For those who had Celica's before your Fr-s

[athlon816]

i own a 2002 celica gt for 7 years. if you choose either frs or brz, you will not regret this upgrade. the gas milage almost the same, but more fun to drive.

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by Chen

I have not. Nore do they interest me. I also fail to see what's so funny.

What's funny is you thinking a TC is more equivalent to the last gen Celica than the FRS. That's what's funny, at least to me. You obviously don't seem to think so.

[cupcake917]

Originally Posted by athlon816

i own a 2002 celica gt for 7 years. if you choose either frs or brz, you will not regret this upgrade. the gas milage almost the same, but more fun to drive.

You guys are all so awesome...I'm def getting one now and not feeling nearly as sad as I was before

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by abraxis

What's funny is you thinking a TC is more equivalent to the last gen Celica than the FRS. That's what's funny, at least to me. You obviously don't seem to think so.

It's not funny. It's true. Putting a smiley face on it doesn't change that.

[Chen]

Originally Posted by abraxis

What's funny is you thinking a TC is more equivalent to the last gen Celica than the FRS. That's what's funny, at least to me. You obviously don't seem to think so.

I am... An overweight fwd hatch (that screams tc) is nothing compared to the twins. Please humor me as how you think the 7th gen is comparable.

[bodayguy]

I had a 2000 Celica GT-S (way back in the day!). The hatch was a great feature. Drove OK, very kart-like I seem to remember with the fun cam switchover at 6,000 RPM, right?
The FR-S is definitely faster and way better handling.

[arobb10]

Originally Posted by Chen

I am... An overweight fwd hatch (that screams tc) is nothing compared to the twins. Please humor me as how you think the 7th gen is comparable.

The funny thing is the 7th gen Celica weighs around 200lbs less than the FRS/BRZ and 500 less than the New tC.

If you think about it, it's almost like they split the market for the 7th gen celica. They made a similar bodied (hatchback) car with the tC that is not very performance oriented and has a lot more room in it with more conveniences. Then they came out with the twins which take what the Celica always should have been with increased performance and handling, while also being RWD.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Chen

I am... An overweight fwd hatch (that screams tc) is nothing compared to the twins. Please humor me as how you think the 7th gen is comparable.

Dude ...Why you haten' on the OP because they had a Celica?????
A Celica kick your dog once or something?
To say they should go to a TC because they had a certain car before is asinine.
If that was the case the only people that should get the twins would be Miata, Porsche or old sports car owners.
The OP has said they are coming over to the light side and replied to your rather abrupt slam in a rather forgiving manner and you STILL didn't get why they found it funny.
So ... you should possibly investigate this thing called a "sense of humour" and get back to us.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I like this one better! Probably get busted for Trademark infringement or something though.

Or get advertising residuals from them.




CERBERUS

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

It's not funny. It's true. Putting a smiley face on it doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by Chen

I am... An overweight fwd hatch (that screams tc) is nothing compared to the twins. Please humor me as how you think the 7th gen is comparable.

Looks like others have already educated both of you on the facts. It's amazing people can think they are experts on cars they know nothing about. Your comments are as if you have never even seen a 7th gen Celica let alone driven or sat in one. They look NOTHING alike. That Celica was a direct competitor to the pre-RSX Integra. The idea that an Integra or Celica are competitors with the TC is nuts.

Curb Weight (lbs)
2014 TC: 3082 (6-speed)
2001 Celica: 2425
2000 Integra: 2703
2013 FRS: 2758
You're only off by 650lbs+ calling the Celica fat. Which one is closer to the TC's weight again??
Exterior Measurements
TC:
WIDTH (70.7 in.) HEIGHT (55.7 in.) LENGTH (176.6 in.) FRONT TRACK (60.6 in.) REAR TRACK (61.4 in.) WHEEL BASE (106.3 in.)
Celica:
WIDTH (68.3 in.) HEIGHT (51.4 in.) LENGTH (170.5 in.) FRONT TRACK (58.7 in.) REAR TRACK (58.3 in.) WHEEL BASE (102.4 in.)
Integra:
WIDTH (67.3 in.) HEIGHT (52.6 in.) LENGTH (172.4 in.) FRONT TRACK (58.1 in.) REAR TRACK (57.8 in.) WHEEL BASE (101.2 in.)
FRS:
WIDTH (69.9 in.) HEIGHT (50.6 in.) LENGTH (166.7 in.) FRONT TRACK (59.8 in.) REAR TRACK (60.6 in.) WHEEL BASE (101.2 in.)

Total volume (cubic inches)
2014 TC: 695,449.034
2001 Celica: 598,560.71
2000 Integra: 610,292.552
2013 FRS: 589,607.898
So is the Celica closer to the FRS or TC in size??

