[Pure_Vampyric_E]

Srot of a delete and remake of another thread I had. To those whom have driven both, do you really notice the differance in PERFORMANCE ie: acceleration between the GT and GT-S? Once again, I am told by a few that you don't notice the differance unless you are in high rpm or you are doing illegal speeds.

Consider the car being used as a pure street car and cruising car with the obvious temptations to see what the car can show in it's so-so performanced motor.

edit: some stats say GT is 0-100km/h (I think that is the same as 60mph) in 9.8 seconds on a manual tranny, and for the GT-S it's 8.5 seconds also with manual.

 

[mac340]

GT-S 0-60 in 8.5 sec with the 6 speed? whose grandma was driving it? R&T mag did it in 6.8 when it first came out in 2000.

 

[2002GT_Celica]

Does anyone notice the difference between the two engines in regular driving? Yes, they do, the answer is found in one thing: Lift.

 

[freshspecblueGT]

I hope that your definition of performance is not purely acceleration and you included the clarification on the basis that the chasis and suspension should be similar. That said the only magazine that I know which tested both the GT and GT-s is EVO from the UK where the base celica (US GT) did 0-60 in 8.7 sec. and the 190 Tsport did a 7.3 sec. I beleive that they tested an '02 model of the 190 so I don't know if they had any limiter issues as I haven't read any of the articles. They like the Celica and name it as one of their top three picks for small coupes. I encourage everyone to check out EVO its a great mag (not just because they like the Celica)

 

[Lord Banshee]

umm i have to say my car is quicker then 0-60 in 8.7 seconds. That would make it as slower than a Mazda MP3. I garuentee that it isn't. Come on that car i think does it in 8.3 sec and it weighs 400lb heaiver. I would say the GTS = 6.8 and GT = 7.2-7.5ish.

 

[2002GT_Celica]

I hope that your definition of performance is not purely acceleration and you included the clarification on the basis that the chasis and suspension should be similar. That said the only magazine that I know which tested both the GT and GT-s is EVO from the UK where the base celica (US GT) did 0-60 in 8.7 sec. and the 190 Tsport did a 7.3 sec. I beleive that they tested an '02 model of the 190 so I don't know if they had any limiter issues as I haven't read any of the articles. They like the Celica and name it as one of their top three picks for small coupes. I encourage everyone to check out EVO its a great mag (not just because they like the Celica)

Well, he does say "ie" and then says acceleration, so obviously, he is talking about all aspects. Chassis and suspension are the same, the tires that the GT-S comes with are nicer, and the GT-S has better brakes in the rear (discs as opposed to drums). Other than that, they're pretty much the same aside from the engine and tranny.

 

[Pure_Vampyric_E]

Better brakes you say and yes I noticed the GT-S comes with Yokohamas which is nice to know. Also nice to hear that the numbers are slower than what they feel like or should be, either way I put down a deposit on a nice brand new 2003 GT-S today/yesterday and I shall get it in a day or two after they get the car in and do some diamondizing and various other protection coats.

 

[NoRulzAt140 Mph]

a gt is definately faster than 8.7... but not in the 6's. possibly mid 7's, een damn near clos ethe gt's times. but the gts's capablities really kick in after 2nd gear when in comparison to the gt. a few videos here show the gt eitehr even, or barely ahead till about when they both shifted to 3rd. but its definately worth getting the gt-s over the gt. i had my chance, wasnt informed enuff, now i just will be waiting till october 5th, for my 350z