| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Wed, 09 June 2004 22:27
|
 |
You know the ones ... I know SX is the top spec Aussie delivered version, but for what reasons would u get the ST ?!
and how much of a price difference should there be ??
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, QLD
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Wed, 09 June 2004 23:21
|
|
The biggest difference between the two is that the ST has the 3S-FE motor, while the SX has the 3S-GE. The 3S-FE had 88kW and the 3S-GE had 103kW, which should pretty much sum it up! The 3S-FE motor was also used in the SV21 Camry of the same time period.
I believe the FE desgination refers to a narrow angle cylinder head, and the GE means a wide angle cylinder head (ie higher performance). The GE also had the T-VIS (Toyota Variable Induction System or some such) on the intake, which makes for a very easy way to tell the two apart.
Off the top of my head, other differences include:
- 14" wheels on a 5 stud bolt pattern on SX, 13" wheels (of a different design) on a 4 bolt pattern on ST
- SX has rear discs, ST has rear drums (front brakes may be different too, not sure)
- SX only available as liftback, ST available as both liftback and coupe (so if you see a coupe then it's definitely an ST)
- SX has power windows (although some had manual), ST has manual windows
- Cruise control and sunroof were available as options on SX, not on ST
I'm sure there's other minor differences but these are the main ones. The ST was definitely the cost cutting poverty pack version of the car, intended no doubt to lure buyers into the showroom with an attractive starting price.
I have an original sales brochure for the 4th gen (which I picked up from a motor show back in highschool - wow I'm showing my age here!) so if you want to know anything else just ask!
As for the price difference between the two, I'm not sure. I only looked at SX's when I was shopping around, but I would expect that an ST should be significantly cheaper than an SX in similar condition.
Cheers man, hope that helps.
Matt
[Updated on: Wed, 09 June 2004 23:28]
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 01:07
|
|
ded set legend !
SX it is then
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 01:08
|
|
|
4 SURE dude
|
|
|
Location:
Wahroonga
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 02:34
|
|
|
SX......hell yea
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 03:31
|
|
|
should by rights be a bit of a price difference, but I think the ST goes for about $1000 less than the SX if that.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, QLD
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 04:10
|
|
| Les wrote on Thu, 10 June 2004 11:07 |
ded set legend !
SX it is then
|
No probs! SX is definitely the way to go.
Good luck finding a nice one! They are great cars, you'll love owning and driving it.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 06:29
|
|
|
*cough* gt4 *cough* *cough*
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 07:00
|
|
| Squid wrote on Thu, 10 June 2004 16:29 |
*cough* gt4 *cough* *cough*
|
cough cough .. need a daily driver that I can drive without waring up and stop without warming up ! LOL
|
|
|
Location:
Elwood, Melb
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 10 June 2004 11:02
|
|
Fuck you guys!!! 
Payin out the ST, i have one damn it, now i feel really disadvantaged, i don't need all those fancy extras anyway, thats for bloody yuppies, yeah thats right YUPPIES, it takes a real man to wind up windows.
Geez, some people just take things to heart.
Bah, its all good though because mine is getting revamped. You all probably know. Oh yeah my signature, shit didn't notice sorry.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, QLD
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 00:26
|
|
Hey man, settle.....nobody's paying out on ST's. I've certainly got no problem with them. I and all the other SX owners here seem to like our versions, that's all. No ST bashing going on.
Les asked what are the differences, I listed them. End of story.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberre
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 01:08
|
|
my SX doesnt have power windows! power
windows are all dead weight anyway  
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 01:31
|
|
is 293,000 kms a lot for the 3sge's ?
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, QLD
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 02:08
|
|
Well it all depends.....a motor can have that many km on it and still be in decent condition if it's been well looked after. Just look for the usual signs - smoking, rattles, leaks etc. Best bet is to have it inspected by the NRMA or someone who will give an unbiased opinion.
Timing belts need to be replaced every 100000km, so bear in mind that it is probably due for another one at 300000. There should be a record of when it was replaced last, either in the handbook (or at least a receipt) or a sticker on the timing belt cover.
