a bit faster...

[TW]Fox · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:41

Begbie said:
Are the FTO's not renowned for being quite crappy?

No, they are massively under-rated. Partly due to the whole Honda 'If it isnt a Teg its the worst thing ever' scene. The handled brilliantly, looked fantastic for 1994, had a great engine, plenty of power and were very reliable. They fell short of the Type-R for sheer driver involvement, mind, but you did get things like digital climate. Actually all you got was digital climate

Jono8 · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:42

Defcon5 said:
Cupra-R? I think they are around that price range now, will feel a lot quicker than the Celica.

Do you specifically like a VTEC style power delivery though?

I don't know. My car experience is somewhat limited. I had a 1.1 Saxo and a 1.4 peugoet 306 before the celica and i havent driven much else. I was looking at the Seat's but i am not hugely keen on the looks though.

danza · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:43

Okay, after looking at some figures it seems that the VVTi is about as quick as my Suzuki Swift Sport. The SSS feels quite nippy some times at least, but getting into my EP3 is almost night and day. The EP3 genuinely feels quick, and the extra hoof of the VTEC changeover is quite noticable. The Swift is, well, just slightly nippy.

I imagine the difference between the VVTi and VVTLi Celicas to be similar, if perhaps slightly less pronounced. Go and drive one, and see what you think.

Jono8 · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:49

danza said:
Okay, after looking at some figures it seems that the VVTi is about as quick as my Suzuki Swift Sport. The SSS feels quite nippy some times at least, but getting into my EP3 is almost night and day. The EP3 genuinely feels quick, and the extra hoof of the VTEC changeover is quite noticable. The Swift is, well, just slightly nippy.

I imagine the difference between the VVTi and VVTLi Celicas to be similar, if perhaps slightly less pronounced. Go and drive one, and see what you think.

Yeh, i think thats the only thing i can do at this stage. Try one and see if i think it is worth it.

I mean my car is no slouch and it is lovely to drive at times, but i just would like that little bit more out of it. As you say, its nippy but not what you would call 'fast' or 'quick'.

Ofcourse if money wasnt so much of an issue i would love a Nissan 350z/ BMW Z4 but i think i shall have to wait till i'm a bit older until i start thinking about one of those

*looks jealously at 20 year old guy who has just bought a 350z in other thread*

Jono8 · 7 Jun 2010 at 20:15

Hm, Looking more into the Seat Leon Cupra R i am a little tempted. Looks to be within my price range and sounds quite quick.

No where near as stylish or as nice looking as a celica but speed wise it looks like it might be what i am looking for.

What are peoples thoughts on them?

Beta · 7 Jun 2010 at 20:26

I get 330 miles max out of 50l of Shells finest so about 30mpg. If i use normal unleaded, this drops down to about 280 miles (tried this several times with the same result). This is on a standard Celica 190. This is a mix of careful-ish commuter type driving on a mix of dual carriageway and city driving.

Lift is addictive, so is the noise, but you can literally watch the fuel gauge drop if you go into the high revs a lot - the worse i've seen was about 150 miles from a full tank ~ 14mpg but that was pretty much all in lift.

Overall, been a reliable car and pretty cheap to run whilst i've owned it over the past 3.5 years. Wish my commute was still small so that I wasn't considering getting rid.. damn thing gives me backache by the end of the week!

mjt · 7 Jun 2010 at 20:42

Defcon5 said:
Cupra-R? I think they are around that price range now, will feel a lot quicker than the Celica.

A Cupra is probably enough, the turbo makes it feel quicker than it is

Jono8 said:
Hm, Looking more into the Seat Leon Cupra R i am a little tempted. Looks to be within my price range and sounds quite quick.

No where near as stylish or as nice looking as a celica but speed wise it looks like it might be what i am looking for.

What are peoples thoughts on them?

Good cars. Solid, generally quite reliable and I think rather good looking.
There's not much that goes wrong really, although they do have a habit of leaking through the door seals and pipes can work loose over time.

Begbie · 7 Jun 2010 at 21:06

Jono8 said:
Hm, Looking more into the Seat Leon Cupra R i am a little tempted. Looks to be within my price range and sounds quite quick.

No where near as stylish or as nice looking as a celica but speed wise it looks like it might be what i am looking for.

What are peoples thoughts on them?

Been in a few. Quick, cheap(ish) for what your getting anyway. I like the styling, one of the nicest hatchbacks of that era.

sovietspybob · 7 Jun 2010 at 21:39

The mrs has a mx5 2.0 with 160bhp and my car is a DC5 with 220 bhp so thats roughly the same BHP gap you have between the 2 Celicas, allbeit in very different cars. I have to say tho the power difference is night and day at that level, they both feel pretty much the same till 6000rpm and the VTEC hits then it goes pretty mental.

