(first posted 11/21/2016) There was a time when Toyota’s marketing slogan was “Oh What A Feeling… Toyota”. Now it’s merely “Let’s Go Places”. Yes, there was a time when many Toyotas did invoke thoughts of excitement, style, and engaging driving experiences. Those days are gone. “Let’s Go Places”, pretty much sums it up: Today, Toyotas are meant to take you from point A to point B.
Despite visions of Camrys racing each other in Monaco, with the exception of the ho-hum 86 (née Scion FR-S in North America), Toyota does not sell any sports cars or even somewhat sporty cars in North America. From a financial standpoint, one can’t really blame Toyota, as it’s merely catering to what that majority of consumers demand with its current product mix of muted family vehicles. Additionally, this isn’t to say that current Toyotas are bad vehicles. But from the enthusiast standpoint, it’s easy to lament the absence of more exciting vehicles, especially considering Toyota used to offer quite a few more.
Sold from the 1971 to 2006 model years, the Celica led a long life, with a total of seven generations. Always a sports car at heart, Toyota should be successfully credited with revamping the Celica’s image and demeanor with each generation, responding to the ever changing times and what the market demanded.
By the time this fourth generation Celica arrived in 1985 (1986 model year in North America), it was a dramatically different car than the original, boasting dramatic, space age styling with wraparound rear glass and retractable headlights which blended in with the grille when concealed. The fourth generation Celica also coincided with a switch to front-wheel drive, with all-wheel drive and an American-market turbo available for the first time.
Versus it predecessor, the fourth generation Celica rode on a 1.4-inch longer wheelbase and was 1.8 inches wider, yet was 2.2 inches lower and anywhere from 0.6 to 2.7 inches shorter depending on model, making for more athletic proportions. Front-wheel drive allowed for more interior space, though weight was also generally up on all models.
The Celica employed a MacPherson strut front and rear suspension, both with coil springs, tube shocks, and anti-roll bars. Power steering and power brakes were standard on all models, including standard ventilated front disc brakes across the board. Only the GT-S and All-Trac gained rear disc brakes, as the ST and GT made due with less costly rear drum brakes.
As with the previous generation, Celica offered buyers with the choice of a notchback, liftback, or convertible coupe bodystyle, 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual transmission, and eight engines to choose from, market dependent of course.
Available in ST, GT, GT-S, and Turbo All-Trac trims, this car’s GT trim added amenities such as 4-speaker sound system, dual power remote mirrors, and driver’s lumbar support. Features including power windows/locks, power sunroof, automatic climate control, and heated mirrors were all optional on the GT. GT-S trim added further enhancements such as 8-way power front seats with adjustable side bolsters, rear spoiler, alloy wheels, four-wheel disc brakes, and an optional leather interior.
All North American-spec Celicas featured 2.0L versions of Toyota’s S inline-4. ST and GT models initially were powered by the SOHC 2S-E, which produced 97 horsepower and 118 lb-ft torque. Beginning in 1987, however, the 2S-E was replaced with the DOHC 3S-FE, producing 115 horsepower and 124 lb-ft torque.
The GT-S featured the 135 horsepower/125 lb-ft 3S-GELC, while the top-spec Turbo All-Trac featured the 190 horsepower/190 lb-ft torque 3S-GTE and all-wheel drive, for true sports car performance. Top speed on the Celica Turbo All-Trac was 137 miles per hour with a zero-to-sixty time of 7.6 seconds. The All-Trac (called “GT-Four” in most other markets) became Toyota’s World Rally car, taking several championships.
The mid-range GT-S was no slouch either though, with a 0-60 time of 8.6 seconds. In a December 1986 issue, Road & Track ranked the Celica GT-S liftback a close second to the Acura Integra LS in a four-way comparison test that also included the Mitsubishi Cordia Turbo and Volkswagen Scirocco 16V. Although the Celica received high marks in performance, comfort, and styling, staffers felt it just couldn’t top the “perfectness” of the Integra’s overall refinement.
In any event, the Celica was a competitive car all around, offering solid performance, style, and quality for a reasonable value and sold quite well. The average Celica buyer in this car’s inaugural 1986 year was 30 years old, single, with a college education, and an annual income of $39,000 ($86K as of the publication date of this article). Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of Celica buyers were first time Toyota buyers.
