It seems to me that the '82-'85 Celica is a fantastically great car. It's everything that's great about the Hi-Lux, only put in a lightweight, sporty body with the same suspension as the much lauded AE86-chassis Corolla. Yet, it seems that I'm the only one that seems to think these cars are any good, and I'm not sure why.
Can someone provide insight as to why there's no love for these cars?
Is that the RA60 chassis?
Maybe they're a little too heavy, or too 80's looking for some people?
Personally I love them. In fact, I was 2 minutes away from buying a coupe with a 22RC, but some kid had already sealed the deal with the owner just before I got there.
The only reason they're not popular is that the AE86 has stolen the spotlight from all the other great sports cars Toyota made until they...stopped making them. They could be a little too boxy for a modern audience too, but I say BRING ON DA ANGLES! 
ReverendDexter wrote: Can someone provide insight as to why there's no love for these cars?
back in the day........I was going to buy a new car and I was interested in the 1985 Celica with 5-speed and wheel flairs.
The 1985 200SX won out because of the independent rear axle similar to the 300ZX (and the entire Z/510 lineage).
I still think the celica's look sharp.
The only real problem with them is that like most '80s Japanese cars, they are biodegradable. I had the previous-gen Supra ('78-81) and it was a mechanical pile, however - very hard to work on, and broke fairly often even without abuse. It did make it to a quarter million miles, though.
i personally like the door stop shaped 89s Celicers
Horsepower, pure and simple. Every generation of Celica seemed to have a great chassis, great looks, and no power. Remember when they had 135hp and weighed like 500 pounds more than a 160hp Civic Si ..and cost more? Even the last generation with 180hp didn't exactly make headlines. In reality, they probably had all the horsepower they ever needed, and have done quite well in autocross competition, but they never had a "halo" version. Aside from the short-lived Turbo All-Trac (which wasn't all that powerful) the Celica never really had a Type-R or SRT that put up big dyno numbers. Those cars are important for selling the lesser models.
I always loved these cars, although they were a little heavy. The GTS version had IRS. The rear hatch had a major rust problem, due to a design flaw and poor rustproofing. I looked at a three year old one once that already had holes below the rear window. The cars with trunks seemed to last a little longer. Sadly, most of them are pretty much used up by now.
pinchvalve wrote: Horsepower, pure and simple. Every generation of Celica seemed to have a great chassis, great looks, and no power. Remember when they had 135hp and weighed like 500 pounds more than a 160hp Civic Si ..and cost more? Even the last generation with 180hp didn't exactly make headlines. In reality, they probably had all the horsepower they ever needed, and have done quite well in autocross competition, but they never had a "halo" version. Aside from the short-lived Turbo All-Trac (which wasn't all that powerful) the Celica never really had a Type-R or SRT that put up big dyno numbers. Those cars are important for selling the lesser models.
The last generation GTS with 180hp was no joke... amazing deal in the used car segment these days. It'll run circles around a new Civic Si, and can be found for $8k. Lightweight, 180hp, buttery smooth 6-speed, and some completely startling handling. I would not hesitate to take on an Acura Type R or RSX Type S around any track with one.
And yeah, the AllTrac was disapointing, although dead on against the DSMs in terms of power, though they were a bit more expensive.
3rd gen GT-S are widely considered one of the best handling Celicas ever. If you can find a nice one, i'd pick it up. Huge potential for pretty much ANYTHING in these chassis.
To me, someone who likes Celicas, it's sort of like the Star Trek movies...the odd numbered ones, for some reason aren't as popular as the even numbered ones.
I like the 2nd gen. Celica, but except for the GT and GT-S, I don't care for the 3rd gen because they look like folded boxes on wheels. I like the 4th gen. but the nearly identical 5th gen looks "too feminine" to me. But as others have pointed out, the BIGGEST prob with Celicas was that Toyota kept all the good stuff for other markets. The U.S. got RWD Celicas with HiLux engines and the FWD ones have lowly Corolla engines.
Would the AE86 be nearly as popular as it is, if it only had a single cam 1.6 of about 76 horsepower?
would be AE86 be as popular as it is if it weren't for initial-d ?
One of my good friends has one that he autocrosses and daily drives. I can honestly say that it is one of my favorite cars to see out there, and it is much more potent than most people expect. The biggest issue that I have seen with these (his included) is rust. It's awful, but no worse than the rust issues found in Corollas or any other Toyota of that era.
integraguy wrote: To me, someone who likes Celicas, it's sort of like the Star Trek movies...the odd numbered ones, for some reason aren't as popular as the even numbered ones. I like the 2nd gen. Celica, but except for the GT and GT-S, I don't care for the 3rd gen because they look like folded boxes on wheels. I like the 4th gen. but the nearly identical 5th gen looks "too feminine" to me. But as others have pointed out, the BIGGEST prob with Celicas was that Toyota kept all the good stuff for other markets. The U.S. got RWD Celicas with HiLux engines and the FWD ones have lowly Corolla engines. Would the AE86 be nearly as popular as it is, if it only had a single cam 1.6 of about 76 horsepower?
