Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Celica VS Mitsubishi Eclipse

kovackovac Posts: 2
edited March 5 in Toyota
I have a ’93 Acura Integra. It is a great car.
Over the period of 7 years it needed no repairs. It
has a certain subtle class to it, and I have been
very happy with Since it is 7 years old I thought
it’s time to go new-car shopping. Also I want my
new car to bes a little less conservative, a little
more flashy than the Integra I have. Since I like
Japanese cars I went to test-drive the two obvious
alternatives, the 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse and
Toyota Celica. Here is what I found:
Mitsubishi Eclipse is a very nice car, a real head
turner, inside and outside. It has a lot of power,
it’s a little noisy though. I was disappointed,
however, to find out that if I want ABS I have to
go for the highest model that is available. ABS is
an important safety feature that drivers appreciate
more and more every season. It is not a wise
marketing policy not to make ABS available as an
option with every model, or at least with most
models, in the hope that those who want ABS will
buy the highest model, where the manufacturer can
make more money. One hundred years ago Henry Ford
realized that to make more money he had to care
more about the volume of products sold than about
the money made on each unit. How can Mitsubishi
Motors not know that in order to be successful in
America means to give consumers all the choices
they can possibly think of. Educated consumers in
the USA have so many choices that if they want
something and they can not get it with one
manufacturer they will turn to another
manufacturer. If they can get ABS on a Chevrolet
Cavalier, which can hardly be compared with,
otherwise, a much finer Mitsubishi Eclipse, than it
should be possible to have ABS on any Eclipse.
There were too many people on the Toyota lot, all
eager to test drive the Celicas so the only car I
could drive was the 4 cylinder version. The Celica
is very attractive outside and the 4 cylinder
version that I drove was much less noisy as the 6
cylinder Eclipse, surprisingly, and provided a much
smoother and more responsive ride. However, the
cheap plastic dashboard is inexcusable in this
otherwise very fine automobile. The quite shocking
disappointment with the Celica was the manual
antenna. It is an invitation for vandals every time
you park the ca,r and one has to unscrew and store
it every time when going to a car wash. It is a
disgrace to a Toyota. How could anything like this
be approved is beyond my imagination. Because of
the above I am putting my car hunting on a back
burner. Let’s see what Acura comes up with, I hope
Acura realizes it’s just about time to release the
redesigned Integra.
«134

Comments

  • roadroachroadroach Posts: 131
    Hey man, hate to tell you this but ALL of the new Celicas have 4 cylinders. The Celica has NEVER offered a 6 (unless you go back to 79-80 when the Supra was first sold as an upmarket Celica). The plastic on the dash is not all that bad but I wish that the console would have used something that wasn't so obviously cheap. BTW, you don't have to remove the antenna; its made of spring steel and is unlikely to be damaged in a carwash; at least mine is still OK after 4 months and several washes.....
  • mrspeedmrspeed Posts: 21
    If you can wait about 6-8 months, the new Integra will blow the doors off Mitsu and Celica (217 hp).
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    If you can get a new Integra for the price of a Celica properly equipped, then you will have something. We shall see what the prices are. Where else can you get a car that turns heads like the Celica for around $21,000 loaded (for a GT automatic) to about $23,000 for a decked-out GT-S? Integra, even the present models, have trouble touching that. Celicas are very nice cars, and come with the dependability Toyota is known for. Integra is nice too, but they have gone toward luxury too much and away from sport (unless you get the GS-R with no automatic available).

