Talk:Toyota Celica/Archive 1

The external link that never dies
Who keeps adding that carstats site (the one wtih barely any info)? I've deleted it twice and have seen several other people deleting it, but can't see in the history who is ADDING it. Davert (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd Use of Bold
Throughout the article there is inconsistent and odd use of bold words. Is there any particular reason for this? --71.113.171.48 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Japanese Mustang?
This line seems to violate the NPOV rule: ''The Celica is well thought of among the street racing crowd as an easily customizable and easily controllable speed machine. It has often been described as a "Japanese Mustang" (after the Ford Mustang musclecar).''

Any ideas? It seems like a comment like The Celica is popular among street-racing enthusiasts seems more appropriate. --Milkmandan 06:20, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides, I think describing a Celica as a "Mustang" is kind of derogatory towards Celica :)  That's totally my POV, of course.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 02:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a derogatory point of view. Stick to the facts.


 * I think we've finally got this one figured out. Someone figured it out and changed the text (and I've gone ahead and reworked it a little bit to make it clearer)--the early liftback Celicas really did look like Mustangs.   This page still needs serious work, though. --Milkmandan 22:20, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Made the Mustang bit to be as neutral as possible. Can we clear this bit now, or at least highlight other specific points which aren't neutral? --Dublet 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was called a "Japanese Mustang" is a truly neutral point of view and not an opinion. Toyota did copy Ford Mustang styling right down to the triple tailights. Rear wheel drive, long hood, short deck. It's also been called a "Japanese Pony Car".
 * The first sentence in that statement is the one that may violate the NPOV rule.
 * 75.36.10.114 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My step dad was a Toyota car dealer and sold the fourth generation (1986-1989) Celicas. According to him the typpical buyer was a middle aged woman. // Liftarn
 * I wouldn't particularly doubt it. Look at the damn thing. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the "second generation" for want of a better term early model liftbacks (ie RA28/29/35) than had the triple rear tail lights. The original Celica liftback, built between April 1973 and December 1975 (RA25/TA27) had 5 rear tail lights. From the doors to the rear of the car the body shape was similar and parts could be exchanged between the RA25/TA27 and the RA28/29/35 series. However, the front, while looking similar, are different and not exchangeable. The RA25/TA27 are, in effect, TA22 liftbacks, as they were built on the TA22 chassis. And yes, they are very customable and there are examples of RA23/28 driving about with turbo 18R-G engines, 1GG-GTE engines, 1JZ turbo engines, BEAMS 3SG and 3S-GTE engines, as well as TA22s with 18R-G, 2T-G turbo, 3T-GTE and 4A-GTE engines. Outside of Japan you will be lucky to find a modifed RA25/TA27. These models are so rare that they are usually left as is, specifically if a GT model. - River - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.202.154 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous sales figures

 * As of November, 2004, just 8,216 Celicas had been sold.

What does this line mean? Celicas sold from Jan-Nov. 2004 totalled 8,216? November sales were 8,216? Sales of all Celicas has totalled 8,216? I realize the last one is contradictory, given the sentence directly before the one in question&mdash;but the statement doesn't provide a certain answer.

Oddly, I remember working on this text a while ago, and I didn't seem to have any trouble understanding exactly what was meant before. Maybe something was changed in this or the surrounding text? --Milkmandan 05:00, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


 * I can't find any sales figures from Toyota which have the data split out in models. --Dublet 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Official link dead
The link to the "official Toyota page" is dead; it just leads to a note that the car is no longer available in the US. Is there an alternative, or should it just be removed? Haeleth 12:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest linking to the UK page.
 * Morwan 18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done this now.--Dublet 16:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-wording.
"Introduction of the GT brought with it a 2.0 L engine that would, in various versions, power the Celica for the next 11 years"

If this statement is refering to a particular engine. ie The 18RG which was used in the 76 GT celica. Use of this engine ceased in 78/79.

If it was refering to the fact the celicas were available with a 2.0L than this is true to 99.

I am not sure where the 11 years comes from. 85?

Maybe it was refering to the 21R used in celicas from 79 to 85?

With this much confusion maybe this should be rectified?


