| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 03 July 2005 09:34
|
 |
i'm curious as i cant find any information or car reviews on the performance figures (stock) of these models..
0-100kph
400m
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 03 July 2005 13:17
|
|
well..... dont epect too much out of a stock celica
my old ra28 (18r-c) done 0-100 in ~11seconds lol. and 1/4 mile i dont even want to know about 
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 03 July 2005 16:08
|
|
|
i'd say it wouldnt be too far from the performance of a VR
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 03 July 2005 19:39
|
|
a VR4 or a VR commodore lol
how well do the engines respond to some gentle poking.. say more induction and Zorst/extractors?
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 03 July 2005 22:50
|
|
Hi,
The old 1st gens weren't the quickest. But I think the TA22 was quicker than the RA23 and RA28 series.
Naturally, the GTs were the quickest of the 1st gen Celicas.
I remeber seeing some spec sheets on their acceleration etc on the web a long time ago. I may see if I can find it again.
You got to remember that back in the 70's when the 1st gens were built (mainly refering to the TA22) they were, for a 4cyl car, pretty good in the performance category when compared to similar 4cyl vehicles of the same vintage.
I remember beating my share of 6cylinder Holdens and Fords (except the 250 cu in Cortina - they were fast!), Datsun 180Bs, non-rotar Mazdas, Escorts, Marinas, Kimberelys... etc in my LT TA22.
The TA22 weighed in at 950kg and the 2T engine produced 102bhp - so it wasn't a bad package for its day.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 01:25
|
|
| verbatim210 wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 01:38 |
i'd say it wouldnt be too far from the performance of a VR
|
umm.. were talking stock here, a VR would kill a celica performance wise.
as for how they respond to gentle poking, any 18R-c celica (RA23, and RA28) will see the smallest increase in power with an exhaust and better induction, i wouldnt even bother, just wack in an 18RG for a mild upgrade. I have heard though that 2T's (TA22s) can respond well to gentle poking, but im not exactly sure, it certanlly helps that TA22's are almost 100kg lighter.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 08:06
|
|
|
something like an old wheels or motor review would be great in terms of stats and the like.
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 09:12
|
|
| RA28GT wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 11:25 |
| verbatim210 wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 01:38 |
i'd say it wouldnt be too far from the performance of a VR
|
umm.. were talking stock here, a VR would kill a celica performance wise.
as for how they respond to gentle poking, any 18R-c celica (RA23, and RA28) will see the smallest increase in power with an exhaust and better induction, i wouldnt even bother, just wack in an 18RG for a mild upgrade. I have heard though that 2T's (TA22s) can respond well to gentle poking, but im not exactly sure, it certanlly helps that TA22's are almost 100kg lighter.
|
im no mechanic and i admit i not jack shit all about cars, (im trying to learn though) but im pretty damn well sure my celica is stock and i'm pretty damn sure i bet my friends VR.
1. either he's a shit driver (automatic transmission go figure)
2. his car was not in it's best condition
3. my car got a full service
these are the only factors i can think of, but my car's stock and it won.
cheers and thanks all, be sure to give this some feed back
josh
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 10:34
|
|
ta22's can beat Vr commodores, repeditively , over and over again 
They are nimble little buggers , and definantly do upset alot of modern car owners - like river - ive tried , and succeeded
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 11:01
|
|
|
*goes on google and searches ta22*
|
|
|
Location:
Townsville
Registered:
February 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 12:20
|
|
I reckon a vr commodore would kill it straight line. They seem to run a mid 16 pretty much stock auto. Although they were about the slowest of the v6 commodore, surely quicker than a 2t powered celica?
They are 2t-c powered arent they, and seing how slow the 3tc t18 is, there is no way of getting close in a straight line.
Around a track might be a different case though, especially a short track like we race on.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 13:13
|
|
|
i dont think a 1.6l celica would beat a 6 cyl bombadore, i'm more interested to know what kind of performance to expect from an ra23/ra28
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 13:42
|
|
expect less proformance out of an ra28/23
it may be 0.4 of a litre larger, but the 18R-c is good for nothing except a oversized paperweight.
not to mention the added weight of ra28's and 23's (28's being the heaviest)
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 13:46
|
|
|
im' not familiar with ra28/33's and 1.6 celica's. all i know is i've got a stock celica 2.0ltr and it bet a VR. so if i were to have any doubts, it would be the condition of the VR i was up against. wouldn't that make sense?
