Passat or Celica!?

king_of_inismac

I'm thinking of buying a car.

I'm trying to decide between a toyota celica 1.8 vvti (2001)


or

A VW Passat 130BHP Comfortline (2002)

I travel across the country about once a week, so practically speaking the passat is probably better, but I'd imagine the celica would be more fun on the road....

blackbox

You'll have to put a bit more thought into this - these cars are so different - a big 4 door saloon vs a 2 door sports coupe with very little room in the back.

Start by listing "must haves", followed by "would likes" and see how they each tick the boxes.

If, for example, the Celica meets your needs, then you should start comparing it to similar cars.

Ferris

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I'm thinking of buying a car.

I'm trying to decide between a toyota celica 1.8 vvti (2001)


or

A VW Passat 130BHP Comfortline (2002)

I travel across the country about once a week, so practically speaking the passat is probably better, but I'd imagine the celica would be more fun on the road....

I'd imagine that a Celica gets about 35mpg combined. The Passat will get about 45mpg. Get your annual mileage and divide the two into it and work out your gallons per year. Work out a price per gallon for petrol/diesel and multiply. I'd imagine that you'll be surprised by the low cost difference, especially if you take it on a week by week basis.

Depretiation is another matter, generally high mileage diesels are worth more than high mileage petrols. Conversely it can be difficult/expensive to get a low mileage diesel in the first place.

Servicing is generally better with petrols as they can go for longer between services.

king_of_inismac

Thanks for the replies so far guys!

I know the cars are completely different! I had originally chosen the passat because I drive from galway to dundalk and back most wkends, and I thought the passat would be a good steady comfortable car. I currently drive a 94 corolla with 250K miles on the clock.

The reason I'm considering the celica is that I'd imagine it would be a lot more fun to drive, not too hard to maintain (toyota) and probably not much worse than my old corolla on fuel. I dont have kids/family so not worried about space inside the cabin...

Vertakill

I'd a Celica up until a few weeks ago. It's a bizarre comparison as they're very different, but I think you know that.
The Celica has quite hard suspension and wouldn't be quite as comfortable as the Passat, but it would be an awful lot more fun and in my opinion it is a fair bit more stylish.

Theres hundreds of Celica's for sale at the moment so you'll have a good variety to choose from and should be able to get a decent 00/01 VVTi for about 7-10k. My VVTLi never gave me a single bit of trouble in about 14 months of driving it.

king_of_inismac

How much do you think I should expect to pay for a 00 or 01 vvti model?

They seem to be looking for about 8000 on carzone for a 00, and maybe 9 for a 01/02

cabrwab

As you know you are comparing two completely different cars there.
i know i would go with the celica, just for the fact its a sports car,

where the passat is well a taxi/rep mobile. Maybe see how insurance would effect you too i know stating the obvious, but if you can have a bit of fun while your young no kids etc why not enjoy it?

I assume your thinking diesel for the passat, not bad but sometimes the din under the bonnet is frustrating, but usually the VW diesels will go on forever. Offering alot more comfort/space.

colm_mcm

the Passat would be the quicker of the two in reality. 140bhp Celica a waste of time. I'd get the Passat unless you really like the look of the Celica. Celica won't be great for your back for repeated long journeys.

Vertakill

I dunno about the Passat being faster...
They both do roughly the same 0-60, but the Celica is far lighter and agile.

But yeah, the Celica is a harsher ride than the Passat so it's a fairly easy decision I would've thought.

In my opinion, if I was looking at the new shape Celica I would never get the 140bhp one, I'd always get the 190bhp. That's speaking from experience - For a very small amount of money you would have 50 HP more and you'd lose nearly 3 seconds of your 0-60 time. That one would chew up that particular 130bhp Passat.

JHMEG

I drove a Celica 190 quite a bit and hard is not a word I would use to describe the suspension. Firm but not hard. It was luxurious compared to the DA6 I had at the time.