 * I think this refers to the R series engine, which was in fact used through 1985.--RA64 11:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the 18R-G engine was used from 1973 to 1984 to power the GT versions of the JDM rear-wheel drive Celicas. The 18R-G was first used in the RA25GT and finished in the RA65GT (in 18R-GUE form) - river -


 * Hi River. For the Celica, the 18R-G was introduced in Jan 1974 in the RA25 and lasted until the 18R-GEU in June 1981 in the RA45-B/RA55-B Celica (Japan only). The 18R was not used in any form in the Celica 6# series. The RA65 only had the 22R engine. The 18R-G lasted a little longer in the RA55-C Celica Camry (a variant of the Carina) to Feb 1982. The Celica 6# turned to the 3T-GTE/4T-GTEU turbo engines for its top of the line Celicas and after that the 3S-GTE for the ST16#. The article is misleading when it says 11 years and needs a complete rewrite. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The 18R-G was actually first used in 1973 when the RA25GT liftback was introduced onto the Japanese domestic market. In Jan 1974 the RA25 got some very minor changes, and the TA22 at this stage was given the "long nose" treatment, so it had the same front end as the RA25/TA27. I own a 1973 RA25Gt and have the sales brochure. Trust me.. the 18R-G came out in 1973, not 1974. - River - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.202.154 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. My own web page states the 18R-G as starting in April 1973 in the RA25 and Jan 1974 in the RA21. The RA25/TA27 introduced the new look nose that was slightly longer than the sloping indicators of the original style but it can be retrofitted to the short TA22 chassis. I've heard of a few people who have put older TA22 noses on their 25/27 when they couldn't find the correct ultra rare panels. The nose on the 1975 facelift (A23/24/28/29/35) looked like the RA25 but the chassis is a few inches longer, making the metal panels non-interchangeable with either of the earlier noses (although many of the plastic bits are common). My sources are various Celica parts catalogues, brochures and owners in multiple languages.
 * I really want to do a complete rewrite of the first 3 generations (20/30, 40, 60) but every time I look at the current mess my heart sinks. I guess I'll just have to roll my sleeves up and start work :( Cheers.   Stepho   (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you want a hand re-writing some of it, then let me know. I can certianly assist in the 70-77 Celicas - especially the RA25/TA27 information - river —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.202.154 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Generation (1982-1985)
What ever happened to the GT engines developed by yamaha? Aimed at finding the missing GT engine of 82-85.

The first GT celica engine was the 1600cc 2TG twin cam 8valve.(Head developed by Yamaha.)Producing 120HP

The second ran a 2000cc 18RG twin cam 8valve. (Head developed by yamaha.) Producing 145HP

The third (?) ran an 22RE single cam 8 valve of 2.4L capacity producing about the same HP as the 1600cc 2TG.

The fourth ran the 3SG(t)E twincam 16valve ( yamaha developed)Producing 145HP for the 3SG and 200\280 for the 3SGTE.

The fifth ran the 1.8L VVTLI twin cam 16valve producing 190HP (Developed by Daihatsu Engine Development)

Which engine is least like the others? I am wanting to know if there was a real GT engine for the 82-85.


 * I'm not sure I completely understand the question, but I think in Japan and maybe other markets, some T series engines were still used in the 3rd generation (3TG) The 22R/22RE was the only engine available in the USDM 3rd gen. celica.--RA64 11:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a 4A-GE engine which was in the fourth generation Celica as well. Model code would be the AT160 GT. It produced 	88kW@6600rpm (118bhp) and 149Nm@5000rpm (110lb/ft). This would fit in nicely with your missing time slot. --dublet 22:57, 11 January 2006 (CET)

The 4AGE was in the 2nd or 3rd generation (3rd I think), I dont think it was in the 4th. Also the picture of the 3rd gen is of a 2nd gen. The 3rd gen looked pretty much the same as the 2nd but had pop-up headlights (at least in Australia).


 * The picture is definitely of a 3rd gen. The 82-83 models had pop "out" headlights, which popped forward from the recessed position in the picture.  The 84-85 model years had true pop-up headlights.--RA64 02:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no "Yamaha" engine. Toyota got Yamaha to design the heads on a few of their engines, most notably the 2T-G and 18R-G engines. Once designed both Toyota and Yamaha produced the heads for these engines, so there is no difference whatsoever between a head which has Yamaha or Toyota stamped on it. -River - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.202.154 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Celica & The 3SGE/3S-GTE
It seems there's some confusion over the exact generations and specs of the 3SGE/3S-GTE engines in the Celicas. Here's what I know:

4th Gen Celica had the first generation 3SGE (ST162) & 3S-GTE (ST165), producing 147 and 190 hp respectively.

