celica or fto gpx?

davsin50 · Post by **davsin50** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:23 am

i am trying to make a tough decision.

i can either get myself a 1996 celica or a 1996 fto gpx. both are selling for 12k. the celica is a manual and the fto a tiptronic.

any help would be appriciated

HiRAEdd · Post by **HiRAEdd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:32 am

There's no competition in my opinion, FTO's crap all over a Silly-car. And they look about 10 times better than a Silly-car. I'd be holding out for a manual FTO though.

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:16 am

96 silly-car basically a 2 door Camry, its slow, had less feature & bloody ugly. I remember i use to drag my friend's one, & beat him every single time with a 89 Magna

No comparison, & thats final.

veilside · Post by **veilside** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:38 am

Not to mention the fact that even stock FTO's turn heads, whereas a Celica is fairly commonplace.

Post by **smorison** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:15 am

lol
come to a fto forum and ask which car is better...

seriously though..

the fto will:

out handle the celica
out accelerate the celice
only really fit 2 people
stand out more than the celica

MrFT000 · Post by **MrFT000** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:20 am

If you are considering a Celica, the only real comparison is the 90-93 Celica GT4 (ST-185). These sell for around $10-14k now. 2Litre Turbo 4WD. putting out stock 153kw at the flywheel.

However, I was looking for one for a long time, and test drove 5 different varieties, some heavily modified, some stock and they were all slow in comparison to the FTO.
You might be thinking, how could a 2litre turbo 4wd car be slower than a 2l NA FWD, but it is. The celica is just too damn overweight.

And with some good suspension upgrades on the FTO it will outhandle the Celica as well.

the 96 celica, thats just a 2dr camry

But on the plus side of the celica.
It would be more fuel efficient, cheaper insurance, and parts and servicing much easier to come by. Also you can run it on normal unleaded rather than premium.

DZYRME · Post by **DZYRME** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:27 am

Not many people would say they prefer a Celica than a FTO on these Forums.

Go the FTO, you wont regret it.

HiRAEdd · Post by **HiRAEdd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:41 am

smorison wrote:lol
come to a fto forum and ask which car is better...

seriously though..

Are you insinuating that us FTO owners would be in any way biased?? I resemble that remark!

Post by **smorison** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:54 am

HiRAEdd wrote: Are you insinuating that us FTO owners would be in any way biased?? I resemble that remark!

my first car was an 86 celica

fantastic for dirt roads and rally driving... damn i miss that...

these days i'll only take teania's fto onto dirt roads lol

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:10 pm

MrFT000 wrote:If you are considering a Celica, the only real comparison is the 90-93 Celica GT4 (ST-185). These sell for around $10-14k now. 2Litre Turbo 4WD. putting out stock 153kw at the flywheel.

However, I was looking for one for a long time, and test drove 5 different varieties, some heavily modified, some stock and they were all slow in comparison to the FTO.
You might be thinking, how could a 2litre turbo 4wd car be slower than a 2l NA FWD, but it is. The celica is just too damn overweight.

And with some good suspension upgrades on the FTO it will outhandle the Celica as well.

I wouldn't agree more, had few shot at these ST-185, they have to be the quickest Silly-Car apart from the newest VVTi, but still not even close, i was so suprise when i was pulling further & further away every dam gear, & mine is Tip as well.

efteoh · Post by **efteoh** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:12 pm

honestly, the st185 is very quick and easily manage flat 7's. i believe it was the st205 that put on the weight and had a smaller turbo (for response) but keeping in mind its racking up to 13 yr old. and the 3sgte tends to leak and blow gaskets (sometimes). having said that how ever, they are very solid engines.

but i guess your comparing the aussi deliverd one, def go the FTO, you might limit your insurance choices as ppl have said, but well worth it.

the new 01 celicas arnt bad at all..

Boris · Post by **Boris** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:25 pm

Have you compared insurance/maintanance/parts ? because they will be quite different between the two.

