Conference terri::cars_uk

    We're talking about the just-been-replaced model, yes?
    
    Okay here's what I know....
    
    Celica 4x4 Turbo / GT4
    ======================
    	Your standard affair, around 200 BHp, air-con, all the gubbins. A
    fine car.
    
    Celica ??? (Rally Replica) - is it called "Evolution" or something?!
    ==========
    More power, special wheels, limited edition, etc. Probably harder to
    find and, despite the extra cash, no more fun than the original one :-)
    
    I am unaware of any difference between the first two models.... in
    fact, I'm not sure if they are infact any different (ie. GT4 = 4x4
    Turbo )
    
    

    Before you commit to the 4WD, turbocharged model, try the (lesser)
    16V 2litre non-turbo, FWD model.
    
    When I decided on a non-turbo, my reasoning was:
    
    The performance of the two cars was almost identical. The extra weight
    of the 4WD kit and the additional engine ancilliaries, the extra
    friction of the 4WD hardware and the less responsive nature of the
    turbo motor seem to balance out the extra power. (I'm referring to
    actually driving the cars quickly on the road rather than measuring
    times on a track.) This surprised me especially as I was comparing a
    very low mileage 16V demo car with a run in 7,000 mile turbo. The
    latter being what the salesman called "our MDs car" which was offered
    at the same price as the 16V motor.
    
    Also, the FWD car seemed to have nicer handling.
    
    I'm not sure about the life of the turbo engine but I have now done
    nearly 180,000 miles in mine with no major trouble and I expect to keep
    it for a while yet. What is _vital_ though is to make sure that any car
    that you look at has a full _dealer_ history with all of the services
    done when required. Personally, if I was looking for a used one and one
    of the majoservices had been done (say) 4,000 miles late I'd pass it
    by.
    
    They are complex cars but if looked after as the mfr says, they last
    for ages.
    
    NB FWIW, mine is the previous-previous model but the last 3 variants on
    the Celica theme are all mechanically the same.
    
    On models, I thought that the GT4 was the old (up to '89) shell and the
    4x4 was the 89-94 shell. I think that the Sianz model had no more power
    than the others and was just a badged limited edition with extra
    gadgets.
    
    Either way, the Celica has got to be the top family hatchback! (Huge
    boot and the kids fit in the back.) What other car can carry 3 19"
    monitors and 2 adults at over 130mph for the same money?
    
    John O'Connor

    
    Opel/Vauxhall Calibra...
    
    Mark

    Do all the 4wd versions have the wider body styling (bulging wings) or
    only some ? Ditto the bonnet scoops and grills ?

    Do the fwd versions have the same or are they narrower and flat-bonneted ?

    ANyone have any ideas on rough prices for low milage 4wd cars ?

Thanks
Ross

    
    Are the wings wider on a 4WD?
    
    Anyway, the main appearance difference is that the GT4/4x4 Turbo (Like
    an earlier noter, I reckon the name is for the same car, but at
    different times - I think the GT4 tag came when the shape changed, but
    maybe it was later) has a small bump-like bonnet scope and the Carlos
    Sainz (basically an evolution version of the GT4 and probably not much
    better as a road car) has a large hole in the bonnet to duct air out
    from under the bonnet. It probably has more ducts in the front of the 
    car too.
    
    Mark
    
    PS Have you driven the FWD and 4WD versions? I thought the FWD was
    truly horrible!

>>    Are the wings wider on a 4WD?
    
    Yes but it is _barely_ noticeable. I'm not sure about the latest body.
    
>>    Anyway, the main appearance difference is that the GT4/4x4 Turbo (Like
>>    an earlier noter, I reckon the name is for the same car, but at
>>    different times - 
    
    I think that the model started as a GT4, became a 4x4 when the
    bodyshell was changed and is the GT Four in its current shape.
    
>>    PS Have you driven the FWD and 4WD versions? I thought the FWD was
>>    truly horrible!
    
    I have, (as I said)
    
    What did you find so bad about it?
    