5th Gen Celica had the second generation 3SGE (ST182) & 3S-GTE (ST185), producing 156 HP and 200(USDM)/225(JDM) HP respectively. The 3S-GE was unavailable in the US, instead, the 5S-FE was present.

6th Gen Celica had the third generation 3S-GTE in the ST205, producing 255 HP (JDM), and 239 HP in the UK. However, it had both the third generation and fourth generation 3S-GE engines in the ST202. The third generation 3S-GE had VVT-i and produced 177 HP, while the 'fourth generation' 3S-GE BEAMS (introduced in 1997) had dual VVT-i and produced 197 HP. None of these engines were brought to North America, USDM Celicas had the more 'economical' 7A-FE and 5S-FE.

-- comment about the 6th generation engines The above is actually incorrect, dual vvt-i was never available in the Celica (this engine did come with dual vvt-i in the black top version found in Altezzas, it produces 210ps).

VVT-i (non dual) was present in the Celica thanks to the BEAMS "Red Top" 2.0-liter 3S-GE it produced 200 horsepower and 21.0kg-m of torque. this engine was put in the Celica ST202 SS-II and SS-III among other toyota models.

stats of the engine are as follows BEAMS = Breakthrough Engine with Advanced Mechanism System

VVT-i = Variable Valve Timing - intelligent

Inside diameter x process (mm×mm) = 86.0×86.0

Aerodynamic volume displacement (cc) = 1998

Compression ratio = 11

The highest output (ps/rpm) = 200/7,000

Largest torque (kg-m/rpm) = 21.0/6,000

Speed change ratio

1st gear = 3.285

2nd gear = 1.960

3rd gear = 1.322

4th gear = 1.028

5th speed = 0.820

Retreat = 3.153

Deceleration ratio = 4.176

Helica LSD

obviously the above relates to the jdm model. in the uk the celica had a choice of 2 engines as mentioned above, and also a 1.8 liter st version.

so there is confusion as the engine and power figures vary over country of origin as well as the time of production.

-

All engines in the 3S series (3S-FE, 3S-GE, 3S-GTE) were 2.0 L.

Chassis codes seem to follow this pattern:

4th gen: 16* 5th gen: 18* 6th gen: 20* 7th gen: ??? It's completely different.

ST**2 - FWD, 2WS, 3S-GE engine. ST**5 - 3S-GTE All Trac / GT-Four AT*8* - FWD, 2WS, 4A-FE or 7AFE (excluding the 4AGE, I've never heard about it)

I don't know exactly what a ST183 would be. 4WS, possibly? Morwan 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't thing there really is a lot of confusion. There simply are a lot of versions! There are at least 8 different models of the ST182 alone. This is because of the different engines (3S-FE, 3S-GE, 5S-FE) which have all had changes at a certain point in time, thus producing different amounts of power ad torque. I know for sure that there are 5 different ST185s. The ST183 is the ActiveSports I think. I'm working on fully documenting the gen 5, it just take a lot of time, as there are that many versions, models and variations.
 * For the gen 7 there are only two chassis codes: ZZT230 and ZZT231. The former indicates a 1ZZ-FE engine and the latter a 2ZZ-GE. A ZZT231 can also be a TSport, which in the EU means just the 2ZZ-GE engine, while in the UK it specifically refers to a certain trim level.
 * As for the 4-6th generations, The A denotes an A engine. The S denotes an S engine. The T** denotes the generation, whereas the 0, 2 and 5 denote ST, GT and GT4. the 3 seems to be only for the gen 5.
 * The 4A-GE is quite a nice engine, but only found in the AT160 GT.
 * I've spent quite a bit of time figuring out all the different codes, only to find out that Toyota doesn't really stick to it's own scheme, and just changes it for fun. It's a nightmare to document.
 * --Dublet 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ST183 is the model code for Celica with 4WS (4-wheel steering). Only sold in Japan, trim levels are S-R, Z-R, GT-R, GT-R Active Sports, Convertible, and Convertible Type G. Celica21gtfour —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC).