It would be interesting to see what cars this type of consumer is buying today. The Celica was clearly a car frequently bought by someone who placed a high importance on their image, and something tells me these buyers aren’t flocking to Toyota today, as Toyotas have grown far less exciting in the past few decades.
From personal experience, my insight tells me that this young professional demographic flocks to cars in the Audi A4/BMW 3 Series/Lexus IS field. As a matter of fact, note what’s parked to the left of it in this Starbucks parking lot, a 2017 BMW 340i (which happens to belong to my friend Sara). Either way, they aren’t buying coupes, though on a personal note, I’m proud to be an outlier.
However logical it may be for Toyota to focus its efforts on mass-appealing family sedans and crossovers, it is nonetheless disappointing from the enthusiast’s prospective that Toyota does not make bestow us with many sporty offerings. Times have certainly changed, and I guess we just have to accept it. Toyota certainly has.
Related Reading:
I have to take issue with characterizing the 86 as “ho-hum.” That would certainly be a reasonable description of the Scion tC, which was more or less a Celica successor, but the 86 is a proper RWD sports coupe. It’s only “ho-hum” if you insist that all sporty cars have 300+ hp (which I think is awfully reductive).
The T160 Celica’s rear suspension is by MacPherson strut, not Chapman strut, and is basically the same as the layout used on a lot of other FWD Toyotas, particularly the Corolla/Sprinter and of course the Carina/Corona. The distinction between a MacPherson strut and a Chapman strut is that the latter uses an articulated halfshaft as a control arm (like the C2 and C3 Corvette rear suspension does). Chapman struts are only suitable for RWD or 4WD cars, although not all RWD/4WD vehicles with rear struts use the halfshaft as a locating member. (The 4WD Celica did not.)
One minor point of interest: The T160 notchback wasn’t sold as a Celica in Japan. It got different front and rear clips and was sold through Toyopet dealers as a Corona coupe.
“One minor point of interest: The T160 notchback wasn’t sold as a Celica in Japan. It got different front and rear clips and was sold through Toyopet dealers as a Corona coupe.”
Yes. Once the Celica went FWD, there was never a coupe bodystyle available in Japan. It skipped the next ST18x generation, and then returned as the Curren for model years 1994-1998.
Was a Celica based Corona sold alongside other Coronas that retained RWD? Toyota was doing that in the reverse in the USA selling restyled old RWD Corolla sport coupes alongside the new 84 FWD Corolla.
I think by 1986 in Japan the RWD Coronas and Carinas were phased out completely.
Australia never got FWD Coronas they kept RWD untill the badge vanished in circa 86. The last of them were imported from Japan a friend had a 86 wagon.
Not in Japan. The RWD Corona hardtop continued for about two years after the sedan went to FWD, but the front-drive T160 coupe replaced it.
It’s only “ho-hum” if you insist that all sporty cars have 300+ hp (which I think is awfully reductive).
I think this is the problem on more than one level. Emphasis on horsepower has become the key stat for classifying cars into their respective niche, trumping number of doors, bodystyle, type of transmissions, weight, dimensions and drive wheels. All irrelevant! Someone looks at a FRS/86/BRZ and sees it has less power than a V6 Camry, well then it’s not a sports car, no matter if it actually looks, goes and drives like one compared to the numb sedan across the showroom, that, despite the power, doesn’t.
Like so many things today the polarization is profound, there’s little to no sporty but modest cars like the Celica(and ponycars of old), it’s either full blown practical sedans and hatches, or it’s a leap to 300-400 horsepower horsepower more expensive/impractical than ever “ponycars”.
Agree. The root of this, in my opinion, is when people began using the terms ‘Sports GT’ and ‘Sports Car’ interchangeably.
Truth is that they are two very different things.
My assessment of the 86/FR-S is not related to its horsepower. I’ve driven one and was left very unimpressed. Though certainly better than most modern Toyotas, its handling and road mannerisms weren’t up to the same levels of dynamics and refinement as cars such as the Civic Si, GTI, MX-5 Miata, MINI JCW hardtop, or even the MINI Cooper S.
Not to mention the fact that the interior was lacking in comfort. The exterior and the interior look and feel dated, and in many ways truly are, as few changes have been made to the car that’s now entering its 6th season.
If a car is light enough and has the right handling characteristics, horsepower is a much less important issue.