    Also, in Motor Trend, the Celica GT-S beat the crap out of the 2000 Integra GS-R and the Eclipse GT (despite the Eclipse having a V-6, the Celica was faster). Anyway, the Celica is neat and the most sporty out of all on the market right now. Check into it.
  • Yes the model has a 4 cyl 140hp and 4 cyl 180hp. There was your confusion. Now to the performance part..I took on a Lexus GS300/225hp on a 34 mile whindy curvy road with lots of turns, speeds reached 125mph, fastest turn was at 120mph. Thanks to the suspension they packed on the GTS I am alive today to tell you about it. The Lexus lost trac at the 120mph turn, the Celica just a tad. The MCPher and wishbone and new modified Camber operation on the GTS is kick [non-permissible content removed]. Handling is where it is on the GTS. I am very happy the GS300 didn't lose it as I would have gone up his [non-permissible content removed] at 125. I could not pass him but I was in his mirror right on him, those extra 45hp were not too impressive. I out handled the overweight GS300 big time. When comparing the Celica to the Intgra or Eclipse, keep in mind the new suspension and engine Toyota has equip. I myself would rather have the suspension then a pretty dash. I would suggest researching the suspension the Celica has and you will be impressed.
  • My 2000 Celica GT-S is my second Celica. In 1977, I bought a '74 GT. I modified slightly. Of course I had a Killer Stereo ( at the time, the SuperTuner 3 was it! ). I really enjoyed it.
    In comparison, my new Celica is everything( we did not know ) the '74 wished it was. I was hooked as soon as I saw it on TV.
    I've recently had a new 1996 Camaro Z28 (stock) and a 1994 Mustang GT with 450HP ( before you kicked the Nitrous button ). Without a doubt, the Celica is much more satisfying.When you tach out above 5500rpm between shifts, the engine responds like it is Turbo charged....it is exhillirating.
    It is definately the best car for your enthusiast dollar ( yes, this is my midlife crisis remedy ). But, don't under estimate the ability of a "mature driver".
    I'd be remiss not to mention my dislikes ( beleive, there are just a couple ):
    1. The Cruise Control control rotates with the steering wheel. I've found myself searching for the cancel switch. ( obeying the speed limit of course ).
    2. The driver's side of the center console becomes uncomfortable to the outside of your right leg. I installed a small cushion over dress panel.
    I can't wait 'til it's broken in.....I'll put my G-Tech in it.
  • How did you manage to get 450hp on the Mustang. I owned a 94Z28 and put on a very enjoyable 140K miles before I traded for a 95Vette. The Z was very impressive and seemed to have more muscle than the Vette, but in respect the Vette is much quicker 0-60. The Celica GTS I have achieved 32mpg
    on the highway running 55-65mph. Very Impressive.
    When running 75-80mph I down to 28mpg. The only concern is the 180hp@7500rpm, that's cooking the rpm. When driving V8's and then cooking 7500rpm on a 4 banger you feel like she's gonna blow.
  • jkuonjjkuonj Posts: 1
    Get S2000, it will be worth every penny of it.
    If not....wait for the new Integra.
    I don't think it's going to be out in the next 12 months though.
  • cocheezcocheez Posts: 11
    I have been looking at three possible vehicles, The Celica GT-S, the Eclipse GT, and possibly a Nissan Maxima. All it has taken was one visit to a Toyota dealer to completely rule out the Celica. I am a 23 year old software engineer making almost 6 figures. The toyota dealership decided (based on my youth and appearance) that I would not be able to afford this vehicle and therefore would not let me drive it unless I was willing to talk numbers with them. How can I possibly determine if I want this vehicle if I can't drive it first? This type of profiling is unacceptable and any automaker that tolerates this kind of behavior will never get a dime of my money. Conversely, both the Mitsubishi and Nissan dealers were very helpful and eager to let me test drive the vehicle that I was considering. I finally decided on the Maxima SE 5-speed because of its great V6 and its practicality. To all potential Celica buyers, I sincerely hope you have a better experience with the dealer than I did.
  • Hi? I drove all those cars but I descided to get 2000Eclipse GT w/ Premium Package. This car rules man!!! I really liked it and I bet this car will Kick everyones [non-permissible content removed]. V6 w/ 24 valves.
  • mrspeedmrspeed Posts: 21
    I wouldn't bet on that! The Celica GTS and Acura Integra Type R offer better performance with less HP (because they're lighter) for about the same money. Not to mention better reliability and resale value (you didn't think about those I guess). If you need proof check out Road & Track and Motor Trend mags.
    But what's important is that you like your Eclipse.
  • japultrajapultra Posts: 10
    Buying a car is a very big investment and I don't think that a little rudeness should deter you away from what a great car the Celica is. Even though the Maxima has been totally redesigned and scored really high on Consumer Report charts, it's still not in the class of a sports car. The Celica has got to be the best sports car for the buck out in the market today.
  • berkrepberkrep Posts: 2
    I favor the eclipse GT becuase I preferred its overall driving experience compared to Celica GTS. I just can't get into the whinny, high reving 4 cylinders.