Vertakill

Yeah that's probably true but the main point I was trying to get across is the difference between a Passat and Celica with regards to comfort!

JHMEG

Vertakill wrote: »

Yeah that's probably true but the main point I was trying to get across is the difference between a Passat and Celica with regards to comfort!

True in that the older gentleman would probably find the Passat more comfortable.

Biro

colm_mcm wrote: »

the Passat would be the quicker of the two in reality. 140bhp Celica a waste of time. I'd get the Passat unless you really like the look of the Celica. Celica won't be great for your back for repeated long journeys.

Complete horsesh!t. The Celica would comfortably leave the Passat behind it, and the 140bhp model isn't a waste of time. Really every sentence there is wrong. It won't break your back on long journeys, the Passat in question really is a mediocre car. Comfort isn't everything, he probably isn't an old man, so he should just go for the Celica and learn what a good handling car is really like.

Vertakill

RE the Celica: From what I can remember, it was no slouch on it's way up to lift, so I'd say the Celica would be quicker all round than the Passat. On a straight, wouldn't be a huge amount quicker but it would p1ss all over it in cornering.

The reason I wasn't overly found of my Celica on long trips is because I had low profile tyres on 17" alloys and the suspension was fairly stiff (especially compared to the Passat).

If you went with the 190 you would have 6 gears and you could cruise along your longer journeys in 6th.
Only slightly more expensive to buy (some are priced the exact same), only slightly more expensive to insure (€100-€200), equal mpg (just don't go into lift and you'll be running at 140bhp..) and they're obviously both 1.8ltr so same tax.
Can't see any reason why someone would opt for a 140 over a 190.

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

he probably isn't an old man

He's considering a Passat, so he may well be..

Biro

Vertakill wrote: »

RE the Celica: From what I can remember, it was no slouch on it's way up to lift, so I'd say the Celica would be quicker all round than the Passat. On a straight, wouldn't be a huge amount quicker but it would p1ss all over it in cornering.

The reason I wasn't overly found of my Celica on long trips is because I had low profile tyres on 17" alloys and the suspension was fairly stiff (especially compared to the Passat).

If you went with the 190 you would have 6 gears and you could cruise along your longer journeys in 6th.
Only slightly more expensive to buy (some are priced the exact same), only slightly more expensive to insure (€100-€200), equal mpg (just don't go into lift and you'll be running at 140bhp..) and they're obviously both 1.8ltr so same tax.
Can't see any reason why someone would opt for a 140 over a 190.

They all have 6 speed gearboxes. Some insurance companies have 120% loading on the 190 model, like FBD. My mate used get about 100 miles less to a tank out of his 190 than my 140 used, harder to find a 190 in good nick, also the lift bolts need to be done in the earlier models, pre-2003. Same performance really up till 6k rpm. I'd go for the 190 alright, but it's not quite as clear cut as it may seem!!

Biro

JHMEG wrote: »

He's considering a Passat, so he may well be..

Possibly, but considering he drives a 94 Corolla and has no kids/family, then I can only assume he's a young driver looking to upgrade his car to something a bit more interesting!
If he was an old geezer, he'd have the 94 Corolla and would be happy with it, saying that it has done 250k miles and will do 250k more, and it'll see him out and all that.

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

Possibly, but considering he drives a 94 Corolla and has no kids/family, then I can only assume he's a young driver looking to upgrade his car to something a bit more interesting!
If he was an old geezer, he'd have the 94 Corolla and would be happy with it, saying that it has done 250k miles and will do 250k more, and it'll see him out and all that.

Bachelor farmer from Co Mayo either? Maybe.

Biro

JHMEG wrote: »

Bachelor farmer from Co Mayo either? Maybe.

Yes... you know him too? Wow, he does get around!

Vertakill

Biro wrote: »

They all have 6 speed gearboxes. Some insurance companies have 120% loading on the 190 model, like FBD. My mate used get about 100 miles less to a tank out of his 190 than my 140 used, harder to find a 190 in good nick, also the lift bolts need to be done in the earlier models, pre-2003. Same performance really up till 6k rpm. I'd go for the 190 alright, but it's not quite as clear cut as it may seem!!