Too technical
I think it is great to have all of the technical detail for enthusiasts, but I came here just to find out why I can't seem to find any used converetible celicas for sale after 1999. Did they discontinue making them? Perhaps not many were sold? The article might be improved by structuring it with simple summaries aimed more at the average car buyer towards the top and adding more technical detail toward the bottom. --Ed--
 * yes, 1999 was the last year for a convertible version celica.--RA64 15:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this article is that it's way too technical, and I think that will put off many potential readers who don't know much about Toyotas. --ApolloBoy 04:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

++ RA25/TA27 Info ++ The TA27 and the RA25 were the first production liftbacks. I'm not totally sure about the TA27, but I know the RA25 was JDM only and not exported. Both models look the same but the TA27 had the 2T engine and the RA25 had the 18R engine. There were two models of each; namely the ST and the GT. The GT variants had the 2T-G engine for the TA27 and the RA25 had the 18R-G engine. The RA25 also got the Porchse/ZF patented P51 5-speed gearbox and a 7.5inch F-series 2-pinion LSD. As mentioned the bonnet on the Ta27/Ra25 was flat, like the TA22. The TA27/Ra25 were built on the TA22 chassis and therefore these cars use TA22 bits for the running gear, brakes, suspension etc - not RA23 parts. Forward of the doors is different on the RA25/TA27 and you cannot replace these parts with RA23/28 parts. However, you can put on the "short-nose" TA22 front if you desired. The bonnet flute/vents of the TA27/RA25 GT versions are very distinctive and unique to the JDM "long-nose" TA22 vehicles. The most distinctive and unique feature of the TA27/RA25 was the rear tail-lights, where it had 5 lights per side, whereas the other liftbacks all had 3 lights per side. The fuel flap was in the middel of the rear lighs on the TA27/RA25 and the spare tyre sat upright, under a cover, on the RH sinde of the rear compartment. The first TA27/RA25 models were built in April 1973. In Jan 1974 a few minor cosmetic changes were made and they remained in production until about Oct 1975, when they were replaced by the RA28. RA25/TA27 coomand a premium price in the Japanese market, let alone the prices for a good condition model outside of Japan. --river--

Not just too technical, but technically inaccurate
This article requires a serious clean up, including removing large amounts of pointless technical information, and fixing of a number of technical inaccuracies. Not only that but where are the citations? Using terms like "ct20b" to refer to the turbocharger on the st205's should be avoided like the plague, because it is merely a contructed nickname, not an official one by any stretch of the imagination. Further; "a water spray bar for the front Intercooler " is an innaccurate description, "Styling of the new Celicas was acclaimed by most publications as "Supra-esque" with four exposed headlights" is misleading because no Supra ever had 4 exposed headlights (except perhaps the mk1 but they were entirely different). This is just a small sample taken at random from the article, but similar bungling errors exist throughout the document. - Malcolm 203.211.93.95 04:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation plus another article
I would just like to ask about creating an article about a Slovenian Hostel called "Celica" which has been mentioned in the Lonely Planet Bluelist thingy as the world's best youth hostel, which in my oppinion is enough to make it encyclopedia worthy. Swizec

Power
In my personal opinion I think it would be better if the article could reflect a more global view with the power figures being in metric and standard measurements (ie: kw, ps, and horsepower).

Latin IPA
I don't recall Latin having 'θ' as a sound, so much as 'k' for 'c' regardless of what followed... Perhaps it should be amended to say late Latin, or perhaps replace θ with k? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.49.222 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Coupé
For an International audience, the term coupé should be used with caution as in the UK, Australia and much of Europe coupé is deemed to mean a car with 2+2 configuration rather than a car with a notchback or fastback. For this reason, notchback or fastback should be used in preference to coupe where one wishes to indicate the body style. See also: Coupe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.35.75.188 (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

For Australia the terms for the liftback are liftback or hatchback, which is the most common term and is usually shortened to "hatch". So the RA25/RA28 would be called a hatch, and the TA22/RA23 would be called a coupe. - River - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.202.154 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject: neglected articles?
It's amazing this article is in such poor shape, particularly considering that three different WikiProjects have "claimed" it. -- Mikeblas 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stock Body Kits?
Some information on the stock body kits for 00-05 would be cool.. Such as the Action Package and Tsunami, release dates and why the Tsunami was renamed in Canada. As well as location specific stock kits too...

Seventh Generation Header
The header for the seventh generation says it was produced from 2000 - 2006. But the infobox says 2000 - 2005. Which is correct? -WarthogDemon 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Computer game
It might be worth mentioning the computer game Toyota Celica GT Rally by Gremlin circa 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.240.58 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Detailed not technical
18-Oct-2007: I have been editing several technical articles (such as "Discrete Fourier transform") to add simplified wording, but this article "Toyota Celica" is not too technical, just detailed in content. The article doesn't even mention "spark plug" (or "axle"). Actual overly technical articles typically have more than 3 rare terms in a sentence (such as aquifer, aquitard & aquiclude) or contain several mathematical formulas; however, this article doesn't involve any of those technical issues. I have removed tag "{ {technical}}" and suggested writing a more detailed analysis as to why the article is troublesome. Please don't tag an article as "technical" just because it contains detailed information. -Wikid77 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate 18R-G information
In the main article is says....