    Anyhow, as for reliability and resale, there are too few facts to base any comparison on; certainly everyone goes ga-ga over toyota's reputation, but that does not mean the "NEW" Celica is going to be reliable. Also, we must separate fact from reputation, almost any car that cost over $20k will last at least 5 years without ANY problems. Reliability difference are so marginal now-a-days in general for cars 5 years from new date, that it is not a big deal any more.

    As for resale, likely the Celica's will have great resale, but I think the Eclipse GT's will be no slouch either. It is just too soon to tell and there is little evidence to base an opinion on the eclipse's potential for resale.

    Finally performance, it will come down to what your looking for. I read the articles in R&T, and despite "mrspeed's" implication, there was no hands down winner. They summed it up by saying the Celica is better on the track, but the eclipse is better in real world road driving. I would agree based on my multiple test drives of each car. Plus, how many of us drive on a track? The 0-60 numbers differ by 0.2-0.3 seconds, which I doubt any of us could probably pick up anyway.
  • berkrepberkrep Posts: 2
    I concur with your experience with Toyota dealers. I didn't have the same problem you did, but I found them to be unreasonable; for example, to hold a Celica GTS that was coming to the lot, they wanted a $500 "non-refundable" deposit (give me a break). Mitsubishi on the other hand only required a $100, fully refundable deposit. Thus, I got a better feeling and wanted to deal with mitsu over Toyota
  • cocheezcocheez Posts: 11
    It was more than a little rudeness that prevented me from buying a Celica. There was no way I could drive it, without convincing the dealer that I would purchase it. I could not possibly make a purchase decision without driving the vehicle. Since there are no other Toyota dealers in my area, I could not drive a Celica and was forced to rule it out. I guess it all worked out for the best, my 45 mile daily commute is a joy in the Maxima, and I can easily fit all my camping/ski gear in it.
  • vocusvocus Posts: 7,777
    Drove both. Share Celica GT with automatic with a friend. The Eclipse V6 GT was wayyy higher than the Celica. Also, brakes aren't as good either. Celica gets more looks too. Eclipse was a nice ride though. Our tester had 335 miles on it. The dealer was like, "A lot of test drives but no purchases". I guess not. $24,000 for a car with NO ABS or sunroof??? Also, the headroom was tight for me as well.

    As far as the Celica being all new, the engine is shared with the Corolla. Don't think Toyota would tarnish the rep. of their beautiful Corolla with a bad engine. Also, compare Mitsu's past reliability records with Toyota. NO CONTEST!!!!
  • okuookuo Posts: 1
    I think its the height of irony that mitsubishi has changed to a more "refined" look when it should be keeping up with the racier cars out there like the acura integra and the celica. The new eclipses are more for the average day to day driver rather then the sports car enthusiasts. At the same time I like that toyota finally decided to get their heads out of their @$$ and design a sporty car. To me though it seems to be a little too much like the acura integra. High revvvv engine and good suspensions.
  • hey why all da drama. people are never gonna come to an agreement about which one of these cars has the best performance so just hush hush and get which ever one ya lyke.
  • credlovecredlove Posts: 1
    There is all this talk about which car is better for what. Now if we all just base on facts, opinions(from experience that is), and common sense...you should know what you should buy, by your needs. Now I recently looked into the 2000 Celica GT and boy it was bomb (the exterior)! I got inside and it was uncomfortable, talk about small. I test drove it and it was smooth, fast, and heads were turnin' alright. True it's small and fast, but with this size I can imagine how this car would handle on a windy day. The looks are what keep me into not looking into another car. Toyota does have a good reputation on reliability, but is reputation going to matter if probability of an accident is higher. Comfort and safety is more my priority. I guess its worth the risk if your into racing. I am.
  • From the day go I have been a die hard Bimmer lover. I had a 1998 BMW 328is that had to be the best car that I had ever owned. I was talking to some of my friends when we got involved in a conversation about Japaneese cars. We then got around to the topic of the new Celica. I had never owned anything but BMW in my life so I was pretty scepticle about buying a Toyota. Less than a week later I bought a 2000 model Celica GT-S. Now I have had it three months and I have to say that it is the most stylish, economical, and sporty-est car that I have ever driven. I was suprized at the power that it delivered compared to my Inline 6 in the 328is. Overall rating a 9.5, and the BMW 328is a 7.
  • dbhomedbhome Posts: 2
    Okay, I guess I’ll weigh in on this one.