A 12k FTO, is very very cheap. I would be concerned as to how reliable that FTO will be, or atleast test drive a more expensive FTO for comparisons. Don't forget to do a full mechanical inspection.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:31 pm

running costs wise, the celica will blow away the fto
talking small 4 cycle (8 or 10 l to the 100kms)
vs small v6 (10-12l to the 100kms)

insurance on a celica, is pretty much the same as a camry, dirt cheap

fto is on the mroe expensive end
bit if that 12k fto is in good shape 3rd party isnt to bad on a car you only paid that much for if its an issue.

but get a full mech check, the fto should be worth more like 16k unless its got like 200,000k kms

the celica will satify the person who jsut wants a car that looks resnobly s(wanky) cheap to run and reliable

the FTO will satisfy the person who wants performance, reliability, rarity, and a head turner.

p.s. it cant be a gt-4 because teh gt-4's in that price range are more like 1993, 1996 is the st205 which costs more like 40k (25k if its JDM)

MrFT000 · Post by **MrFT000** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:17 pm

efteoh wrote:honestly, the st185 is very quick and easily manage flat 7's. i believe it was the st205 that put on the weight and had a smaller turbo (for response) but keeping in mind its racking up to 13 yr old. and the 3sgte tends to leak and blow gaskets (sometimes). having said that how ever, they are very solid engines.

but i guess your comparing the aussi deliverd one, def go the FTO, you might limit your insurance choices as ppl have said, but well worth it.

the new 01 celicas arnt bad at all..

Flat 7s!?

Thats a joke right????
yeah your right in saying the ST205 did put on more weight (leather interior, cruise control) but it still had a big CT20 turbo, CT26 on the ST185.

I would love to see a GT4 doin flat 7s

Slither · Post by **Slither** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:20 pm

MrFT000 wrote:
efteoh wrote:I would love to see a GT4 doin flat 7s

I'd say he meant 0-100 in 7 seconds, qtr mile for an st185 is almost the same as an fto gpx, think there is about 0.3 seconds between them from memory, the st185 being the quicker of the 2

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:47 pm

The series II ST162 ( '86-'88 ) is a legendary car, like Steve this was my first car. Lacking a bit of power compared to an FTO but for its time it was a great looker and not a bad performer.

As for the other models I wouldn't touch them unless you're looking at the GT4's. The ST-185 is nice and relatively easy to mod, but only look at the ST-205 if it is the proper Group A Rally version.

Damn Toyota for cheating in the WRC with the GT4's, they were coming out with some nice stuff and they put a nail in their coffin prematurely. A clever way of cheating though, it took the officials a long time to work out what it was and even then it was by accident

.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:30 pm

i remeber somthign about that
what was it
somthign to do with a air intake?

briong back A) the supra
B) the GT-4
C) the silvia (why nissan why??)
D) RX-7
E) cars like the nissan MACH SUPER TURBO
F) JDM MIVEC lancers and stuff to australia
G) Last but not least

NEXT FTO PLEASE

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:22 pm

paladin wrote:i remeber somthign about that
what was it
somthign to do with a air intake?

As with most motor sports the WRC governing body introduced various technical rules to try to minimise the difference in performance between the big teams with all the $$$ and many of the other teams who couldn't get anywhere near them.

One of these rules was that the air intake to the turbo had to be limited to a particular size. By reducing the air flow it also reduced the power the engine could produce.

Toyota rather ingeniously got around this restriction by using a spring loaded catch that allowed around 25% more air to flow through. This was not visible as you looked at the car and when you undid the clips that held all the piping in place the spring would snap everything shut and you couldn't see where it had been open.

I can't remember how they found it, but I remember it was by mistake, when they were looking for something else.

The time, effort and $$$ they had spent on this little device and in making sure it was all concealed was quite incredible. It was all very intricate and used only the best parts and it was all finished off professionally.

But then again, the WRC has always had a few cheats, like the car park of 500 Lancias with no engines and steering wheels on broomstick handles

.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:38 pm

gotta remeber how much moeny its worth to put your name up there :/

mrx · Post by **mrx** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:09 am

smorison wrote:
HiRAEdd wrote: Are you insinuating that us FTO owners would be in any way biased?? I resemble that remark!
my first car was an 86 celica

fantastic for dirt roads and rally driving... damn i miss that...

these days i'll only take teania's fto onto dirt roads lol

Well Steve, I just picked up a red '86 Celica with a reconditioned JDM 3SGE allegedly good for 160hp. I say allegedly, because I only got it yesterday and have not had a chance to "test" it yet.

The brakes are going to have to be upgraded though - may be a bit spoilt by the FTO but it is just not good enough!

Being red, the paint needs a good buffing & the interior...it needs some work too, but for the price I cannot complain. It is now my daily driver so the will FTO sit in the garage instead of driving too and from work.

Anyway, back on topic - get the FTO