    NB I assume that (as noted earlier) we are not discussing the very
    latest model where there are bigger differences and the turbo has a lot
    more power.
    
    John O'C

    
    >>    What did you find so bad about it?
    
    The steering mainly. It didn't seem to provide ANY feedback at all. It
    was impossible to detect what the front wheels were doing. Also the car
    seemed very light and unstable on the road, being particularly unhappy
    about change direction suddenly.
    
    I've only driven 1, but it was so bad, I've never wanted to drive
    another (this was a garage's demonstrator, so I presumed they'd've 
    sorted any problems).
    
    Mark
    
    PS On a purely personally note, I think it looked terrible too...

Re: .5
    
 " Anyway, the main appearance difference is that the GT4/4x4 Turbo...
			...has a small bump-like bonnet scope and the Carlos
    Sainz ... has a large hole in the bonnet to duct air out
    from under the bonnet. It probably has more ducts in the front of the 
    car too."

    Ahhh... but, the only ones I actually LIKE are, it would appear, these
    Sainz ones. I like all the scoops and wide arches (sound familiar Mark ?)
    I thought that ones with the bonnet vents (and the 1" round intake on
    the right hand side of the vent ?) were the 4wd cars, not *just* the
    ltd edition ones.

    Ho hum... 

Ross

    
> " Anyway, the main appearance difference is that the GT4/4x4 Turbo...
>			...has a small bump-like bonnet scope and the Carlos

I saw a smart black Celica this morning with a large bump-like bonnet.
It had just fishtailed all over the A34 before attempting a difficult 
roof-and-bonnet braking manoeuvre on the embankment. Not sure if it was 
a GT4 or a Turbo but it did have some extra-wide wheels...

Maybe the handling characteristics would have been improved if additional
vents, ducts, arches and scoops had been fitted  8-)

Chris

    I saw one of the new shape Celicas for the first time (that I've
    noticed) this morning, and the only angle from which it lokked okish was
    the side.
    From the rear it looked like a kit car. From the front it looked like
    it's big brother, the new Supra (another astoundingly ugly car).
    
    I know beauty is meant to be in the eye of the beholder, but I can't
    see how anybody would like this dumpy thing in preference to a
    Calibra, new Fiat Coupe, BMW 3 Coupe, Mazda MX whatever (Calibra look
    alike), etc, etc, etc... (not including the new Ford Granada of
    course).
    
    Al

    
    I saw the new Supra in the flesh for the first time in Heathrow last
    weekend, it didn't look very nice, very short and dumpy looking, but
    when we both came onto the M4 it certainly proved to be quick.

    re.10
    	I heard that - agreed!
    
    Although what's this .....>>
    
    From the rear it looked like a kit car.
    
    ???????

    
    I read a really bad review of the Celica in a magazine, but was
    completely surprised when I actually drove the car.  Like most cars, up
    close it looked much better, and drove amazingly well.  Lots of people
    reckon it's underpowered for the price, but it was so much fun to drive
    that it made up for any shortcomings in performance.  On the same day
    I'd also test driven a 325i coupe - obviously they're totally different 
    cars, but the BMW felt so bland and boring in comparison (just my opinion 
    of course, I'm no great test-driver of cars! - Dan keep quiet mate!).
    
    Chris.

    Hahaha!
    
    R19 16V ? Squeeky but nice.

    I thought a midget was using a grind stone under the wheel arch!

    re.13
    
    I know what you mean about the BMW 3 series, and yet the car mags
    rave about 'em - I had a drive of a 320 and thought is was nice,
    comfortable, drove well enough, yawn, bit like a Cavalier really.
    Good looking car though, especially the coupe, and surely that's 
    what a coupe is meant to be? So what were Toyota thinking when they
    brought the Celica out?
    
    I made a jab at kit cars earlier, and can only say that some (most) kits
    curves aren't quite 'right'  - they look like they lost something
    on the way from the drawing board to the body shop. It's not just
    kits obviously, but they seem the worst offenders (well they used to
    do!!).
    
    Al.