    I’m looking at Road & Track’s 2000 Sport and GT Cars special issue, and the numbers say the Eclipse GT and the Celica GT-S are neck and neck in terms of speed. The Eclipse is quicker to 30mph, the Celica’s quicker to 40, they’re even at 50, Celica’s quicker to 60, Eclipse is quicker to 70, etc. In every case, the difference is one or two tenths of a second -- a difference you and I would never notice without a stopwatch. They’ve got identical times to 100 feet, identical times to 500 feet, and identical numbers in the quarter mile (15.4 seconds at 91.5mph). There’s reason to believe the Eclipse has a slightly higher top speed, but unless you’re driving a Metro, how often does top speed come into play in the real world?

    It’s great that Toyota’s once again making a Celica worthy of the name, one that can keep up with the Eclipse; that hasn’t been true in recent years. And a normally aspirated I4 that makes 180 horses is cool. But arguing about which of these cars is faster is like arguing about whether or not a ton of feathers is heavier than a ton of lead. We’ve got two nifty sports cars here that are quite fast. There are lots of slower cars than the Eclipse GT and the Celica GT-S, but let’s face it -- there are lots of faster cars, too.

    So it all comes down to styling. Really subjective stuff, like which car you think has the cooler exterior and the nicer interior. The Celica’s exterior is very sharp -- literally, in may respects. But in my entirely subjective view, I think it’s a little too radical -- it’s like it’s trying too hard to look cool. I can’t really explain it any better than that. I chose an Eclipse GT because I think it looks much cooler on the outside -- more elegant, more dramatic, and yeah, more refined. I think its 17” wheels look wicked. I love the alloy fuel door. And while the Celica’s seats are really nice, I think the Eclipse’s are pretty great, too, and its interior is more comfortable for two regular sized adults.

    Also, I drive in western L.A. County and Ventura County traffic, where every other car on the 101 is a huge SUV being driven by somebody whose last car was a Miata (can I get an “Amen,” people?), so I feel a tiny bit safer in a car that’s little bit bigger than the Celica. And while the two cars are equal in speed, I prefer the sound and smoothness of my car’s V6 over any 4-cylinders I’ve driven. (I might feel differently if I’d ever driven an S2000, but I haven’t had that pleasure and probably won’t any time soon.)

    Anyway, that’s my reasoning. Your mileage may vary. (In fact, in the Celica, your gas mileage will probably be better. But that’s another discussion, isn’t it?)
  • roadroachroadroach Posts: 131
    Excellent post. I find it entertaining when someone with a brand "H" car gets all worked up over a couple of 1/10ths. My position is that the GS-R's, GTS's, Eclipses and Preludes are ALL good cars and the choices will always be subjective in nature. Personally, I like the Celica but its not gonna kill me if people decide they like something else more. What does irk me is when they go out of their way to attack some perceived deficiency in my car just to justify their own choice.
  • dbhomedbhome Posts: 2
    Thanks, roadroach. I think it's understandable that people get fiercely competitive about their cars. You've just spent 20 grand or more on this thing; it's natural to want to believe beyond a shadow of doubt that you got the best you possibly could.

    Unfortunately, some folks can't feel convinced of that unless they can convince everybody *else* their car is best. I've seen guys so caught up in this syndrome, they'll argue that their new Integra could beat a Mustang GT. :)
  • roadroachroadroach Posts: 131
    WHAT?!?!? You mean the Integra WON'T beat a new Mustang GT???

    I must admit that some of my fellow Celica owners can be equally rabid. I've even heard a story of a new GTS beating a new Cobra in a heads up street race. Hmmmmmmmmmm.........

