It is sometimes amazing how the CC Effect works. The day Steve Lang proposed a Toyota Week, I replied that I had a couple of newer Toys I could write about but not anything from the cool, quirky period of the late ’60s through the mid ’80s. That same evening, on my way to a local Mexican restaurant for some takeout pico de gallo and homemade chips, I saw what appeared to be a late-’70s or early-’80s Celica. And so it was!
The all-new 1978 Celica replaced the mini-Mustang variant after ’77. It was also the first Toyota designed at the new Calty design studio in California. The look was now smooth and modern, but lacked many of the cool JDM-style detail fillips of its predecessor.
Early models had quad round headlamps, but a modest 1980 face lift brought rectangular headlamps, parking lamps and a more squarely-rigged grille, thus pegging our alloy-wheeled, fog-lamped example as an ’80 or ’81 model.
I was struck by how nice this car is; most such Celicas had dissolved before 1990 or so. Nor did it appear to have been restored, meaning it either came from out West or was a babied and garaged toy for most of its life. GTs like this one were powered by the 2.0-liter “20R” inline four-cylinder engine. This one, as is displayed prominently on the rear panel, also has a five-speed. As far as sporting 1980 Toyotas were concerned, this would have been the one to have, if not the similar-but-pricier six-cylinder Supra (CC here).
Well, that’s really all I can say about these. I think they’re cool, but I have no direct experience with them other than seeing a tobacco-brown one parked across the street from our house in the late 1980s. I was, however, quite surprised to see this one in town–it’s been close to 25 years since I last saw one in the metal–not to mention seeing one in such nice shape!
Nice example. Too bad the inside was marred by that ugly aftermarket steering wheel that does not even look good or look like it belongs. I like the original Celica steering wheel with the swan badge in the center and the right and left horn buttons.
Those came with ether an analog clock or an early digital(LED and not the analog digital type)
Just for clarity, the 20R is a 2.2 liter four, and it’s found in both the ST and GT models for 1978-80 cars. 1981 is when the 2.4 liter 22R replaced the 20R, again for both the ST and GT (Celica fan and 6th gen GT coupe owner here).
Nice car but not as nice as the previous miniature Mustang.A friend of Mums celebrated her divorce by trading in her Marina for a cream 80 Celica and a boyfriend 8 years her junior.
My best friend growing up had one of these he got from his dad and I had a used Scirocco. When traffic was light we would race each other down the Pasadena Freeway. Cars sure used to lean a lot back then, which you couldn’t miss if you were following, but both of these were a blast to fun to drive, skinny tires and all. It was like an Autopia for adults.
Cars had so much personality. Although their prices were about the same the Celica and Scirocco had about as much in common as Reagan and Carter. Nowadays it’s hard to say which is more boring the Passat or the Camry.
So many great choices too. Fiestas, 5.0 Fox Mustangs, Capris IIs, and yes big block Fleetwood Broughams! It’s no wonder young people were more into cars, as opposed to today where they’ve grown up on a steady diet of Camry and Priuses in mom and pop’s garage. Those “research studies” that go on and on about how young folks don’t like cars make great headlines but never seem to take that particular cause and effect into consideration. I think I am the only person who has. Thank you Prius (and Toyota).
Going back to the Celica I thought the ’80 facelift was one of the best ever. Usually square lamps ruined a car designed for round ones but not here. I also thought the aero sail-mounted mirrors were much nicer than the clunky ones from ’78.
Both the Scirocco and Celica had full instrumentation but there was one problem, no supplemental low-pressure warning light just the gauge. One day we were heading back from the mountains and I noticed the oil pressure needle was on “L”.
I had to explain to my friend what that meant and he said “it’s always like that” and would check it when he got home. The next day I got a call about needing to add three quarts. Shortly after that whenever I would follow the Celica there was something I would notice, lots of blue smoke.