No, the 140 came in 5 speed also. But I was mainly referring to the debate about it's MPG, and the fact if you drive it sensibly you're fine.

Lift bolts, cost feck all to get done and it was only happening pre 2001. Also, you can't do any major damage to your engine even driving around with a broken one. It just means it wont go into/hold lift. Obviously it's not a good idea to go around like this for too long.

As far as insurance.. I was being quoted €1600 for the 140 and €1800 for the 190 when I was getting insured.

You are right about the difficulty finding a good 190 though. Took me months.

When selling, I only got 10k for mine which had a TRD bodykit/spoiler, DVD player and fully leather interior, which pretty much no other 190 had when mine was for sale. Main problem was that there was over 300 for sale on carzone at the same time.
It's main drawback was that it was Silver.. Couldn't find any other color 190's in good nick.

Biro

Vertakill wrote: »

No, the 140 came in 5 speed also.

Only in Japan, not in UK.

Vertakill wrote: »

Lift bolts, cost feck all to get done and it was only happening pre 2001. Also, you can't do any major damage to your engine even driving around with a broken one. It just means it wont go into/hold lift. Obviously it's not a good idea to go around like this for too long.

True, it's just something to be aware of.

Vertakill wrote: »

As far as insurance.. I was being quoted €1600 for the 140 and €1800 for the 190 when I was getting insured.

I got offered 120% increase on my premium, which is why I didn't buy one. Shop around is the answer!

Vertakill wrote: »

You are right about the difficulty finding a good 190 though. Took me months.

When selling, I only got 10k for mine which had a TRD bodykit/spoiler, DVD player and fully leather interior, which pretty much no other 190 had when mine was for sale. Main problem was that there was over 300 for sale on carzone at the same time.
It's main drawback was that it was Silver.. Couldn't find any other color 190's in good nick.

Ya, there's a massive amount of them, I'd say half or more are jap imports. Most are rough as a bear's rear end! I'm not a fan of Silver in them either!! You can't be colour picky with them really, you take the best one and suffer the colour! (Except yellow...)

Vertakill

Biro wrote: »

You can't be colour picky with them really, you take the best one and suffer the colour! (Except yellow...)

Yep, exactly what I did. It grew on me a little though!

Sandwich

Its the classic dilemma, but cant go wrong with either -much of a muchness between the two. Four wheels, internal combustion engines, glass windows for one or more passengers to see out from inside. Both also have assorted front and rear lighting systems, but you might need to check that out. Probably one copying the other, but both also have similar 'horn' external audio warning systems built in as standard.
Just pick a colour you are happy with in either and you should be well satisfied.

colm_mcm

Biro wrote: »

Complete horsesh!t. The Celica would comfortably leave the Passat behind it, and the 140bhp model isn't a waste of time. Really every sentence there is wrong. It won't break your back on long journeys, the Passat in question really is a mediocre car. Comfort isn't everything, he probably isn't an old man, so he should just go for the Celica and learn what a good handling car is really like.

To get the most out of the Celica, you have to rev the nuts off it. and it's not even a nice sounding engine, sounds exactly like a Rav4 1.8 (funnily enough!)

Take the torque figures for example - The Celica develops peak torque of 126 ft/lbs @4200 rpm versus the 228ft/lbs @1900 rpm that the Passat gets.

I've driven both cars quite a bit, and while the 0-60 times are in favour of the Celica, for real life enthusiastic driving - overtaking, powering out of bends etc, the Passat will be quicker.

groupb

colm_mcm wrote: »

the Passat would be the quicker of the two in reality. 140bhp Celica a waste of time. I'd get the Passat unless you really like the look of the Celica. Celica won't be great for your back for repeated long journeys.

IT would if it was an arrow straight road , but throw bends into the equation and a passat would'nt see a celica for dust.

