Passat or Celica!?

king_of_inismac · 29-07-2008 9:01am #1

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 · 29-07-2008 9:06am

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 · 29-07-2008 9:08am

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 · 29-07-2008 9:12am

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 · 29-07-2008 10:04am

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 · 29-07-2008 10:07am

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 · 29-07-2008 10:09am

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 · 29-07-2008 10:48am

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 · 29-07-2008 11:12am

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 · 29-07-2008 11:34am

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 · 29-07-2008 12:11pm

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 · 29-07-2008 12:39pm

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 · 29-07-2008 2:32pm

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 · 29-07-2008 2:43pm

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 · 29-07-2008 2:54pm

Biro wrote: »

he probably isn't an old man

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

Biro · 29-07-2008 2:57pm

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 · 29-07-2008 3:00pm

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 · 29-07-2008 3:20pm

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 · 29-07-2008 3:37pm

JHMEG wrote: »

Bachelor farmer from Co Mayo either? Maybe.

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

Vertakill · 29-07-2008 3:42pm

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 · 29-07-2008 4:51pm

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 · 29-07-2008 5:22pm

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 · 29-07-2008 7:07pm

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 · 29-07-2008 7:24pm

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 · 29-07-2008 9:30pm

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 · 29-07-2008 9:36pm

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 · 29-07-2008 9:48pm

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

HashSlinging · 29-07-2008 9:55pm

Biro wrote: »

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

Haha fair few about alrite

colm_mcm · 29-07-2008 10:08pm

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 · 29-07-2008 10:10pm

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 · 29-07-2008 10:14pm

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.

Passat or Celica!?

Comments