Back in the heyday of body-on-frame SUVs as family wagons, I had that idea as to why kids then seemed to think the Honda Civic was a sports car. Well, it is compared to mom’s Explorer!
Exactly these things are relative, at least when there are differences out there. When there aren’t keep in mind, at least when it comes to the kids, “you don’t know what you don’t know.”
Today it’s not just the sameness of the Toyota products, it’s also the run up in SUVs and crossovers which, for some reason, all need to have 3-rows of seats. There’s your lost generation.
I have a feeling the new Mercedes GLA is going to shake things up, in a good way. Just like the Mini did.
Fascinating to hear your perspective that the early 80s was an automotive golden age, compared to today when everything is dull. I must be older, because I considered the 60s an automotive golden age, because everyone in the early 80s was driving Cutlass Supremes, GM B bodies and Granadas. This is one of the reasons I love this site – so many perspectives that are from different experiences than mine.
Yes you are right. Surroundings have a lot to do with what we perceive, more than people think. In 80s LA we weren’t surrounded by Granadas we surrounded by Celicas, Accords, Rabbits, W123s and early 3-series.
Too many folks around the country missed the chance to experience one of these, which were a great combination of simple, light, efficient and easy to drive. Reliable too.
Prius fans will point out how the broughamy cars were anti-enthusist but didn’t kill the industry. They forget that when cars were were downsized back then not only did they get more efficient they also got better looking and more fun to drive. Now that I think about it maybe they lacked perspective.
Compare that to today where a gain in efficiency, at least the way Toyota does it, results in cars that are less emotionally satisfying to own and drive.
The peak brougham era lasted what, seven years? The Prius is going on 13 and the boring Camrys 20. That’s really bad for the industry folks.
There is a reason T is awash in models when everyone else is relatively lean. Unlike the rest of the industry they didn’t have to cut back as much in new car development after the crash. Think about that for a sec.
In Quebec, during the same timeframe (late 1970s-early 1980s), we got some Corollas, Rabbits, Accords, GM A,B,G and X-bodies, Chevettes, Pintos, Omni/Horizon and K-cars, old Duster still running around and the Renault R5/LeCar and radios stations played more varied music compared to today. 😉
the “interesting” level of cars has been going steadily down since the 60s..yeah, modern cars are safer, more efficient, more reliable, bla bla…but yes, 60s cars were more interesting than 80s cars, which are more interesting than today’s cars. Unless what floats your boat is having a computer screen on your dashboard, lol.
These days, the emphasis is on comfort, safety and straight-line acceleration, with some consideration for fuel economy.
As a result, we have cars that are quicker and more stable. They brake in shorter distances and produce better skidpad numbers.
But they **feel** less nimble due to safety equipment and electric steering. Better numbers and all around performance, but less edginess.
In the old days, a GTI would lift a rear wheel under hard cornering. A 5.0-liter Mustang would fishtail like mad with just a bit of water on the ground. That was entertaining at the time, but that simply won’t cut it anymore, and we have the lower rate of road fatalities to prove it.
The late 70s and early 80s weren’t much different than today. At the top of everyone’s mind were serious things, like quality and fuel economy.
“You asked for it you got it” was the brand campaign when this Celica came out. Sales were great but didn’t really take off for Toyota until the 80s when the campaign shifted to “Oh what a feeling”.
Ford has a better idea… Wouldn’t you really rather have a Buick… Cadillac style… are the jingles I remember most but for sheer goose bumps nothing has come close to OWAF. Well, maybe Like a Rock.
The full blown song, which I can’t find on youtube, cleverly incorporated the previous campaign as in “Oh what a feeling, you asked for it you got, a truck of quality”.
But it wasn’t just about quality. It was also about feelings and DRIVING. Owning a Toyota was smart, worry-free and fun! That’s when their products and message really jelled and it was all but over for GM.
You don’t hear many jingles these days but if you did the most fitting from Toyota would be “We decided here you go”.
