Blasphemy… Celica GT-S auto versus RX-8 auto
11-24-2003, 07:58 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blasphemy… Celica GT-S auto versus RX-8 auto
The Toyota Celica GT-S can run 6 to 7 second zone 0-60 times. It is LIGHTER than the RX-8 by almost 500 pounds, high rev engine, has futuristic design, gets BETTER gas mileage, is CHEAPER, and has been around so the powerplant has proven itself.
What’s your opinion?
What’s your opinion?
11-24-2003, 08:10 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liked the old Celica design. My housemate has a white one in my garage. It's so low!!! Cool! Makes the RX-8 looks like a big monster car.
The new Celicas are ugly, IMO.
The new Celicas are ugly, IMO.
11-24-2003, 08:21 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the others on the new Celicas being ugly (with a capital ug). If you drive an auto, why do you care so much about the performance? (j/k 
) Compare the room in the back seat as well as the handling. If all you want is straight line perf there are much cheaper alternatives than the 8, even with an auto trans.
If you're really curious, just go for a test drive to find out for yourself, because you're probably not going to find an unbiased opinion here, or even in any of the celica forums.
) Compare the room in the back seat as well as the handling. If all you want is straight line perf there are much cheaper alternatives than the 8, even with an auto trans.If you're really curious, just go for a test drive to find out for yourself, because you're probably not going to find an unbiased opinion here, or even in any of the celica forums.
11-24-2003, 08:31 PM
#6
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea the celica may be cheaper but your not gonna get the drive/handling or quality that you do w/the rx8...or the recognition.... before i had a 2003 tiburon and no one even cared but now people stare at me in my rx8, but i still think celica is a good car....def a chick car tho
11-24-2003, 08:39 PM
#7
FX8TED on my RX-8
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blasphemy… Celica GT-S auto versus RX-8 auto
Originally posted by DragonRX8
The Toyota Celica GT-S can run 6 to 7 second zone 0-60 times. It is LIGHTER than the RX-8 by almost 500 pounds, high rev engine, has futuristic design, gets BETTER gas mileage, is CHEAPER, and has been around so the powerplant has proven itself.
What’s your opinion?
The Toyota Celica GT-S can run 6 to 7 second zone 0-60 times. It is LIGHTER than the RX-8 by almost 500 pounds, high rev engine, has futuristic design, gets BETTER gas mileage, is CHEAPER, and has been around so the powerplant has proven itself.
What’s your opinion?
What's your point? It's still a Celica. Go away, troll.
11-24-2003, 08:42 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I traded a 2000 GT-S(with 68k miles) in on my RX-8. It is a nice car and I averaged 27 mpg (93 octane) driving the same roads (and same speeds) as I do now in the '8' getting 18 mpg. I never had to add oil bewtenn 3k mile changes It handles and stops almost as good as the RX-8. There was very little brake dust and the stereo was very nice for a stock unit. A chick car? What facts support that statement? A stock 6 speed GT-S (2000-2001, or 2003) driven properly will give the 6 speed RX-8 a good run, but the '8' should take it. The GT-S has only 133 ft lbs torque, but it weighs 2500 lbs. It has 180 hp, BUT only a 13% driveline loss, so the front wheels put down close to 160 hp. The problem is it does not have a LSD, so it all goes through 1 wheel.
The automatic GT-S is not as fast as the 6 speed and will take close to 8 seconds 0-60
As for the legendary Toyota quality, well it did have problems:
The idler pulley for engine accessory belt (serpentine) had to be replaced (twice), The CD player started skipping and was replaced, the Throttle body had to be replaced - it was sticking at 3000 rpms and the transmission was replaced at 49k miles due to grinding going into 2nd and 4th. The moonroof was acrylic and the tint (on the outside of it) started peeling at 60k miles.
all repairs were covered under warranty except the moonroof.
The car was very noisy inside and the engine was fairly smooth up to the cutoff around 8300 rpms, with a tremendous burst of power at 6000 rpms. But nowhere as smooth as a rotary engine.
As for looks, well that's subjective, I think it was and is a unique style, with several cars copying the headlight style (including the new 350Z).
The problem was Toyota only made slight cosmetic changes and a lot of people have trouble with the shift gates on downshifts landing in second instead of fourth resulting in blown engine.
THe RX-8 is much more refined car (it also costs more) and has a usable back seat, but give the Celica GT-S some respect, they are
nice cars , but not as nice as the RX-8 - IMO.
The automatic GT-S is not as fast as the 6 speed and will take close to 8 seconds 0-60
As for the legendary Toyota quality, well it did have problems:
The idler pulley for engine accessory belt (serpentine) had to be replaced (twice), The CD player started skipping and was replaced, the Throttle body had to be replaced - it was sticking at 3000 rpms and the transmission was replaced at 49k miles due to grinding going into 2nd and 4th. The moonroof was acrylic and the tint (on the outside of it) started peeling at 60k miles.
all repairs were covered under warranty except the moonroof.
