Time to get a different car
Community Organizer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,961
Likes: 12
From: Oregon City, OR
Originally Posted by 21k,Sep 22 2009, 01:29 AM
a celica would be my choice. the 00-05 body style. two door, fwd, sunroof, 158hp. pretty decent car. sentra ser is 4 door but comes with a 2.4l with 175hp. maintenance and insurance will be CHEAP on it cause i used to have one so i know. they dont look cool but are a nice car with springs and wider rims.
the GT-S was 180hp at the block
But I agree, it would be a great options. I had an 01 Celica prior to the S. It was fantastic for being a sporty FWD "economy" car. I drove it over the mountains, in the heavy winters here and never had an issue. Siped all-season tires were all I ever needed for it.
The GT didnt have VVTL-i so it didnt have any lift bolt issues (they would break on the GT-S and you'd lose out on VVTL, and/or kill the engine.
The GT took regular (GT-S = premium)
the GT was lighter, but still slower.
Smaller rims (stock 15 vs 16 GT-S) = cheaper rubber
Relatively reliable too. AND got 30+mpg.
It's no AWD winter beast, but it was capable, and still fun.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Sabre,Sep 22 2009, 12:40 PM
The GT celica was 140hp at the block
the GT-S was 180hp at the block
But I agree, it would be a great options. I had an 01 Celica prior to the S. It was fantastic for being a sporty FWD "economy" car. I drove it over the mountains, in the heavy winters here and never had an issue. Siped all-season tires were all I ever needed for it.
The GT didnt have VVTL-i so it didnt have any lift bolt issues (they would break on the GT-S and you'd lose out on VVTL, and/or kill the engine.
The GT took regular (GT-S = premium)
the GT was lighter, but still slower.
Smaller rims (stock 15 vs 16 GT-S) = cheaper rubber
Relatively reliable too. AND got 30+mpg.
It's no AWD winter beast, but it was capable, and still fun.
the GT-S was 180hp at the block
But I agree, it would be a great options. I had an 01 Celica prior to the S. It was fantastic for being a sporty FWD "economy" car. I drove it over the mountains, in the heavy winters here and never had an issue. Siped all-season tires were all I ever needed for it.
The GT didnt have VVTL-i so it didnt have any lift bolt issues (they would break on the GT-S and you'd lose out on VVTL, and/or kill the engine.
The GT took regular (GT-S = premium)
the GT was lighter, but still slower.
Smaller rims (stock 15 vs 16 GT-S) = cheaper rubber
Relatively reliable too. AND got 30+mpg.
It's no AWD winter beast, but it was capable, and still fun.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,881
Likes: 0
From: Corn Country
Originally Posted by Sabre,Sep 22 2009, 03:40 PM
The GT celica was 140hp at the block
the GT-S was 180hp at the block
But I agree, it would be a great options. I had an 01 Celica prior to the S. It was fantastic for being a sporty FWD "economy" car. I drove it over the mountains, in the heavy winters here and never had an issue. Siped all-season tires were all I ever needed for it.
The GT didnt have VVTL-i so it didnt have any lift bolt issues (they would break on the GT-S and you'd lose out on VVTL, and/or kill the engine.
The GT took regular (GT-S = premium)
the GT was lighter, but still slower.
Smaller rims (stock 15 vs 16 GT-S) = cheaper rubber
Relatively reliable too. AND got 30+mpg.
It's no AWD winter beast, but it was capable, and still fun.
the GT-S was 180hp at the block
But I agree, it would be a great options. I had an 01 Celica prior to the S. It was fantastic for being a sporty FWD "economy" car. I drove it over the mountains, in the heavy winters here and never had an issue. Siped all-season tires were all I ever needed for it.
The GT didnt have VVTL-i so it didnt have any lift bolt issues (they would break on the GT-S and you'd lose out on VVTL, and/or kill the engine.
The GT took regular (GT-S = premium)
the GT was lighter, but still slower.
Smaller rims (stock 15 vs 16 GT-S) = cheaper rubber
Relatively reliable too. AND got 30+mpg.
It's no AWD winter beast, but it was capable, and still fun.
HID option in its last year
They lowered the rev limit (hard to shift = lots of engine booms) and it really killed the performance. I believe 2000 to mid 2001 and the last 2 years of it's make were the ones to get...
I believe the 2000's have a rear antenna that retracts up and down. 2001+ were all within the rear glass.
Correct me if I'm wrong on anything
Community Organizer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,961
Likes: 12
From: Oregon City, OR
01 had a normal antenna. No retracting on 00-01 for sure. May have changed in other years. I dont remember for sure.
02 and 05 had the lower fuel cut (7800 vs 8350) on GT-S only. GT was unaffected (no VVTL so it didnt matter anyway)
HID was an option for 04/05 I think, but there were lots of kits available anyway for previous years.
GT-S almost always had all the main options (moonroof, spoiler, etc).
GT = cloth interior / GT-S = leather
GT = 5 speed or auto / GT-S = 6 speed or auto (really really terrible auto at that)
02 and 05 had the lower fuel cut (7800 vs 8350) on GT-S only. GT was unaffected (no VVTL so it didnt matter anyway)
HID was an option for 04/05 I think, but there were lots of kits available anyway for previous years.
GT-S almost always had all the main options (moonroof, spoiler, etc).
GT = cloth interior / GT-S = leather
GT = 5 speed or auto / GT-S = 6 speed or auto (really really terrible auto at that)
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,824
Likes: 18
From: WI
Originally Posted by ACoF,Sep 20 2009, 10:54 PM
$8k or less. What I need is a reliable replacement for my 98 civic that is fun to drive and a little sporty.
Please, no civic suggestions...
Please, no civic suggestions...
The VQ is a great motor but the 02/03 had some oil burning issues. 00/01 have slightly less power but don't have that problem.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post