''For 1976-1977, the Liftback was released with 18R-GU Twincam engine with a Yamaha head and running gear. This engine produced significantly more power than the 18R-G. Peak power was about 100 kW @ 7400rpm at the rear wheels.''

This is inaccurate. The most powerful stock production 18R-G built was the original version, which had the 210-head. It had the highest compression ratio, the smallest valves and the most aggressive cam profile. It produced 145bhp. This was early 1973, when it was put into the RA25 GT Celica.

The 18R-GR came out very soon afterwards (or even at the same time?) and it used an air-pump to help with pollution control. It generated 140bhp.

Then came the 18R-GU, which had lower compression and it was designed to run on lower octane petrol. It produced around 130bhp. The 18R-GRU produced about 120hp.

All those versions of the 18R-G had the twin side-draught Solex, but the Solex was different for the 18R-GU/18R-GRU as it had changes to meet anti-pollution laws. As the 18R-G was developed the valves got bigger, the cams less aggressive, and the head was designed to be more efficient to make up for the lost power due to the pollution control.

The final version was the 18R-GUE which had the biggest valves and the best head, and fuel injection, but it could only muster around 130bhp... still short of the 145bhp of the initial 18R-G.

Finally, when you consider the most powerful 18R-G generated 145bhp, which is about 108kW, there is no way that the drive train is going to lose only 8kW!!!! I have seen 18R-G powered vehicles being dyno'd and they produce, depending on the state of the engine, 70-85Kw at the rear wheels. An 18R-GU generates 130bhp (96kw)and therefore is is not possible for it to generate 100kW at the wheels... as it cannot generate that much power from the flywheel! An 18R-GU powered Celica would put out less than 70kW at the rear wheels.

- river - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.8 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Merge from Toyota SV-1, any objection? Donnie Park (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The merge proposal is quite reasonable but I have a second idea that might be even better. Most of the concept car articles are very small due to the limited lifetime of the car and the small amount of information available. I propose that we group the Toyota concept cars into a single article for each decade (1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's). This is similar to what I did for early Toyotas like the SA to RR. The Celica article can then have a link to the SV-1 page, which would be a simple redirect to the grouped concept car page. This would also apply to the RV-1 and CAL-1. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Will go for your proposal. Donnie Park (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I've created Toyota concept vehicles, 1970-1979, put the SV-1, RV-1 and RV-2 content in there and put appropriate links in the Celica article. Note that I made links like Toyota SV-1 which then redirect to the concept vehicles article instead of linking directly to the concept vehicles article. This allows us to change our mind in the future for where the bulk of the SV-1 text goes. Concept vehicles for other years will be done as I get time. Stepho-wrs (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pikes peak international hill climb
why isn't there a mention of rod millens 10:04 pikes peak run? it was the fastest time for 13 years and is definatly one of the highlights of the celica in motorsports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.158.236 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a good reference and add it in. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Influences on first generation
Currently, the article says that "the appearance of the headlights recessed into the grille and the tail light treatment on the hatchback seem to suggest the appearance was influenced by the 1969–1970 Ford Mustang but on a much smaller scale."