Like has been said you either love or hate the VTEC/Lift power delivery and its really upto you to drive somthing with that kind of tech in it to see if its you or not.

The Celica Tsport was on my short list looking for a new car, but as my budget was higher than yours i was able to get a DC5, but if i had a lower budget i'd defiantly be looking at the Celicas, but after owning a teg i think in reality i'd get a DC2. One of the problems with the Celica is you can't really keep it on cam because every time you change gear you're left JUST before the lift point which would annoy me far too much when it was on track.

paradigm · 7 Jun 2010 at 21:46

Might have a Cupra R ready to shift by the end of the month

Jono8 · 7 Jun 2010 at 21:47

hm, Looks like it is the celica T sport or Cupra R then. I suppose it is a choice between faster or better looking. The interior of the Cupra looks very dated compared to that of the celicas in my opinion

.

Love the sound of having a 200bhp + engine but of course that comes at a price as the Cupra will be even more to insure (group 17 vs group 15 for the Tsport).

Decisions decisions!

bledd · 8 Jun 2010 at 08:22

[TW]Fox;16703976 said:
Why, are there 2002 DC2's around?

1 was created, and it went to Spoon iirc, so no, there are not

There are loads of tired / almost dead, unloved DC2's out there, that is true. That's why I linked to what looks like a decent example

Jono8 · 8 Jun 2010 at 22:54

Looks like this might be a tough decision. Cupra R or Celica 190

.

Obviously the Cupra has more BHP but looking at it stats wise, they both get to 60mph at 7.2 seconds.

Cupra R's look quite hard to get hold of, well, more than celica 190's anyway.

Chris1712 · 8 Jun 2010 at 23:16

I have a 2002 Corolla T-Sport, so same engine/gearbox. Lift is very addictive, and the cam profile switch over is very much noticeable. It is somewhat similar to a turbo boost, but a bit more sudden, after all it is a ~50bhp jump in one go. Personally I think both the Corolla and Celica T-Sports offer great value for money, and I think you'd get a tidier/better example of a celica 190 for your money than a Cupra R. When I was looking in january of this year, cupras were few and far between and IMO don't look as nice either, pre facelift anyway.

In other news, I almost cant believe this thread is on OcUK? Its strange, people are sensibly offering advice toward the OP's actual post and no one's moaned about the celica being a wrong wheel drive shopping trolley with no torque yet. I am stunned

.

Dogbreath · 8 Jun 2010 at 23:55

Chris1712 said:
I have a 2002 Corolla T-Sport, so same engine/gearbox. Lift is very addictive,

I still don't understand the whole stupid "lift" name. Valves always have lift, but switching cams just gives you a bit more and more duration; it's surely not an official Toyota term?

[TW]Fox · 8 Jun 2010 at 23:57

Dogbreath said:
I still don't understand the whole stupid "lift" name. Valves always have lift, but switching cams just gives you a bit more and more duration; it's surely not an official Toyota term?

Its not, no, but Corolla drivers, in a sort of desperate attempt to be like the Civic Type R owners they would be had they found an extra grand with which to buy the car, need a term they can use so they dont feel left out when the aforementioned Civic owners talk about 'Being in VTEC'

'Lift' was born.

griffo_001 · 9 Jun 2010 at 00:15

Left field suggestion here: Clio 172 or 182. Get both Cup Packs with that

Probably show a 140 a clean pair of heels over a twist B road.

Pocket the change to do belts and general maintenance

Jonnycoupe · 9 Jun 2010 at 00:40

Dogbreath said:
I still don't understand the whole stupid "lift" name. Valves always have lift, but switching cams just gives you a bit more and more duration; it's surely not an official Toyota term?

My only assumption on this one is that the different acronym between the 140 and 190 spec engine is due to an 'L' which of course stands for Lift.

I guess its like saying its got DOHC VTEC as thats more specific to the high power output than some of the other, regularly overlooking, VTEC applications. Im sure if VTEC was actually VTELC something similar might have occured in Honda land, that or talk powder y0.

Trojan · 9 Jun 2010 at 01:17

griffo_001 said:
Left field suggestion here: Clio 172 or 182. Get both Cup Packs with that

Probably show a 140 a clean pair of heels over a twist B road.

Probably? Definitely. And in a straight line too. The problem for the OP though, I suspect, would be that a 172/182 still just looks like a Clio.

griffo_001 · 9 Jun 2010 at 01:39

Trojan said:
Probably? Definitely. And in a straight line too. The problem for the OP though, I suspect, would be that a 172/182 still just looks like a Clio.

That's the beauty of it to some of us