The car was very noisy inside and the engine was fairly smooth up to the cutoff around 8300 rpms, with a tremendous burst of power at 6000 rpms. But nowhere as smooth as a rotary engine.
As for looks, well that's subjective, I think it was and is a unique style, with several cars copying the headlight style (including the new 350Z).
The problem was Toyota only made slight cosmetic changes and a lot of people have trouble with the shift gates on downshifts landing in second instead of fourth resulting in blown engine.
THe RX-8 is much more refined car (it also costs more) and has a usable back seat, but give the Celica GT-S some respect, they are
nice cars , but not as nice as the RX-8 - IMO.
Last edited by 6speed8; 11-24-2003 at 08:45 PM.
11-24-2003, 08:50 PM
#10
<p><
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dang, you guys were drawn to it like moths to the flame. I like the new Celica. The design philosophy is almost the same as RX-8. Emphasis is put on handling and having a good power to weight ratio by reducing the weight instead of increasing the power. However, the Celica GTS auto does not run between 6 - 7 on the 0-60. Only the 6sp stick shift does. People who go for the 8 instead of Celica are looking for RWD, better safety features (curtain airbags, larger cabin), newer design features, and a coupe with room for actual people. People who consider the Celica may also be detracted by the fact that the car will be redesigned in 2005.
11-25-2003, 01:14 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 6speed8
I traded a 2000 GT-S(with 68k miles) in on my RX-8. It is a nice car and I averaged 27 mpg (93 octane) driving the same roads (and same speeds) as I do now in the '8' getting 18 mpg. I never had to add oil bewtenn 3k mile changes It handles and stops almost as good as the RX-8. There was very little brake dust and the stereo was very nice for a stock unit. A chick car? What facts support that statement? A stock 6 speed GT-S (2000-2001, or 2003) driven properly will give the 6 speed RX-8 a good run, but the '8' should take it. The GT-S has only 133 ft lbs torque, but it weighs 2500 lbs. It has 180 hp, BUT only a 13% driveline loss, so the front wheels put down close to 160 hp. The problem is it does not have a LSD, so it all goes through 1 wheel.
The automatic GT-S is not as fast as the 6 speed and will take close to 8 seconds 0-60
As for the legendary Toyota quality, well it did have problems:
The idler pulley for engine accessory belt (serpentine) had to be replaced (twice), The CD player started skipping and was replaced, the Throttle body had to be replaced - it was sticking at 3000 rpms and the transmission was replaced at 49k miles due to grinding going into 2nd and 4th. The moonroof was acrylic and the tint (on the outside of it) started peeling at 60k miles.
all repairs were covered under warranty except the moonroof.
The car was very noisy inside and the engine was fairly smooth up to the cutoff around 8300 rpms, with a tremendous burst of power at 6000 rpms. But nowhere as smooth as a rotary engine.
As for looks, well that's subjective, I think it was and is a unique style, with several cars copying the headlight style (including the new 350Z).
The problem was Toyota only made slight cosmetic changes and a lot of people have trouble with the shift gates on downshifts landing in second instead of fourth resulting in blown engine.
THe RX-8 is much more refined car (it also costs more) and has a usable back seat, but give the Celica GT-S some respect, they are
nice cars , but not as nice as the RX-8 - IMO.
I traded a 2000 GT-S(with 68k miles) in on my RX-8. It is a nice car and I averaged 27 mpg (93 octane) driving the same roads (and same speeds) as I do now in the '8' getting 18 mpg. I never had to add oil bewtenn 3k mile changes It handles and stops almost as good as the RX-8. There was very little brake dust and the stereo was very nice for a stock unit. A chick car? What facts support that statement? A stock 6 speed GT-S (2000-2001, or 2003) driven properly will give the 6 speed RX-8 a good run, but the '8' should take it. The GT-S has only 133 ft lbs torque, but it weighs 2500 lbs. It has 180 hp, BUT only a 13% driveline loss, so the front wheels put down close to 160 hp. The problem is it does not have a LSD, so it all goes through 1 wheel.
The automatic GT-S is not as fast as the 6 speed and will take close to 8 seconds 0-60
As for the legendary Toyota quality, well it did have problems:
The idler pulley for engine accessory belt (serpentine) had to be replaced (twice), The CD player started skipping and was replaced, the Throttle body had to be replaced - it was sticking at 3000 rpms and the transmission was replaced at 49k miles due to grinding going into 2nd and 4th. The moonroof was acrylic and the tint (on the outside of it) started peeling at 60k miles.
all repairs were covered under warranty except the moonroof.