I would say that the limited production Ghia 450 (for the front) and the Ghia G 230 (for the coupe shape), was clear influences. While the back of the liftback version looks like a '69-'70 Mustang coupe, the Mustang was most probably influenced by the Ghia G 230 S to start off with. Jason404 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may well be right but both the Ghia and Mustang influences are speculation. The Camaro is also often mention on fan sites as an influence. I have Toyota brochures that point to the Toyota EX-I for the primary exterior influence.    Stepho   (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Successor
The successor field in the infobox has been set to none, Toyota FT-86 and Scion tC in recent days. The FT-86 is not a production model yet, so it can not possibly be the successor at this time. The tC has similar mechanicals but is aimed at a slightly different market. The Celica always had 4 cylinder mechanicals shared with more common family cars such as the Corona and Corolla but it always had a sporty body. The tC also shares mechanicals with more common family cars but doesn't really have a sporty body. You could just as easily say the tC is the successor to (or offshoot from) the Corolla. To the best of my knowledge, Toyota has never declared any vehicle to be the successor to the Celica and until the FT-86 arrives, nothing really fulfils the same niche.  Stepho  (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that the tC fits pretty well as a successor (where it's available), but I will readily admit that this is also somewhat hard to prove. Encyclopaedically speaking I can live with a blank space in the infobox, but I do feel that the tC nonetheless merits mention somewhere fairly prominent.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One way or the other, it's going to be speculation -- whatever we call the Celica's "successor" or the tC's "predecessor." There's no way to "prove it" because there's nothing that could be "proof" except an official statement from Toyota. (I'll still dispute your claim that the tC does not "fulfill the same niche" though... by that criteria, the tC is more of a Celica than the Celicas of 1986-1999, which shared a powertrain and all their suspension with the Camry.) I still think it's a stupid thing to put in the infobox, and in cases such as this one where there is no solid answer, its presence makes WP out to be an authority on the issue, when it certainly isn't. I agree that it should be brought up at WP:AUTO. Bdc101 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here we go again... The 86 (aka GT 86, FR-S, BRZ) is imminent but does anybody have any real proof that the 86 is the successor to the Celica. It fulfils a similar role (sporty looks while still being reasonably priced and using parts-bin mechanicals). But Toyota never made the link, instead linking to the AE86 Corolla/Sprinter. Personally I could live with it either way but I hate the continual reverting over such a minor issue.  Stepho  talk 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RA65
ok so whats with the IRS and Rack and pinion in the RA65, which was afterall the car which was running the 22RE, statement says "local authorities deemed 88kw too powerfull for live axel and reticulated ball steering? What kind of unsupported crap is this, if it's 99.99% likely bull, AND is unsupported, It should be removed or atleast citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.58.160 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase your question? Are you complaining about the IRS, the rack and pinion, the live axle, the recirculating ball steering or the excessive point of view? The article is very badly written but the following are the 3rd gen Australian spec Celica models (not counting the Supra):
 * RA60, 21R-C engine with live axle (with the puny T series 6.7" diff)
 * SA63, 2S-C engine with IRS (with the puny T series 6.7" diff)
 * RA65, 22R-E engine with IRS (with the stronger F series 7.5" diff)
 * I know it had rack and pinion in some models but I'm can't remember if some other models had recirculating ball steering for those years (like the two previous generations that I own). As for what the local authorities deemed: there is no source given for this point of view, so feel free to remove the opinion part. Here is the data I've gathered on various Celica models across the world (I'm Australian). Cheers.  Stepho  talk 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

7th Generation Celica - GT vs. GT-S brakes
I noticed that the section pertaining to the 7th Generation Celica GT mentions that the GT trim comes with front and rear disc brakes. This is actually incorrect; the USDM Celica GT came with disc brakes in the front and drum brakes in the rear, whereas the GT-S had disc brakes all around. This is something that is easy to confirm at a glance; my GT certainly has drums in the rear, every other GT owner I know has drums in the rear (unless they've done a conversion), and any site which lists specs for the GT will say that it has rear drum brakes. YogurtMeister (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Calyx name.
An anonymous editor added that the Celica prototype was going to be called 'Calyx'. For the last ten years I have studied the history of the Celica and have never heard this name before, so I reverted it. But just in case I am wrong, has anybody else ever heard this name used in relation to the Celica?  Stepho  talk 23:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for ending production. Citations?
Section: 7th-Generation, North-America, last-paragraph (before Japan sub-header). Reference #14 external-link is not loading. Rest of the paragraph is already tagged citation-needed and does not support it's own claims.

"The sports coupe market, in general, was rapidly shrinking, due in part to the 1997 Asian financial crisis."

How did a 1997 economic-crash force sports coups out of production 5+ years later? Author does not support this claim. While he/she is really discussing the product-lineups for that segment being cut, to me "the market" implies the consumer demand for the product. Clearly both were plummeting in that era. No reason or citations is given here. Thought I'd point this out, since it's what I was hoping to learn today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.243.25 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

