Celica 190 And T- Sport

[madaboutpower]

Hi, i really like my t-sport, and one of my friends say my corolla does 0-60 in 8.4 seconds, which he says is slow, and said parkers don't like them in there review. Now, my questions are, what is an actual reasonable time the corolla gets to 60 because i'm sure these cars are quicker than tht, and also, is the corolla heavier than the celica? and is this the reason its slower than the celica 190 even tho having identical engines, i no theres alot of questions there, but i'd like to get to the bottom of this. Thankyou

[T600]

The key factor affecting the 0-60 time has to be the weight because both cars are have pretty much identical running gear - at least as far as straight line acceleration is concerned.

Weight figures seem to vary quite a lot for the Celica with early 190s being the lightest and the later ones being heavier. That's probably reasonable because the earliest 190s didn't even have rear spoilers as standard, and they had plastic rear seats and a lightweight plastic sunroof. On later cars the spec was higher and that probably accounts for the different weight.

Yet the 0-60 times don't appear to have been adjusted in line with this.

The Corolla's official 0-60 has always been quoted as about 1 second slower than the Celica which makes no sense. The lightest Celicas should perhaps be a little quicker than the Corolla, and if the figures I've seen for the later ones are correct, then fully kitted Celicas should be slower. But even taking weights into account, I can't see how the difference can possibly be as large as the figures quoted.

[madaboutpower]

The key factor affecting the 0-60 time has to be the weight because both cars are have pretty much identical running gear - at least as far as straight line acceleration is concerned.

Weight figures seem to vary quite a lot for the Celica with early 190s being the lightest and the later ones being heavier. That's probably reasonable because the earliest 190s didn't even have rear spoilers as standard, and they had plastic rear seats and a lightweight plastic sunroof. On later cars the spec was higher and that probably accounts for the different weight.

Yet the 0-60 times don't appear to have been adjusted in line with this.

The Corolla's official 0-60 has always been quoted as about 1 second slower than the Celica which makes no sense. The lightest Celicas should perhaps be a little quicker than the Corolla, and if the figures I've seen for the later ones are correct, then fully kitted Celicas should be slower. But even taking weights into account, I can't see how the difference can possibly be as large as the figures quoted.

Thanks for the reply, it just baffled me, like you said about the weight of the corolla,it would have to be quite a large weight difference, because in car terms being 1 second slower is quite a difference, i rad a few different posts, and other owners of both said theres not alot in it in the real world.

[T600]

Thanks for the reply, it just baffled me, like you said about the weight of the corolla,it would have to be quite a large weight difference, because in car terms being 1 second slower is quite a difference, i rad a few different posts, and other owners of both said theres not alot in it in the real world.

Yes, it's a strange one.

I had originally thought the drag factor might be part of the reason, but someone put me right on that as apparently the Corolla has marginally lower drag than the Celica. Though I don't know whether that's compared to the original car without spoilers, or the latter ones. There aren't really sufficient reliable sources of info to know for certain. In any case I think there would have to be quite a big difference in CD for it to affect 0-60 because up to that kind of speed the drag isn't really the major factor.

[cabcurtains]

The below website, has hyperthetical times, its has the 2003 Corolla T-Sport at 6.83 and 2003 Celica 190 at 6.85 on the 0-60 run, which is possible as the Corolla has 5kgs less weight and slightly less drag.

In my opinion, the Corolla 8.4 is to do with the marketing men, would Toyota really want their flagship performance coupe to be no faster than the boring Corolla? I doubt it

Who cares anyway, as they both have lift

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/fwd.asp

[ae102]

The below website, has hyperthetical times, its has the 2003 Corolla T-Sport at 6.83 and 2003 Celica 190 at 6.85 on the 0-60 run, which is possible as the Corolla has 5kgs less weight and slightly less drag.

In my opinion, the Corolla 8.4 is to do with the marketing men, would Toyota really want their flagship performance coupe to be no faster than the boring Corolla? I doubt it

Who cares anyway, as they both have lift

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/fwd.asp

that website doesnt warrant any credibility. doesnt take all other factors into account. in stock form the Corolla is slower than the Celica - a lot has to do with the tyres fitted - Celica's come with grippy performance tyres from the factory, the Corolla uses economy minded Turanza's with reduced rolling resistance - and less grip. but the 8.4 time is a bit misleading.