Climate Expert

The Passat has nearly twice as much torque as the Celica. Plus VW underestimate the actual BHP in the engine, you could easlily get one with more than 140.

It would not only be quicker than the Celica on the twisty stuff but will do 40mpg even when driven hard. The Celica would be 20 or less.

groupb

I've driven quite a few passats. They do'nt like twisty stuff!

HashSlinging

Biro wrote: »

Yes... you know him too? Wow, he does get around!

Haha fair few about alrite

colm_mcm

groupb wrote: »

I've driven quite a few passats. They do'nt like twisty stuff!

I'd have to agree here, the Celica would out-handle it easily. the Passat would still keep up though

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

To get the most out of the Celica, you have to rev the nuts off it. and it's not even a nice sounding engine, sounds exactly like a Rav4 1.8 (funnily enough!)

Take the torque figures for example - The Celica develops peak torque of 126 ft/lbs @4200 rpm versus the 228ft/lbs @1900 rpm that the Passat gets.

I've driven both cars quite a bit, and while the 0-60 times are in favour of the Celica, for real life enthusiastic driving - overtaking, powering out of bends etc, the Passat will be quicker.

Colm, are you on crack or something? Or have you moved to a VW garage?:eek:

colm_mcm

JHMEG wrote: »

Colm, are you on crack or something? Or have you moved to a VW garage?:eek:

Nah, just actually having driven both exact models in question, that's how I see it.

My own car is a high-revving Jap, with variable valve trickery that can rev to indecent heights, it is a quick car for a 1/4 mile or 0-60, but to get that performance into every day driving, you have to keep the revs up, in a car like the passat, you can leave it in 5th, and relax.



I much prefer the petrol though.

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote: »

Nah, just actually having driven both exact models in question, that's how I see it.

My own car is a high-revving Jap, with variable valve trickery that can rev to indecent heights, it is a quick car for a 1/4 mile or 0-60, but to get that performance into every day driving, you have to keep the revs up, in a car like the passat, you can leave it in 5th, and relax.



I much prefer the petrol though.

Ok, in summary so:

Passat = relaxing farmer car
Celica = high revving 0-60 burner

Are we all in agreement?

Barr

The Celica looks far more expensive than the mundane passat ..if you dont have kids or need loads of room ,go with the celica

Get it in white - defo the best colout for the generation 7 model

colm_mcm

JHMEG wrote: »

Ok, in summary so:

Passat = relaxing farmer car
Celica = high revving 0-60 burner

Are we all in agreement?

But the 140 Celica doesn't even do the real high revving stuff that the VVTL-i model does,

The 130bhp Passat is very good at effortlessly overtaking loads of cars at once, doing this in a Celica involves lots of gear changes. leaving it in 6th just isn't an option.

HungryJoey

JHMEG wrote: »

Ok, in summary so:

Passat = relaxing farmer car
Celica = high revving 0-60 burner

Are we all in agreement?

Let me jump in here.

Not really, the passat 130bhp is nippy enough and the 130's had a 6 speed box too. I wouldn't class it as a farmer car either.

0-60, ok the celica will probably win hands down but from 40-80km/h that passat would pull far better.

HashSlinging

imo this guy would be crazy to buy the petrol car, based on uh all the driving he'll be doing. Bills will take the fun out of it.

colm_mcm

A Mondeo 130 Ebony would be worth considering too, great car to drive and fab fuel economy.

Randy Katana

I have driven both cars also and much prefer the passat. I would fancy the 130bhp passat everytime over a 140 bph celica and the torque the passat puts out is good. Plenty of power at take off, powering out of bends and over taking. As someone mentioned you dont have to shift gears to get the most out of the engine like you would have to do in the Celica. Im only 22 not an 'old farmer' and prefer the shape of the passat. Passat is a much classier car in my opinion and the Celica is fairly crap when it comes to mpg

Barr

JHMEG wrote: »

Ok, in summary so:

Passat = relaxing farmer car
Celica = high revving 0-60 burner

Are we all in agreement?