RA65 doesnt weigh that little.
its 2800lbs, there is no source on this 2400lbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.224.172 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The weight depends on many variables. Is it auto or manual? Which tyres? Fuel fuel tank or empty? Does it have optional extras like air conditioning and sunroof? Is it US, Canadian or Australian with different federally mandated extras? Also, where is this 2400 lbs figure that bothers you. I can't that figure anywhere in the article. I do see the 1020 - 1165 kg range but that covers everything from the lightest stripped out coupe sold in Japan to the heaviest liftback sold in the US. I have some brochures from various countries that I will check for some official RA65 figures tonight.  Stepho  talk 05:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I found some brochures with A60 weights in them:
 * US Aug 1982 2400cc GT-S/GT liftback 2705 lb
 * US Aug 1982 2400cc GT-S/GT coupe 2672 lb
 * US Aug 1982 2400cc ST liftback 2566 lb
 * US Aug 1982 2400cc ST coupe 2546 lb
 * Japan Sep 1982 2000cc SV coupe 1005 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 2000cc ST coupe 1010 - 1030 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1800cc SX coupe 1090 - 1110 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1600cc GT-Rally coupe 1095 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1600cc GT coupe 1100 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1800cc GT-T coupe 1145 - 1165 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 2000cc SV liftback 1015 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 2000cc SV liftback 1020 - 1040 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1800cc SX liftback 1105 - 1125 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1600cc GT-Rally liftback 1110 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1600cc GT liftback 1115 kg
 * Japan Sep 1982 1800cc GT-T liftback 1160 - 1180 kg
 * Germany Netherlands Nov 1982 1600cc ST coupe 970 kg
 * Germany Netherlands Nov 1982 2000cc XT liftback manual 1165 kg
 * Germany Netherlands Nov 1982 2000cc XT liftback auto 1170 kg
 * Germany Netherlands Nov 1982 2000cc GT twincam liftback 1170 kg
 * That stretches from the lightweight Germany Netherlands ST at 970 kg to the heavyweight US GT at 2705 lb.  Stepho  talk  11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

the 1985 GTS model is supposed to be 2800lbs, but also in your source you quote the 82 GTS to be 2700, so that already exceeds the 2500lbs that is quoted in your post and in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.128.250 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just now updated the article to show 970 - 1227 kg and added my references. I did make one small mistake - in the above list Germany should be replaced by Netherlands. Where do you get your 2800 lb figure from?  Stepho  talk 21:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pony car
Toyota called the the Celica a "sports car" in their marketing materials, but the actual car doesn't match the Wikipedia definition of sports car. Looks like we are using the marketing term as if it were a real definition.

The Celica was Toyota's response to the Ford Mustang (Pony car), which also was a standard sedan with stylized 2+2 bodywork. No one calls the Mustang (or the Falcon) a sports car, because that would be inaccurate. The Celica was wisely designed with the North America market in mind, to get at this exact segment. Source: Long, Brian (2007). Celica & Supra: The Book of Toyota's Sports Coupes. Veloce Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-904788-13-3. Retrieved 2011-10-30.

The Celica Series 1 was just too slow to be a sports car (0-60 in 11.5 secs), and it had an unsophisticated Beam axle/live rear axle, so hardly a demon in the handling department.

Compare this to the contemporary Datsun 240Z sports car with a powerful motor and 4 wheel independent suspension.

Celina could be a Personal luxury car, but Pony car seems closer, especially as the pony car article mentions the Celica. PLawrence99cx (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In Japan, the early Celica 2000 GT had a 2000cc 130hp twincam engine in a 900kg body. Not quite in Ferrari territory but still within the lower end of the sports car range and heaps of fun to drive (at least mine is).

Reference date format
Davey2010@undefined keeps changing the reference date format. We have had this disucssion numerous times and have had an RFC on it (see Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 6). He knows that the existing yyyy-mm-dd date format is an allowed format and he knows that to change it without consensus is not allowed. Yet he continous to change it. When this was pointed out on his talk page (See User talk:Davey2010) he insists that his actions to change it are okay and that the onus is on me track his changes and change it back. I reverted his date format changes once. He didn't like this and changed them back again and added some more spacing changes. I attempted to revert the date format changes only but WP gave me a 'The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits' message due to the other changes he made. I have no problem with his non-date related changes but I am not going to spend time and effort to meticulously go through his changes one by one. The onus should not be on me to sort out his stuff. Since he knows that his initial changes were illegal, I have shfted the onus back to him.  Stepho  talk 19:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I genuinely don't mean this in a nasty way but I use this script on a daily basis and I would say of the 4-5 years of using it you're the only person to have a problem with it, That aside as I said on my talkpage I'm not going to keep a record of every article you disagree with it would be completely impractical,
 * Whilst I have no problems at all with you reverting my date format changes I do have an issue with you wholesale reverting my edits purely because you don't like one change so as such personally I would say the onus is on you to change it back,
 * Sure there was an RFC on one talkpage but like I said I'm not going to keep a whole long list of articles of which too avoid as like I said it would be impractical and would require me to look at the page every single day before editing here .... which I won't ever do,
 * As I said you're more than welcome to revert to a revision and then apply all of my edits after the date change but as I said reverting wholesale for the sake of a minor/trivial change is imho disruptive (As a tip you could install the scripts I have to help out with this),
 * Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 2 problems here. #1 is that your changing of the date format is illegal. The RFC that you participated in says that yyyy-mm-dd is quite legal in references, regardless of other date formats used in the main text. it doesn't matter whether 100 people or just one person points it out - the change is still illegal. You have no need to maintain a huge database of where you can and can't change it because it is not allowed to be changed in any article unless consensus says so. Your position is a bit like saying speeding past a school is okay if there are no policemen watching. #2 is that your legal edits (eg spacing) and illegal edits (eg date format) are mingled together inspite of being done as 2 separate edits. If I try to revert the date format edit alone then WP rejects it with a 'The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits' message. I'm not about to spend my time sifting through your changes, trying to sort out good from bad. The onus is on you to do legal edits, not on me to clean up after you.