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 14:03
|
|
| RA28GT wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 23:42 |
expect less proformance out of an ra28/23
it may be 0.4 of a litre larger, but the 18R-c is good for nothing except a oversized paperweight.
not to mention the added weight of ra28's and 23's (28's being the heaviest)
|
pity the ra28 is also the best looking
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Mon, 04 July 2005 14:06
|
|
| verbatim210 wrote on Mon, 04 July 2005 23:46 |
im' not familiar with ra28/33's and 1.6 celica's. all i know is i've got a stock celica 2.0ltr and it bet a VR. so if i were to have any doubts, it would be the condition of the VR i was up against. wouldn't that make sense?
|
so what celica did you do that in, because i'm talking about 1st generation celicas
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 06:23
|
|
|
the one in my avatar, 4th generation.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 07:55
|
|
|
hahaha Verbatim, your a clown! 1st gen = 1971! haha Or is it 72?
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 10:44
|
|
|
i seem to be missing your point.
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 10:51
|
|
its pretty subtle
yours is 4th gen - not oldschool
oldschool is those carby fed things with no hatchbacks ( unless its an ra28 of course )
st162 is also a bit pokier, though both will flog a commodore ..
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:07
|
|
Hi,
1st gen is (collectively) the 1970-1977 models.
Technically, the 1st gen should actually be the 1970-1975 models (ie TA22/RA25/TA27 and some other models).
The RA23/RA28/RA29/RA35 (and some other models) should actually be 2nd gen - but 'cos they all look quite similar to the earleir (1970-1975 models), though not as good IMO, they are all bulked into the 1st gen category.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Victoria, Melbourne
Registered:
April 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:15
|
|
oooooooooooooooooooo i get it now. after reading the title, i realised i was talking about the wrong celica. whoops mah bad! 
ok so neway, since we're talking about 1st gen celicas are they suppose to be better or worse?
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:35
|
|
Hi,
| verbatim210 wrote on Tue, 05 July 2005 21:15 |
ok so neway, since we're talking about 1st gen celicas are they suppose to be better or worse?
|
Depends. Are you talking about looks or performance?
Appearance-wise, and this is only my personal opinion, I think any Celica built from 1970 to 1977 (the 1st gens) absolutely pisses all over any later model Celica.
Performance-wise, the newer models with their hi-tech engines and other bits are faster than the older models. They look like crap, but I'm sure they're faster, more stable, quieter, smoother, more comfy.... and relatively classless, charmless & characterless FWD urban get abouts. Again, naturally, this is my personal opinion.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:46
|
|
Hi,
Yep... the rear end of the RA28 is a delight to the eyes, and only surpassed by the rear end of the RA25 (let alone the fluted bonnet). Though, I also very much appreciate the rear of the early model TA22 with the dished rear lights.
It's so good to see these old cars still on the roads. Always a pleasure to spot one driving around.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:52
|
|
not ALL late models are FWD econo hairdressers River
you should know a Gt4 is beyond that 
oldschool ra and ta celicas are by far the coolest shape IMHO - but the st185 Group A and St205 group A are by far the ballziest and most gusty looking - built for winning
The oldschools built for cruising in style!
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Tue, 05 July 2005 11:56
|
|
Hi,
| Classique71 wrote on Tue, 05 July 2005 21:52 |
not ALL late models are FWD econo hairdressers River
you should know a Gt4 is beyond that
oldschool ra and ta celicas are by far the coolest shape IMHO - but the st185 Group A and St205 group A are by far the ballziest and most gusty looking - built for winning
The oldschools built for cruising in style!
|
Agreed. You are indeed correct.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide, SA
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Wed, 06 July 2005 08:31
|
|
the only thing i can find is for an ra40, which is...
power: 66kw
fuel consumption: 10.5L / 100km
top speed: 160kph
accel 0-100km : 14.5sec
accel 440m : 18.6sec
weight: 1055kg
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Fri, 08 July 2005 12:42
|
|
Hi,
1055kg seems a bit light for an RA40. I'd reckon it's about 100kg (or more) heavier than that. I think the RA28's are over 1100kg and most cars get fatter and heavier in each model, so I'd say the RA40 would be heavier again.
The RA25 is 1050kg and I seriously think the RA40 would be a lot heavier (ie more than 5kg heavier).
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
December 2004
|
|
Re: 1st gen celica performance figures?
|
Sun, 10 July 2005 01:46
|
|
This is what you want.
http://www.d2.dion.ne.jp/~yama_oto/html.files/spec 01.html
According to that,
A Ta22 LT will do the quarter in 17.4. W00t speed demon.
A Gt on the other hand will do it in 16.5.
Hope it helps mate.
Cheers
|
|
|