Since you brought up entertaining handling (which the hungrier companies still offer btw) you might like this gen 2 Supra ad.
Safety is far more important today than it was in the past. If you were safety-conscious 30 years ago, then you were a wimp who would confine his shopping to the Volvo dealer. But these days, everyone emphasizes safety; anyone who doesn’t worry about keeping the kids safe from car crashes is a bad parent who doesn’t deserve to live.
Several brands also emphasize quality, which makes it harder for Toyota to compete strictly on that basis. Hyundai’s recent quality-at-a-discount messaging has constrained Toyota’s market share.
In the early 80’s, you could put a 100 hp in a 2,400 lbs compact and dare to call it “sporty.” These days, they install a 150+ hp, 16-valve twincam motor with variable valve timing in a 2,900 lbs body with better brakes and higher skidpad figures, and people will dismiss it as an “appliance.”
I know that you enjoy hating the Prius, but the things that you loathe are a result of cars being safer than they used to be. Most people don’t want edgy, they want to survive the trip and be as comfortable as possible.
“Most people don’t want edgy”
“Hyundai’s recent quality-at-a-discount messaging has constrained Toyota’s market share”
History is littered with cars that increased share when they differentiated on edgy — ’86 Taurus, ’98 Passat, ’02 Altima, ’07 Malibu, ’10 Sonata and Optima. Note these are all mid-sedans, not niche products.
You may want to check the transaction price of a “discount” Sonata. Higher than Camry. They don’t differentiate on discount because 1. they don’t need to and 2. it would be really dumb considering their production constraints.
Value is always important, of course.
I forgot to include the new Fusion, maybe the best example yet of how edginess can help a hungry car company.
The Sonata has some wacky styling, but it isn’t sporty. Its retail sales can’t touch the Camry’s, and Hyundai has been moving cars into fleet during 2013.
The Fusion also has a high rate of fleet sales and sells in fewer numbers than the Camry.
The Camry is the number two retail car in the midsize segment, not far behind the Accord. People do seem to like it.
Toyota’s problem is that the entire segment is becoming increasingly competitive, while consumers are simultaneously taking more interest in crossovers. It’s a squeeze play from both ends. Toyota’s much greater problem is that the Venza needs to be a hit, but it isn’t.
Fair enough the Sonata isn’t sporty and may be more wacky than edgy. Personally, I hate it. We can replace it on the list with the Intrepid LH and Charger/300 LX.
You don’t need to sell more retail than Camry to be seen as successful.
Considering all of their “built in demand” from that huge and easy-to-please owner base that would be asking a lot of any car. A more fair measure of desirability would be to compare conquest sales. The Elantra is absolutely gorgeous. I wonder how its conquest sales compare to the Corolla 😉
Toyota is just about the only company than can make boring cars and still do OK. The vanilla strategy hasn’t worked well for VW despite the fact that the cars are safe and, with all of the discounting this year, cheap.
Also I think the old high-profile tires were a lot more progressive near the limit, which was much lower in the first place
Those fishtailin 5.0 Mustangs lived on all the way to 2004(albeit with a 4.6) with the same basic geometry they had in 1985. Hell an 04 base V6 even has the same power! If the fatality rate has gone down since the 80s, it’s not because that cars foibles were improved any. I also doubt the fatality rate was high simply because people were pushing their cars to their limit. In fact, I’d account it to a whole list of other potential factors before I’d attribute it to an “improvement” in cars themselves.
Yes lower fatality rates have little to do with higher fitments of active safety features like stability control. Nor have these features killed an entertaining handling feel in normal driving — they are just a safety net for at the limit or when the road surface is icy/slick.
Passive safety features — air bags, improved structure — along with seat belt laws have helped the most. Also tougher drunk driving laws.