The passat is far more than a farmers car , it also doubles up has a fine taxi

Passat = relaxing farmer car /taxi

colm_mcm

so you're saying the Celica is a sports car?

Barr

colm_mcm wrote: »

so you're saying the Celica is a sports car?

They certainly look the part anyways and the vttl-i has plenty of poke

colm_mcm

The OP is looking at the non VVTL-i version though.

It's an alright looking car in the way a Hyundai Coupe is nice.

JHMEG

So, ok, here's where we're at:

Passat = relaxing farmer car / taxi
Celica 140 = not so relaxing farmer car

HashSlinging

we've been taken over by cruise-irl.

Barr

colm_mcm wrote: »

The OP is looking at the non VVTL-i version though.

It's an alright looking car in the way a Hyundai Coupe is nice.

Considering the Celica shape hasent changed since 1999 , it still looks fresh today .

IMO it looks better than the current Hyundai Coupe

Biro

Randy Katana wrote: »

I have driven both cars also and much prefer the passat. I would fancy the 130bhp passat everytime over a 140 bph celica and the torque the passat puts out is good. Plenty of power at take off, powering out of bends and over taking. As someone mentioned you dont have to shift gears to get the most out of the engine like you would have to do in the Celica. Im only 22 not an 'old farmer' and prefer the shape of the passat. Passat is a much classier car in my opinion and the Celica is fairly crap when it comes to mpg

I really can't believe what I'm reading here. Are ye all one handed or have he a short left hand, or missing fingers? Or maybe it's ye're left foot that's out of shape? It's the only way to explain why ye're so afraid of changing gear.
Power at take off? The Celica is quicker, full stop. Don't believe me? Find me a Celica, go find a Passat for ye're selves, and we'll pick a straight, track, anywhere and I'll hand ye your arse.
I can't stress this enough - THE PASSAT IS SLOWER THAN THE CELICA.
Real world? What's that? If in the real world there was a ban on dropping a gear or 3, then yes, but that's not the real world where I live. Behind a truck doing 50mph in the Celica? Use 3rd.
The 01-05 Passat is a sh!t car from a drivers' point of view. It's not even the most comfortable in it's class if it's comfort you're after.
At OP, get a Celica or as suggested above, Mondeo if you want Comfort.
MPG? 420 miles from a tank as opposed to 600 with the Passat, similar sized tank. Not a massive amount for day-to-day runnings.

cpoh1

I think its pretty easy to spot the defensive passat owners on this thread...

The passat is nothing more than an average 4 door family saloon. It doesnt look great, it doesnt drive very well and its not fast either. The mondeo is a better car.

The celica is not without faults but if the two cars were side by side only a fool would get into the passat if driving pleasure was the main criteria.

colm_mcm

I'm not sure that driving pleasure is the main concern of the OP.

Celicas are alright, the 140bhp is nippy - but don't be fooled into thinking it's some sort of weapon.

cpoh1

colm_mcm wrote: »

Celicas are alright, the 140bhp is nippy - but don't be fooled into thinking it's some sort of weapon.

I agree with you 100% but when compared to the passat its a much more desireable car for someone who wants more from a car than getting from A to B.

king_of_inismac

Jeez, this thread has really taken off.

Afraid I'm not a mayo farmer

I travel from galway to dundalk most wkend and the roads are pretty twisty, and not the best so was considering the Passat for comfort and fuel ecomony. It would also have a good bit of poke with the 130BHP engine.

I was ready to buy, but then saw a celica which I consider more stylish. It might be quicker and more fun in the corners, but I don't want a rough ride across the country, and I'd imagine it would be expensive to insure (I'm only paying 400 for the corolla atm).

My head says Passat, but my heart would love a celica...

Biro

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My head says Passat, but my heart would love a celica...

Get it then. You have the rest of your life for Passats. The Celica isn't uncomfortable. You have to look towards Type R Honda's for real uncompromised stuff.