota Celica. Best brakes? (Dramatic pause) Toyota Celica. Would the lead engineer of the Celica's underpinnings please take a bow?"

"So armed, the Celica feels like the Jackie Chan of the group, going off mad-crazy kung-fu-style on the dim-witted Eclipse and Cougar. On canyon roads, this 2,500-pound welterweight tightly arcs through corners with minimal body roll. The steering is very quick and precise without being twitchy, and the thick three-spoke steering wheel rim fits naturally in your hands. Reducing speed is a simple matter of squeezing the powerful brakes; 60-to-0 stops take a mere 116 feet."

"Snag a Celica GT-S, drive it like you hate it, and you won't be disappointed."

-Nick

[yakkosmurf]

After driving the RSX-S, I too felt the Celica was the better performer. I didn't pay much attention to the other stuff though.

[Keyshawn]

This was a good review. Performance-wise, the Celica dominated, as it does in other comparisons of this kind (like the one in the December 2001 Motor Trend). The only reasons it finished third behind the RSX and VW Golf are reasons that I either disagree with or don't give a rat's ass about. Among the gripes are:

1. It has a cheap-looking interior (I totally disagree).
2. It has bad rear-seat room (I don't care about how much room my rear seats have).
3. It's styling is too edgy for some (For some old fogeys or dainty women).
4. Not enough comfort-related options (This is a sport coupe, not a family or luxury car).

The one thing I did agree with was the fact that the Celi needs more LOW-END torque. If this car came with the 200 hp 2.0 liter engine that was originally planned, it would have no equal in its class.

Oh, I'll end with a quote from Edmund's review that really hyped me up:

" If this car had a limited-slip front differential (like the old Acura Integra Type R had), it would be nearly unstoppable."


Hell fukin yeah!!!

[rikig]

also if you look at the fastest lap time for the celica, it is faster than the average lap time for the bullitt mustang gt. Pretty decent for a car with 85 less hp, and less than half the torque. ANd we beat the RSX by a whole second, even though they have us in the straight line department.


http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/page020.html

also, if you check out the editor's evaluations page the celica wins in the steering, braking, suspension, tires, and fun to drive categories.

I wonder how they gave the vw gti 2nd place. Especially if performance is the main factor in judging sports coupes. It did take 16.5 seconds to run a 1/4.

[djm221]

At least they stopped comparing it to BMWs like they would in reviews last year. Only took them two years to realize that, gee, the Celica is pretty darn good in it's class. And they actually got respectible times from it. Guess all those emails from people telling them how to drive it sunk in, "...but a few hundred extra revs can be gained until the limiter kicks in"

This review just confirms all the reasons I chose the Celica, and am very happy with it.

[FriedRice]

eh..... GTI? i thought they said that looks were important... and yea..... celica has enuff creature comforts.... we dont need spring loaded toilet paper dispensers now do we? :rolleyes:

[t2000gts]

at least they finally listened to all the e-mails telling them that the fuel cutoff is at 8300rpm :)

[Brett]

Finally some fame! heh.. some what... I agree with most everything said, but like others, I really dont care for rear back seat space. I dont think anyone buying a coupe is. if they are they are gonna hate it. Plus the front has very good room. Very comfy ride IMO. I enjoy the noise too :). But from their perspective I think it placed accordingly. Glad it did good in the performance tests.

[acilecdps6]

Well as usual Edmunds proved they are either morons or just don't like the Celica:

The Celica is a SPORT COUPE (actually a hatchback), Who cares what the rear seat comfort is, who cares about a power adjustable driver seat (it adds weight) so what if it doesn't come with 17 inch wheels. They indicate one touch up/down driver window is N/A (it does one touch down), the listed keyless entry as N/A (I assume from the factory, since it is available from the dealer). Tilt/telescoping steering wheel - the tilt adjustment works just fine and easy rear entry??? These nitpickers used the above criteria (which was heavily biased towards the VW) to put the Celica below where it should have placed.

