azepolyn

This is my interpretation, and it's apparently not going to be a popular one ...


the celica was never a sports car
sport-coup, yes ... as is the tC, sorry guys. There is no just "car" category. If you have 2 doors, you're most likely going to get lumped into that "sport coup" section. My 92 Cavalier was a sport coup, and the tC is a supercar by comparison.

The last generation celicas wee radically redesigned to attract that "younger" market. They made them cool, gave it a radical look. I remember one commercial in particular where the car is parked in this quiet neighborhood, and an old man with a walker shuffles down the side walk and screams "Slow down!"

Sales werent where Toyota had projected them and the Celica was canceled. Enter the Scion brand, a 2nd attempt to attract the youth brand. It was thought that Toyota meant reliability, affordible pricing, but that they only sold cars my mom and dad would drive, a la Camry and Corolla. The tC, being the new 2dr coup, equipped with comparible power to the previous Celica's, short of the GT-S trim, essencially took the place in Toyota's lineup while still aiming to hit the younger generation. I'd have to call that a success.

I don't explain that the tC replaced the Celica. What I do when explaining the tC to someone if hype up all the "scion" features like the 140hp ngine, panoramic moonroof, 17in alloy wheels, Pioneer 6speaker sound system ... you know, those value features that make this $17k car seem like something more. Then I go on to talk about the ability to customize and modify, and then lastly I'll mention that Toyota reliability and dependability.

The only people that have metioned Celica when speaking of my car have been guys that owned Celica GT's in the past, and I say sure, yea, it's kinda the same ... except ... I'm comfortable in my car, it's equipped with this thing called luxury ... it's an odd conversation when I talk to a Celica owner that wants a tC, because I'm a tC owner that has always wanted a Celica

Cjburn

The tC is a lot like the ST20X American version Celica. Take a close ratio 5 speed, Camry 4cylinder, and make an attractive car. Is it a sports car, I would think so. RWD, big displacement, AWD, doesn't define what a sports car is. Tell that to a Type R, Civic or Integra that their car are hatches, FWD, and still have AC and power ammenities, that they're not sports cars. These cars held their own on racing circuits across the world. To try to come up with a definitive explanation for a sports car is impossible, because everyone has their different descriptions. The Britons with their Minis and MGs, to the Italians with their supercars, Americans with their big V8 boats, to the Japanese with their funky small displacement monsters, all have a different opinion on what constitutes a sports car. You're just picking nits at that point.

engifineer

^^ NONE of the cars you mentioned are sports cars. Sports cars are built primarilly around "sport" driving. And sorry, a FWD 4 banger that runs 0-60 in around 7 seconds is not even close. Sure you can make them fast, but none of those cars are fast to start with.

Sports car? Try lotus elise, vette, porsche, etc. An integra, rsx and a civic (the furthest from one) are not sports cars. They were not built around performance in the least. If they were they for one would not sport a fwd platform (will get it **** handed to it on a track of any kind by a comparably powered rwd). I do agree that a sports car can have luxuries, but they fall into the design after the handling, balance and drivetrain are thought of, which is why most true sports cars, even with luxuries, are still not quite up to par in the comfort category. They build the suspension around handling first, ride second. They take a semi race ready vehicle and make it street, not the other way around. It is a simple distinction. Sure, a civic, integra or type r owner would LOVE to believe they are buying a sports car.. the fact is they are not. As a matter of fact, the manufacturers have never even tried to call those cars sports cars that I have ever heard.. and if they did, it is marketing hype.

Cjburn

Try driving a Vette year round, you can't. Try to be an elitist all you want, every company, every person has a different definition of a sports car. So then just the drivetrain layout designates it's nature? Hell, the 350Z, Altima, Maxima, G35, basically share the same chasis, it was never designed solely to be a sports cars. Just about every chasis today is shared with another platform and comprimises are made everywhere. FWD is a compromise, one of cost and simplicity, and sometimes a liability. Try to define what a sports car is by your definitions, and you're excluding out some of the greatest sports cars ever made, ie. Evo and WRX Sti, those cars were never designed to be sports cars, but became them out of necessitation of cost, yet these cars stock for stock can destroy cars costing twice as much in just about any contest of speed. Sorry to tell you, but you don't define what a sports car is to me, like I said before every person, every manufacturer has a different definition of what a sports car is.

ehj

A sports car is something that is rear wheel drive, decent acceleration, great handling, someting that chicks would want to get into.

This IS a sports car


Like everyone else said, the tC is NOT a Celica replacement.

IMO, if the Celica and the tC were being sold at the same time now, I would pick the tC everytime. Here's why:

Price. A base Celica GT would run you about $18,000. That's a stripped version too. It also has the Corolla engine tuned to get an extra 10hp, but to have NO torque whatsoever. The Corolla atleast has some decent torque for its body size. My wife's brother has a Celica GT and I must tell you that it's a DEAD car (power wise). When I drive it, I rev it all the way to a hair before redline and my head doesn't go back one bit.

What I give the Celica props is its great handling. Even with the stock 15in wheels, it hugs the corners better than anyting (FWD) that I've been in (stock). Yes, it handles better than the tC.

However, I've driven a tC with some suspension mods and it comes really close to its handling. But then again, we're talking about stock vs. non-stock.