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by abraxis

Looks like others have already educated both of you on the facts. It's amazing people can think they are experts on cars they know nothing about. Your comments are as if you have never even seen a 7th gen Celica let alone driven or sat in one. They look NOTHING alike. That Celica was a direct competitor to the pre-RSX Integra. The idea that an Integra or Celica are competitors with the TC is nuts.


You're only off by 650lbs+ calling the Celica fat. Which one is closer to the TC's weight again??

So is the Celica closer to the FRS or TC in size??

WOW! Here is a guy that goes the extra mile to prove his point (which was correct for anybody that even remotely knows the last Celica).
About the only real similarity between the Celica and TC is the FWD. Even that isn't really a negative as there are loads of FWD cars out there that will kick our butts!

[Dake]

Yeah - I'm not really understanding the haterade here myself. If anything the TC was closer to the 4th - 6th gen Celica coupes (I say coupes because the TC looks like one even though it's a lift-back).

I personally didn't care for the final gen Celica - a bit too racer-ey for me (plus, no All-trac option ), but it's all good.

[Chen]

Originally Posted by arobb10

The funny thing is the 7th gen Celica weighs around 200lbs less than the FRS/BRZ and 500 less than the New tC.

If you think about it, it's almost like they split the market for the 7th gen celica. They made a similar bodied (hatchback) car with the tC that is not very performance oriented and has a lot more room in it with more conveniences. Then they came out with the twins which take what the Celica always should have been with increased performance and handling, while also being RWD.

That I agree with. This is what the celica should've been.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Dude ...Why you haten' on the OP because they had a Celica?????
A Celica kick your dog once or something?
To say they should go to a TC because they had a certain car before is asinine.
If that was the case the only people that should get the twins would be Miata, Porsche or old sports car owners.
The OP has said they are coming over to the light side and replied to your rather abrupt slam in a rather forgiving manner and you STILL didn't get why they found it funny.
So ... you should possibly investigate this thing called a "sense of humour" and get back to us.

I never hated on op. I just said get a tc it resembles more of the celica more then the frs does. Also all I did was ask him/her to explain their side. So how you find that as a slam is beyond me. I have no intentions on starting any arguments as I find them a waste of time.

Originally Posted by abraxis

Looks like others have already educated both of you on the facts. It's amazing people can think they are experts on cars they know nothing about. Your comments are as if you have never even seen a 7th gen Celica let alone driven or sat in one. They look NOTHING alike. That Celica was a direct competitor to the pre-RSX Integra. The idea that an Integra or Celica are competitors with the TC is nuts.

Curb Weight (lbs)
2014 TC: 3082 (6-speed)
2001 Celica: 2425
2000 Integra: 2703
2013 FRS: 2758
You're only off by 650lbs+ calling the Celica fat. Which one is closer to the TC's weight again??
Exterior Measurements
TC:
WIDTH (70.7 in.) HEIGHT (55.7 in.) LENGTH (176.6 in.) FRONT TRACK (60.6 in.) REAR TRACK (61.4 in.) WHEEL BASE (106.3 in.)
Celica:
WIDTH (68.3 in.) HEIGHT (51.4 in.) LENGTH (170.5 in.) FRONT TRACK (58.7 in.) REAR TRACK (58.3 in.) WHEEL BASE (102.4 in.)
Integra:
WIDTH (67.3 in.) HEIGHT (52.6 in.) LENGTH (172.4 in.) FRONT TRACK (58.1 in.) REAR TRACK (57.8 in.) WHEEL BASE (101.2 in.)
FRS:
WIDTH (69.9 in.) HEIGHT (50.6 in.) LENGTH (166.7 in.) FRONT TRACK (59.8 in.) REAR TRACK (60.6 in.) WHEEL BASE (101.2 in.)

Total volume (cubic inches)
2014 TC: 695,449.034
2001 Celica: 598,560.71
2000 Integra: 610,292.552
2013 FRS: 589,607.898
So is the Celica closer to the FRS or TC in size??

Your comparing a celica to cars like an ap1. That just isn't the same car to me.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

WOW! Here is a guy that goes the extra mile to prove his point (which was correct for anybody that even remotely knows the last Celica).
About the only real similarity between the Celica and TC is the FWD. Even that isn't really a negative as there are loads of FWD cars out there that will kick our butts!

@abraxis, you've conveniently left out the main point and I suspect you know that. FWD cars exist solely because they're cheaper to build - period. I'm an old fart who never drank the kool-aid. Tcoat, you're older than me so I know you remember the early 80s when the big 3 started shoving all that marketing bullshit down our throats.

The Celica and the tC are perfectly nice cars but don't waste your energy arguing the merits of any FWD vehicle. Give it up.