 * Now I do actually have some constructive ideas. #1 is the obvious "don't do that". If you don't make illegal edits then there is no clean up to do. If you choose to not take that path then #2 is to modify your script to change dates in the text but not reference dates. I'm not sure if your script is sophisticated enough to do that. #3 is to do the non-contentious edits first (eg spacing) and then the contentious edits last. That way I can undo the contentious date format edits without having to undo the good edits.  Stepho  talk 01:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope it's not illegal at all, DMY/MDY is always preferred over YYYY-MM--DD and is more commonly known and used too, If you look at other peoples contributions you will see this script is used on thousands of articles daily and as far as I know all without problems,
 * You're not cleaning up after me though - I'm simply changing the date format as per CONSISTENCY and ofcourse you're changing them back as per RETAIN (which like I said I have no issues with),
 * I'll carry on using this script because like I said problems with it have pretty much been non-existent, You're more than welcome to discuss your concerns with the script owner though,
 * I have no set way of editing I simply do things as and when needed or as when I remember I guess,
 * As I said you're more than welcome to revert back and then reinert everything after the date changes,
 * Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the RFC was to determine if your change to the date format was legal or illegal. The RFC said your changes are illegal.  Stepho  talk 03:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, a article will use the date format that was first applied to the article. The first date that I can find in the history was added on 2007-08-13 and was in the internationally used YYYY-MM-DD format. I will revert the hatnote and restore proper dates as per MOS:DATERET: "The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion / nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AC1999ToyotaCelica.jpg


 * Untagged for now - Copyvio'd because it was apparently taken from https://www.carspecs.us/cars/1994/toyota/celica/2916 however the images on there were all taken from Commons .... – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 19:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
 * AC1999ToyotaCelica.jpg
 * Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Commons:Deletion requests/File:AC1999ToyotaCelica.jpg was closed as Keep (as not a copyvio). – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 21:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Toyota Celica was the very first Liftback
Toyota Celica was the very first vehicle called a Liftback - this is an important part of the car's history. The term as used by Toyota meant fastback hatchback, to describe a vehicle like the 1965 Renault 16 and the 1971 Chevrolet Vega. Since then, marketers seem to have applied the Liftback label to notchback hatchbacks as well, so as an automobile type, there is no distinct vehicle group called the liftbacks. PLawrence99cx (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * An interesting point. The usual online dictionaries just say it was introduced in 1975-1980 but not by who, so you might have a point. However, the references you gave have other errors (they seem like knowledgeable but amateur Celica historians, not professionals), so I don't take them as authoritives in this point. Do you have any more serious references?  Stepho  talk 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Toyota called the new body style a Liftback, signifying that it was a three-door hatchback rather than a two-door coupe. With its sloping fastback roofline, the Celica Liftback was, if anything, even less habitable for rear-seat passengers than was the hardtop, but the hatchback roof and folding rear seat made the Liftback more versatile for quotidian chores or the sort of “active lifestyle” pastimes that so fascinate advertising copywriters." PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually remember the invention of the term Liftback by Toyota in 1973! Can't unring that bell. It's very strange to see liftback now apparently used as a distinct type of automobile. Of course, when you look into it, what exactly is a liftback - the definition is all over the place, except for the fact that all are 3 door/5 door hatchbacks. I think the Celica article should link to the fully referenced Wikipedia: hatchback article in some capacity. PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)