I won't comment on how cheaply made the Celica's interior is since the tC is no lexus either.

Now comes the big tamale, the engine.
I laugh at the non GTS engine of the Celica. My old 2004 Corolla has embarassed many non-lifting Celicas... many. As for the GT-S, it's an awesome motor. However, I would still pass on the chance of that. That is also a DEAD motor... until you hit lift then you get a rush. But the rush only lasts you about 2 seconds then you hit redline, then you shift. Being a former turbo car owner, I've been spoiled by the feeling of my head going back from 3,000rpm - 7,000rpm.

I've raced a GT-S in my tC, obviously I lost, but not by much, I was literally inches from his bumper. Of course the tC is about 400lbs heavier so there's your answer. Reduce the weight of the tC and I'm sure it'll be equal, or even take on the GTS. However, I've seen a tC with a blower eat a GTS without breaking a sweat.


Finally, there's the price (again). I thought about getting a Celica GTS in 2003. However, the $25,600 price tag made me say For that much money, I could get a WRX.

I spent $19,000 for my tC. It's much more equiped than any GT-S I've seen. I'm sure that with about $3,000 in mods, I can make it eat GTS without even trying. I can also make it handle like a stock GTS for a couple of hundred dollars. So for about the same price, I would have a GTS killer, that much better equiped.

The Celica was a great car, but not for the price. $18,000 for a stripped model is just ridiculous, and $26,000 for a performance model is just ludicrous.


If Toyota plans to bring back the Celica, they either need to make it cheaper than the tC, or price it more than the tC but offer something that would make people feel that they're not getting short changed.

Cjburn

I'm not going to argue opinions, you have a different one than me. You don't make the definition, in fact nobody does. Every manufacturer, every person has a different opinion of a sports car. Ask some domestic car fan if any car ever made with a 4 cylinder was a sports car and some would tell you NO, miata guys would argue for yes. Ask a Ferrari guy if something with a solid rear beam RWD setup could be found on a sports car and they'd most likely tell you no, but most Mustang guys would take offense. We can argue this till our faces are blue, but you're not going to convince me.

Old_S-Cool

Here in the US, the people that would have ordinarily bought a Celica started buying Scions, so they dropped the Celica from the US lineup.

I was looking at Celicas, and almost bought an '00 with 50,000 miles on it, but decided to look at the Scion first, and the dealer had just what I wanted on the lot, so I took it.

However, the Scion (IMHO) is more uncomfortable than the Celica! I'm a big guy, and I've been driving Toyotas for years (and YEARS!) and liked the seating position of the Celicas and Corollas. The Scion is too 'upright' for me; if I lean the seat back I can't reach the wheel, and when I'm comforatble on the wheel, ths gas pedal is WAY too close. I like to have the throttle as an 'extension' to my foot, I have to hold my leg in place to hit the gas in the Scion. In the Celica, it's at the end of your leg, just like I like it.

I also like the lower seating position in the Celica; I like feeling like I'm sitting IN the car, not ON it like the tC.

Sigh...the only thing that makes me wish I'd bought a Celica, but it's a BIGGIE!

pasciontc

i def like the tC more then the celica thats for sure!

ehj

You've got to be kidding me. Sitting in a Corolla is like sitting on a dining room chair... talk about upright seating position.

That's one of the reason why the Celica handles better, it's center of gravity is much lower than the tC. As I said before, the Celica is a nice car, but not for the price.


I don't really care if a maxima has 500hp, it is not and will NEVER EVER be a sports car. Wrong wheel drive cars are not sports cars. No amount of stickers, whale tailes or fart canons will make soccer mom cars sports cars.

engifineer

I realize everyones opinions differ, but most manufacturers are pretty much on the same page when it comes to sports cars. The integra, civic, etc were never marketed as sports cars. So the examples given there dont make sense. Hell, most of the mustangs were never marketed as sports cars. The original mustang was a "family" car.. it was the enthusiast crowd that modded them out (with thier weak, non sport front ends) and changed the idea of them. I have never heard of one FWD marketed as a "sports" car. But, people will disagree, which is fine. But the line is pretty clear in the industry to what is actually marketed as a sports car. And a civic is in no way one of them.. even to honda.

Old_S-Cool

Look at my list of cars! (Currently owned). The GTS (both) and the Supra, you definitely snuggle down into the car. Prior to the GTS (hachiroku) I had a te72 Corolla Sport Coupe SR-5, and that one you were definitely one with the floor!
Even the 1st gen Solara and the just-passed Celica had that same seating position.

I'm trying to figure out a way to make the seating in the Scion the same as in those cars, but the seat from my Celica wouldn't work. I could buy custom seats, but that means spending $$$!!!

ehj

I do like the old 22R powered Celicas. They had great torque. However, they handled like crap.

Old_S-Cool

Hmmm....mine handled great! I think it even handled better than my Supra!
It was about the same power/weight, but with the Celica being a lighter car, it was a bit more flickable.

I had the GTS with the heavier duty suspension and wider tires. I also replaced the '85 engine with one from a '94 truck that was rated at 12-15 more HP. Of course, that didn't entirely translate due to the engine controls, but i did notice a difference