Another reason for a lower fatality rate is that in 1985, there was still a fair number of pre-1974 lap-belt-only cars still on the road, and in an era where seatbelt usage was much lower. There was still a lot of 60s iron on the road back then. Those older cars with much less safety equipment were not as survivable in a bad accident. Today, the oldest stuff in common use is from the 80s, with side door beams, 3 point belts (if not air bags) and all kinds of other things that we take for granted now.
In the mid 80s, a friend called me and asked me to go with him to a used car lot to test drive a Toyota Celica. Neither he nor his wife could drive a stick, and he wanted me to drive it to check it out.
I was driving a Mk II GTI, so there was quite a lot of difference between my car and the Celica, which I think was a 78 model. I remember the controls feeling a bit stiff compared to my car, and it came across to me as more of a small tourer than a sports or sporty car. If I had driven it later when I had a 66 Fury III, my impressions would probably have been different.
They bought it, and drove the snot out of it for the next few years. It turned out to be a nice little car. I have always liked the styling on these.
I used to drive his Celica a lot and noticed that too vis a vis the Scirocco. A lot of it I felt came from the power steering on the Toyota. That gen 2 Celica was one of the first small 4-cylinder cars with PS and that gave it a very different feel. One of the first with power windows and locks too.
It was pretty cool though. You could drive it fast with a different technique, more with finger tip control. It was a new feeling because you couldn’t drive a big 60s or 70s American car that way.
Not to sound too much like a Cadillac fan boy but I can drive my ’86 Brougham that way, with the factory rear sway bar. Because of the bar and other reasons it feels smaller than it is and is really sweet on the 110.
Now all cars have that ridiculously heavy power steering at speed. So many things were better back in the 80s!
Having driven a number of these cars back in the day, I would also note that most of the rear wheel drive Toyotas also used recirculating ball steering, which would have a big impact on steering feel as well….
A roommate of mine had one of these too… IIRC it wasn’t much of a sporty car, more cruiser. I prefer the earlier models looks too, even if this one may have been “better”.
Years ago, I knew someone who had an ’81 Celica ST notchback and so I got to know that car quite well. The engine was durable as hell, although I would describe its power as at best adequate, at least with automatic. That car had the four-speed automatic, which felt like it had widely spaced ratios and very tall overall gearing. As with some smaller-engined Mercedes of that era, you eventually realized, however grudgingly, that the automatic’s ratios and shift points were probably about the best compromise for efficiency and to make the best use of the available power, but they didn’t endow the car with any great verve. We used to say it had just enough power to keep you out of trouble, but not enough to have any fun.
The Celica’s handling was compromised somewhat by the power steering, which was numb (not vintage Chrysler numb, but definitely not in the league of some of the PAS-equipped ’80s Hondas I’ve driven), but it did ride pretty well. The back seat wasn’t terrible for a coupe that size and was actually more habitable for adult humans than the Mk 3 Supra’s; the Celica wasn’t much for legroom, but unlike the Supra, didn’t have me scraping my skull on the hatchback frame. The interior was well equipped, although I can’t say much for the interior styling and the materials seemed to have been selected for durability rather than visual or tactile appeal. (The GT looks to have been a little gaudier, which I’m not sure is necessarily an improvement.)
Still, it wasn’t hard to see why those cars were very popular when they were new. If you wanted something sporty-looking but livable, durable and well-equipped and you weren’t overly concerned with outright performance, it had a lot of appeal. With a little more steering feel, nicer-looking cabin materials and about 30 more horsepower, it would have been a delightful car, but even without those things, it was competent enough to earn respect.
True 20R toughness story: I had a boyfriend who drove a 198-ish Celica 5-speed with the same engine. One night he calls me up and being totally car-stupid says the car won’t start. I get in my ’87 Audi 5000 (for once, it ran) and find that the dipstick is dry and that the engine has seized (he had no idea you were supposed to check the oil level on occasion). We went and got a coupla quarts of 10W-40 and filled her up, but it wouldn’t crank. One push-start and a clutch-pop later she fired up and that car ran for another ten years.
Hey that’s my house and that’s my car. Weird.