Mine has 260000 on it and it still runs fine, I'm planning to replace it at around 300000 though.
|
|
|
Location:
Elwood, Melb
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 06:02
|
|
| matt86sx wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 10:26 |
Hey man, settle.....nobody's paying out on ST's. I've certainly got no problem with them. I and all the other SX owners here seem to like our versions, that's all. No ST bashing going on.
Les asked what are the differences, I listed them. End of story.
|
Ahhhaha I was just kidding around Matt, i certainly have no problem with STs its just those damn SXs i hate *hands in the air* just kidding.
When i was looking for a car i didn't even know the difference between the 2, only that the SX had a sunroof, i didnt know much back then, but I've grown to love my celi, if i had another chance i definately would have gone the SX.
Sorry if I sounded serious b4 thats just my sense of humour.
|
|
|
Location:
Melb, Victoria
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 12:14
|
|
i havnt got elec windows either..one less thing to fuck up 
mines got 294000kms on it.runs ok.doesnt blow smoke or rattle but leaks, (and burns the oil somehow  ) .it seems to be reliable thou,(touch wood)
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 11 June 2004 13:05
|
|
|
Yeah, I've got that magical missing oil problem too! I put a litre in it every 1000k's or so. It's not blowing smoke (to my knowledge) and the leaks have been patched up... oddness!?
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Sat, 12 June 2004 12:54
|
|
mines done 310,000 and since fixed up stuff it is sweet and doesnt use ne oil or blow ne smoke.
but i had a camry that drank a full thingo of oil for every tank of petrol. but that car was shite as.
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Sat, 12 June 2004 13:13
|
|
| drft spec - st167 wrote on Sat, 12 June 2004 22:54 |
mines done 310,000 and since fixed up stuff it is sweet and doesnt use ne oil or blow ne smoke.
but i had a camry that drank a full thingo of oil for every tank of petrol. but that car was shite as.
|
my Camry doesn't do that in fact it uses fuck all oil I know someone whos had 500,000km up on the clock on his Camry (same modle and motor as mine) and still ran fine no excessive oil problems with the only problem being the needles being bent in the dash from sun light(replaced twice) must be a camry thing with the needles bending mine are bent and mum and dad have had there neddles in the dash replaced once but as for the ST162 question I'd take a SX more power!
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Sun, 13 June 2004 07:40
|
|
Celicas need the GE head though 
They just aren't quick enough without it!
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 05:19
|
|
|
yeah my camry was treated like shite b4 i got it, my gf and my dad all have camry's and they r very reliable.
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 05:20
|
|
|
yeah and wats with old camry's and the needles bending, hehehehe mind did that. it was funny as
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 08:22
|
|
|
I just put it down to being Camry this bloke I know brought a ST162 with a 3S-GTE in it (SX) I thought that was pretty cool did any ST162's come out standard with the turbo motor? this one here had a 3S-GE in it originally I was thinking of a GT-4 but was there a GT-4 ST162?
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 08:35
|
|
there was a st165 gt4 ..
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 08:44
|
|
miiiiiick...... 
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 09:07
|
|
|
ok I knew of the GT-4 ST165 but I can't seem to find a ST162 thats a GT-4 oh well I'll keep serching
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 09:17
|
|
|
Dam can't find anything except ones that have had an 3S-GTE conversion oh well it was a nice search seen some nice cars while serching but. mainly Celica's yeah!
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Mon, 14 June 2004 11:29
|
|
Part of the whole car number thing is about what kind of engine it has in it...
For example, the ST182 has 2nd Gen 3S-GE, while the ST184 has the 5S-FE engine, and the ST185 has the 3S-GTE with 4wd.
The ST162 - by definition - has a 3S-GE...generally I've heard of the 'ST' model being referred to as an ST161 (in parts catalogues, maybe not by toyota! If anyone has an ST look at the model number and correct me).
The ST16x range of celicas did not have a front drive turbo variant, all 2WD ones were naturally aspirated, and all turbo models were 4WD.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, QLD
Registered:
April 2004
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 00:16
|
|
| Quote: |
Ahhhaha I was just kidding around Matt, i certainly have no problem with STs its just those damn SXs i hate *hands in the air* just kidding.