The car was very noisy inside and the engine was fairly smooth up to the cutoff around 8300 rpms, with a tremendous burst of power at 6000 rpms. But nowhere as smooth as a rotary engine.
As for looks, well that's subjective, I think it was and is a unique style, with several cars copying the headlight style (including the new 350Z).
The problem was Toyota only made slight cosmetic changes and a lot of people have trouble with the shift gates on downshifts landing in second instead of fourth resulting in blown engine.
THe RX-8 is much more refined car (it also costs more) and has a usable back seat, but give the Celica GT-S some respect, they are
nice cars , but not as nice as the RX-8 - IMO.
11-25-2003, 08:20 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone has ever been "bowled over" by the Celica. It's another Toyota with "sporting pretensions".
Most who are really into sports cars (not the fast and furious set) don't take it very seriously.
That said, I've used '80s corolla GTS as an autox machine, and with some major mods, did quite well with it.
Most who are really into sports cars (not the fast and furious set) don't take it very seriously.
That said, I've used '80s corolla GTS as an autox machine, and with some major mods, did quite well with it.
11-25-2003, 12:00 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fastest things about celicas are the girls that drive them.
(An old club RSX quote that always amused me)
I really have no qualms about the celica but its not for me.
(An old club RSX quote that always amused me)
I really have no qualms about the celica but its not for me.
11-25-2003, 12:06 PM
#17
Certified track junky!!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lebanon, NH
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DragonRX8,
Having owned a 2001 Celica GT-S 6-speed I can say that it feels faster than my RX-8 but that is just an illusion.
The Celica has a nice rush of power at 6k RPMs that pulls very strongly until it hits the rev limiter. Which makes the car feel faster than what it really is and that is one of the things that I both loved & hated about the car. If you were able to keep the car in its sweet spot (6,000-8,200 RPMs) the car felt like a go-cart on steroids but if you let the RPMs dip below 6k the car becomes a complete dog.
If you check out some of the Celica forums you will notice that the auto feels under powered because it has a very hard time staying in the sweet spot. I don't think that you would be happy with its performance and I'd suggest that you look at other cars before you spend any money.
Having owned a 2001 Celica GT-S 6-speed I can say that it feels faster than my RX-8 but that is just an illusion.
The Celica has a nice rush of power at 6k RPMs that pulls very strongly until it hits the rev limiter. Which makes the car feel faster than what it really is and that is one of the things that I both loved & hated about the car. If you were able to keep the car in its sweet spot (6,000-8,200 RPMs) the car felt like a go-cart on steroids but if you let the RPMs dip below 6k the car becomes a complete dog. If you check out some of the Celica forums you will notice that the auto feels under powered because it has a very hard time staying in the sweet spot. I don't think that you would be happy with its performance and I'd suggest that you look at other cars before you spend any money.
11-25-2003, 03:49 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Hard 8, not diggin' the whole front wheel drive thing at all, maybe if they brought back the GT-four the Celica might be of worthy contention, (if they did already, my bad) but until then there's no comparison. The technology used in the 8 alone is way cooler than any Celica could ever wish for.
11-25-2003, 05:51 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Blasphemy… Celica GT-S auto versus RX-8 auto
Originally posted by DragonRX8
The Toyota Celica GT-S can run 6 to 7 second zone 0-60 times. It is LIGHTER than the RX-8 by almost 500 pounds, high rev engine, has futuristic design, gets BETTER gas mileage, is CHEAPER, and has been around so the powerplant has proven itself.
What’s your opinion?
The Toyota Celica GT-S can run 6 to 7 second zone 0-60 times. It is LIGHTER than the RX-8 by almost 500 pounds, high rev engine, has futuristic design, gets BETTER gas mileage, is CHEAPER, and has been around so the powerplant has proven itself.
What’s your opinion?
the 13B has been around for more than 10 years, since the 3rd gen RX7.....the celica is a cool car though....not as cool as the RX8. IMHO
11-27-2003, 02:19 AM
#24
no pistons!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by zerohour
The celicas engine is used in the new lotus so that should say something positive about the celica.
The celicas engine is used in the new lotus so that should say something positive about the celica.
I have a 2001 Celica GT also with my 2004 RX-8 and its a cool car and all, but performance is extremely limited in the factor that the engine is pretty much maxed out as it is, the fwd factor, and that aftermarket support sucks. Its the truth, but that why I moved on to bigger and badder things, like the 8.
11-27-2003, 02:36 AM
#25
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, I can not believe we are discussing the Celicas here. I traded my 2002 330i for the RX-8, and the beemer was a RWD. I will have to agree with most of you, for the Celica (or is it CILICA) being a chick car.