Nothing wrong with the 18r/20r/22r motors.... proven power.
And yeah...the stripper ST models in FWD configuration got absolute failure motors. Such as the 4afe/7afe. BUT, those are also the easiest to put in a 20v.
The GT/GTS typically got camry motors, which isn't MUCH better, but a 5th gen GT Coupe with the 5sfe isn't exactly dog sh*t slow... Very competitive to the Integra LS, and handles better, and in most instances that i ran across when i used to bracket race mine, was faster in a straight line.
MiatarPowar wrote: One of my good friends has one that he autocrosses and daily drives. I can honestly say that it is one of my favorite cars to see out there, and it is much more potent than most people expect. The biggest issue that I have seen with these (his included) is rust. It's awful, but no worse than the rust issues found in Corollas or any other Toyota of that era.
Yep. A well-kept 3rd gen GTS with minor bolt ons will surprise the hell out of you with BUNCHES of torque, and solid mid to low 15s quarter miles.
What's the weight difference between one of the Celica's and the Celica Supra's with the 6-cylinders?
I believe about 200lbs. MKii Supras typically weighed around 3000lbs.
RA65 was about 2700lbs in coupe form.
I love RWD Toyotas, I love 80's cars, and I love boxy styling. The Celica could be a fun project, but I can't imagine selling one of my Corollas for one. I guess rather than seeing it as a Hilux drivetrain with AE86 suspension and a lightweight chassis, I see it as an AE86 saddled with hundreds of extra pounds and without the sporty engine. Until the FWD GT-S with the 3S-GE and the All-Trac with the 3S-GTE, the Celica was always a nice sporty chassis stuck with engine choices that didn't have an inspiring state of tune. I'm not saying the the R-series are worthless, just that the factory never made them either powerful or sporting in character, which explains why they don't capture the heart and imagination of the enthusiast. Where would the Civic be if it had only ever been offered with the D-series and singlecams? Where would the Mustang be if all trim levels came with a normally-aspirated 2.3?
I do fantasize about building a RWD Celica rally car, though! :D The Beams 3S-GE from a Japanese Altezza ought to wake one up, and with flares/grille/paint like the TTE Group B cars it would be an eye-catcher.
I have dreams.... the kind complete with notcturnal emissions about a 3rd gen Celica or Supra with a 1UZ-FE in it.........
That and Selma Hayek.
Those rally Celicas didn't have an R motor. They had a super-rare turbo DOHC version of the T block that only came as a pushrod stateside. 4T-GTE, and they made something like 400hp in low boost trim.
Long live Group B!
Yup...4T-GTE, twincam, turbo, fuel-injected, and twin-plug! 
I'm not aware of a more powerful 2WD car that has competed in the world rally championship...long live Group B, indeed!
ae86andkp61 wrote: I love RWD Toyotas, I love 80's cars, and I love boxy styling. The Celica could be a fun project, but I can't imagine selling one of my Corollas for one. I guess rather than seeing it as a Hilux drivetrain with AE86 suspension and a lightweight chassis, I see it as an AE86 saddled with hundreds of extra pounds and without the sporty engine. Until the FWD GT-S with the 3S-GE and the All-Trac with the 3S-GTE, the Celica was always a nice sporty chassis stuck with engine choices that didn't have an inspiring state of tune. I'm not saying the the R-series are worthless, just that the factory never made them either powerful or sporting in character, which explains why they don't capture the heart and imagination of the enthusiast. Where would the Civic be if it had only ever been offered with the D-series and singlecams? Where would the Mustang be if all trim levels came with a normally-aspirated 2.3?
The weird think about that is that if you put an AE86 GT-S versus an RA65 GT-S against each other in pretty much ANY performance measure, the Celica walks all over it. WAY faster in stock trim, handles VERY well, and the power is more than enough to make up whatever the AE86 may have as an advantage on a REALLY tight autox course.
Is the 22re a "sporting" motor? Nah. Not really. But it gets the job done. But much like the 5th gen Celicas, you have to realize from the get go that your advantage over other "competing cars" is the torque, and the huge flexible powerband. You don't HAVE to rev the hell out of it, and that's half the fun.
I like to think of it as a lighter MKii Supra, personally. :)
Ryan9118 wrote: What's the weight difference between one of the Celica's and the Celica Supra's with the 6-cylinders?
Our 1983 Supra weighs 3186 at the Roebling Racetrack scales. The non-hatchback Celica GTS should be a ~3-400 pounds lighter.
Once we picked this car up I started shopping for more Celica or Supra (or parts) of the MKII generation. Not many running cars and the local pull-a-part does not keep them long either...
personally I like them, a lot....
Is the weight gain for the Supra worth it to get the inline-6? I suppose you could drop a lot of weight from the Supra, but probably just as much from the Celica and still be better off.
I think that is debatable. I have done a little reading on these and the I6 does not make that much power no matter how you slice it unless you start moving into non-grassroots territory. The R motors do have a good bit of support. I think that if your goal was to go as fast as possible then you could do the best with some kind of turbo set up on the Celica. The supra package adds quite a bit of weight....
You'll need to log in to post.