When i was looking for a car i didn't even know the difference between the 2, only that the SX had a sunroof, i didnt know much back then, but I've grown to love my celi, if i had another chance i definately would have gone the SX.
Sorry if I sounded serious b4 thats just my sense of humour.
|
Hey man no worries, it's all good.
For a while there I thought you were getting overly protective of your ST....and going on the defensive! My bad for not seeing the humour in it. Your car is a Celica and that's all that matters!
Oh, and I haven't been away sulking or anything.....I only use the net at work and we just had a long weekend!
-Matt
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 03:09
|
|
|
dont laugh - i think im gonna get a corolla instead fellas HAHAH
|
|
|
Location:
Castle Hill, Sydney
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 03:55
|
|
| Les wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 13:09 |
dont laugh - i think im gonna get a corolla instead fellas HAHAH
|
/slap! snap out of it man!
i got a SX and man shes a whole lot of fun!
|
|
|
Location:
Wahroonga
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 07:22
|
|
| Les wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 13:09 |
dont laugh - i think im gonna get a corolla instead fellas HAHAH
|
well if all u want is something with no power just to get around, yea corolla's the way to go over celica.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 08:08
|
|
OR...
you could ditch your idea of a corolla and get yourself a celica, pretty good economy ~10L/100km and lots of power you know you want it
|
|
|
Location:
Elwood, Melb
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Tue, 15 June 2004 11:54
|
|
|
OR you could be a total sell-out and get a hyundia or daiwoo, cos they're pretty good on fuel too, but if you wanna get the ladies then stick with a TOYOTA, and if you wanna get them in bed then get a CELICA.
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Thu, 17 June 2004 02:18
|
|
sillycar88. saw your car at calder, nice rims, r they concept 9's?? is ur car slightly lowered or the rims just fill up the arches better?
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 18 June 2004 03:41
|
|
| finney wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 18:08 |
OR...
you could ditch your idea of a corolla and get yourself a celica, pretty good economy ~10L/100km and lots of power you know you want it
|
I TOLD U TO WAIT TILL I SOLD MY SPRINTER FINNNNNEY !!!!! DOG
and to all the other statements chill chill .. i HAVE a celica .. a MANS one ... a black purple pearl RA65 with 1ggte in it ... just need to get it on the road which will be soon, but in the mean time need a bomb to drive me round..
i lurve the st162's though !!! they look the part ... but the engile oil (drinking) problems u guys mentioned above have scared me a little ... i have never heard of any problems with the carbie 1.6L rollas though ... there is one for $1,200 .. bloody cheap ... gonna look at it tonight ..
|
|
|
Location:
Elwood, Melb
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 18 June 2004 06:33
|
|
| drft spec - st167 wrote on Thu, 17 June 2004 12:18 |
sillycar88. saw your car at calder, nice rims, r they concept 9's?? is ur car slightly lowered or the rims just fill up the arches better?
|
Thanks dude but whatabout the car  anyway theyre ALT sevens, and no my car is definately lowered ALOT, but not as much as your photoshoped efforts
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Fri, 18 June 2004 07:36
|
|
yeah i couldnt tell bout ur car lowered do to the big rims.
hmm in that dodgy photo my car is stock height it is just riding on 22's.
|
|
|
Location:
NSW Engadine
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 04:00
|
|
|
My ST162 SX is insured as an ST for some reason but the payout is about the same ($5000) Im not doing ANY modification work to the 162, i'm just saving for a ST165 GT-4.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: ST vs SX ST162 Celica
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 09:27
|
|
Shraka - lol I'd like to see you say that to a GT4 owner
Les - My engine didn't drink oil - it pissed oil I've subsequently fixed that. The problem is that most celicas are either driven and maintained by dickwads, or chicks who have no idea how to take care of a car. This leads to problems after 18 years! They are bloody strong engines and they'll keep going and going and going...I've seen 300,000k 3S-GEs that are still in really good nick that don't leak a drop of oil and haven't even been rebuilt.
I've also seen ones with all rings seized in the piston grooves because of serious oil contaminant build-up.
Besides, most people ditch the 3S-GE and grab a 3S-GTE these days anyway for serious ST162 fun.
|
|
|