Brakes/Suspension/Tires/Steering and FUN TO DRIVE were all 1st place for the Celica - excuse me if I'm wrong but how can a car that places #1 on all these (especially fun to drive) rank 3rd?

Also the list the fuel economy at 24 mpg, yet their long term Celica averages 27.3 mpg.

The Celica has the second longest wheelbase, but has the second shortest turning diameter (very impressive), it beat all the other cars in the Slalom. It was impressively close to the RSX in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times (with 20 hp less). The Celica DESERVES a better ranking than 3rd and everyone that agrees should blast the mental midgets at Edmunds.

[LaW]

oh well they're old and don't know any better :)

[Dealer Xing]

I agree with what Edmunds says about the Celica except for the shifter flaw. The Celica is more suited for racetrack use and it requires a skilled driver to extract the best of it. The car has impressive performance but other than that quality is bad---cheap plastic, cheap paint, flimsy bodywork, rattles, idle vibration, engine ticking since day 1, cheap leather, unpleasant engine noise from 5-6000rpm, stink A/C, etc......

This is why I sold my Celica after 1 and 1/2 year, the idle vibration is annoying in traffic and the car is too noisy on the highways.

[Brett]

I dont have many of your flaws Dealer Xing. My car runs fine. Maybe you just had a bad apple? The leather on mine is holding up very well. I cant say the same for my brothers Eclipse though. Only problem with the leather is a few stain marks, no biggie tho. I should try to remove them sometime when I get my car back though. Paint is average, not the greatest not the worse. Plastic could be made a little more durable. bodywork is all good though, for me anyways. Tranny is a little weak. Dont know if they are made a little better for the 02s.... Hopefully.

[daSchtick]

Because the review is not based solely on performance, but on daily livability for the "average" person, the Celica did come in 3rd. But based on the comments, and the fact that I am not an "average" consumer, the review reaffirms my decision to get the Celica.

It is more raw and performance oriented than any of the other models, but luxury features, roominess, and smooth, quiet ride are not what this car is about, just like performance is not the GTI's main focus. I feel it strikes a balance from the touring oriented models (Eclipse, GTI, etc.) to the performance only model ITR.

-Nick

[Cronos]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
After driving the RSX-S, I too felt the Celica was the better performer. I didn't pay much attention to the other stuff though.

Alright, who are you and what did you do with Yakko? LOL

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by Cronos


Alright, who are you and what did you do with Yakko? LOL
I would never own a Celica or an RSX. They both perform worse than what I'm used to, and they are both terrible looking inside and out. I have driven both cars, and I felt the GTS was the better performer.

[Zorn]

OK! There we go...yakko back in full effect.

[Cronos]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

I would never own a Celica or an RSX. They both perform worse than what I'm used to, adn they are both terrible looking inside and out. I have driven both cars, and I felt the GTS was the better performer.

What a relief. Just checking, still the same Yakko. :D

[yakkosmurf]

Zorn...Cronos,

By now you should know that I'm going to say what I think. I won't sugar coat it. I'll just come out and say it. But I will also be objective about things. I'll call it like I see it. If I'm comparing two cars, I'll talk about performance and leave the subjective categories (like appearance) to other people.

[oldster]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
Zorn...Cronos,

By now you should know that I'm going to say what I think. I won't sugar coat it. I'll just come out and say it. But I will also be objective about things. I'll call it like I see it. If I'm comparing two cars, I'll talk about performance and leave the subjective categories (like appearance) to other people.

I don't think you can get much more subjective than the following quote. You offer up opinions like bread in a soup kitchen, don't go pious on us now. :rolleyes:

"They both perform worse than what I'm used to, adn they are both terrible looking inside and out. I have driven both cars, and I felt the GTS was the better performer. "

[yakkosmurf]

But what you leave out is that my opinions are informed ones. That's more than can be said for 90% of what goes on here. If you don't like what I have to say, let me know what you think. But make sure your opinion is as informed as mine, or I won't put much stock in it. I know some of where Oldster comes from, and I know he knows of what he speaks.