    You're right about the performance of all these cars......they're really all so close that it really comes down to the driver.
  • juniort19juniort19 Posts: 1
    first of all I would like to say that the new celica has the best look of any car in its type. I personally have always liked the mitsubishi eclipse for its look as well, and would favor it over any toyota, based upon the look. but with the new look of the celica, i must admit that the celica is the best looking, it does have a weird radical look to it, but the look is alot better than the new re-designed mitsubishi eclipse. Mitsubishi really screwed up on the the new look and i think that it sucks. but than again that is my personal opinion. Now lets look at another factor here, you have a 4 banger keeping up with a 6 spanker. Now that story of a celica beating a mustang gt off the line might be true, depending on the driver. but fitting two profesional drivers on both vehicles, with out a doubt the mustang gt would spank the celica and integra, or even the eclipse gt, of course keeping the idea that all of the vehicles are stock, showing all of those [non-permissible content removed] wagons once again who really dominates. I own a firebird trans-am, which i am the second owner to, my trans am is stock, and to date no 4 banger or 6 cyl car has ever beat me, and not even a mustang, my best friend owns a mustang gt, to which he has modified very much and still can't beat me. I am not saying that a 4 cyl or 6 cyl car will never beat me, just that if one ever did, they would really have to be suped up. for the same amount of money you spend to supe your 4 banger, to meet my stock trans-am, i can spend it to become even faster. Either way i respect the sport, as my 4 banging 87 celica has a turbo charger and a coffee can instead of the original exuahst it once had. I still like to race v-8s , whom sometimes i can beat, needful to say even some old mustangs and camaros.
  • Sometimes I feel like an alien, when everyone is talking about 0-60 times as if this is 90% of what matters in getting a new car, and for me I really don't give a damn about this.
  • roadroachroadroach Posts: 131
    I agree, 0-60 times relevance is overblown. A difference of a second is something which you can feel but I don't know what the hysteria is over a couple of 10ths. Most drivers probably can't get consistent #'s within 1/2 second so what's the point?
    I've used published numbers from C&D in the past just to get a better idea of how the car may feel relative to other cars. What's weird is that 0-60 in 7.0 flat feels completely different in a Celica GTS from an Eclipse GT. My advice is to try not to get caught up in the hysteria, test-drive several different cars and get the one that best fits you.
    Same holds true for interior dimensions. Pure numbers don't tell you how the space is shaped and/or arranged.
  • The issue isn't that many cars score very close together in 0 to 60. It's that 0 to 60 in a straight line is the last thing that matters when comparing a car, at least to me. The only person who cares about this is some moron peeling out at a stop light, which is really beyond useless and silly. I care far more about handling. Tell me how it does in an emergency lane change & brake. Yes braking is just as important as accelerating to me. Tell me how it does racing from 30 to 70 passing on a turn. Hows it do on a nice mountain drive slalom. I am especially concerned about wet traction, but maybe that is largely tires unless you've got AWD. I want to know safety, hows it do in a crash (probably grim with a car so small). Will the shrieking RPMS burst my eardrums when trying to cruise at 85MPH for hours, because they designed the car for 0-60 so much that there is no decent gear for the high end (too common these days). How is the aerodynamic rating on the car. Does the car track because the tires are too big, does it float at high speed, dive and squat on turns and braking. How is visibility out the car so I can manuever safely. None of this matters to people anymore it seems, marketing and evaluation is mostly 0 to 60 bull!$#.
  • roadroachroadroach Posts: 131
    Whoa, slow down dude, let me back up a bit. What the 0-60 test is designed to do is give a SUBJECTIVE analysis of a car's ability to accelerate. If Car 'A' does it significantly better than Car 'B', then I would have to say that it would also be better in your 30-70 passing on a turn test.

    Also, most mags these days post COMPLETE tests of their cars: all manner of acceleration tests, braking (though not as standardized I'll admit, sometimes 60-0, other times 70-0), brake fade, slalom, skidpad, noise level (db) at full throttle, 70mph cruising, 70 mph coasting, top gear passing accel (30-50 and 50-70), etc. etc. etc. C&D also does a fairly indepth tire comparison every 2-3 years to test, amoung other things, wet traction. Hell, they even test back seat space and back seat comfort (2 different tests) for many sedans as well as how many cases of beer a minivan will hold. Maybe you need to be reading different magazines or something......
  • krabberkrabber Posts: 1
    Hi all,
    Sorry for popping in sth thats outa context, but I didnt know where else to post. I bought this '91 celica gt a week back, and i'm having pblms with the power steering. The PS fluid leaks out within a day of topping it up. Any else had this pblm? My local mechanic wants me to replace the PS unit, but I'm not so sure abt that & I dont know anyth abt cars either.
    Any suggestions would be welcome.
    Thanks.
    krabber@hyperoffice.com
«134
This discussion has been closed.