I find it surprising that the Celica gained weight in it’s transition to front drive. The 85 RWD Celica had 116hp, the heavier FWD 86 97hp. With the car being over 500 pounds heavier than the first gen Scirocco, perhaps the bloat was being allowed to creep in. The engines did shrink to 2.0 from 2.4, so any driving pleasure was dependent on choosing the manual transmission and higher output GTS, which weren’t common.
I would be curious if the buyers of the 86 generation got a lot more female, think a male audience might have called a foul.
Celicas were definitely more attractive when they were cheaper 4 cylinder versions of Supras rather than sporty coupe/hatch versions of Corollas.
That change in particular could be a Toyota Deadly Sin – paved the way for the elimination of the Supra, once the platform lost that volume.
Celicas were never “cheaper versions of Supras”.It was the other way around: Supras were Celicas with a longer nose and a 6 cyl.engine. That is,untilthis generation of Celica; then the Supra went its own way.
Yes, I understand that the Supra started as a higher trim level Celica. Although, at least in the case of the Third Generation, I would argue that the platform definitely reflected the demands of the higher price point Supra than the lower price point Celica (which is probably why Toyota diverged after that point – as already pointed out, the Supra was the vehicle that the RWD platform survived on).
The Third Generation Celica was a lot of car for the money at the time – from what I recall, the Turbo Celica of that generation was never offered in the US, probably because it encroached too much on the Supra. I’ve always liked the Third Generation Celicas – aside from the RWD, the crisper edged styling looks better to me than the more rounded Fourth Generation.
It’s interesting to ponder what the Supra might have become if it had continued to share a platform with a cheaper model. Probably wouldn’t have become the performance icon it was at the end of its life but then again, it might have survived better as a cheaper car.
The “strict” Supra platform was more or less shared with the Soarer (although they had different chassis codes), which is significant.
The dilemma Toyota had with the later generations of Celica is that they became primarily export models. The A40 did well in Japan for its first two years and then dropped off, and neither the A60 nor this FWD T160 really moved the needle. While the Celica XX/Celica Supra didn’t sell in larger numbers in Japan, they were much more profitable, and the initial Z10 Soarer was quite successful in the home market.
So, Toyota opted to shift the Supra upmarket along with the Z20 Soarer — this is how they justified stuff like the sophisticated and quite-costly double wishbone suspension on the A70 Supra. The Supra still wasn’t a big seller in Japan (although in total it ended up selling about as many units as the T160 Celica, albeit over a longer period), but it was a global model, and along with the home market success of the Soarer, it managed to get some respectable volume out of that platform and hardware. (To put this in perspective, the Soarer sold significantly better than the Celica in the Japanese market, despite being a good bit more expensive.)
Where this fell apart was when the coupe market basically collapsed in the nineties, compounded by the exchange rate issues. It’s hard to see that there would have been some alternative course that would have avoided that, given that it killed sales of the Celica, MR2, Supra, Soarer, and even the Corolla and Sprinter coupes and Paseo. Judging by the fate of the Nissan Silvia/240SX, sticking with RWD wouldn’t have meaningfully improved Celica sales in the nineties.
A Toyota DS? Hold not thy breath.
The weight increase is kind of puzzling, TBH. It’s a little unclear exactly how much weight the T160 gained — the JDM shipping weights really are not any heavier than the A60, and third-party figures vary a lot. One thing that’s interesting is that the T160 was quite a bit heavier than a Carina sedan, which makes me thing the coupe’s extra glass may be partly to blame.
1987 and later cars of this generation with the 3S-FE had reasonable performance. I’m not sure what the rationale was for the 2S (waiting for the DOHC engines to complete EPA certification, maybe), but it was really just an interim thing.
To give a somewhat similar transformation, when the FWD Dodge Daytona replaced the RWD Dodge Challenger for 84, the weight loss for the Daytona was 204 pounds.
I don’t think Ford would have contemplated replacing the Mustang with the Probe or the front drive F body replacement considered if they thought the front drive replacement would be heavier.
It is probably that the Celica came out a lot heavier than intended and with no room for a V6. I don’t think a deadly sin, but keeps the car an also ran.
I don’t know about “than intended,” since I don’t think Toyota had any specific weight reduction or downsizing agenda — it was mostly that the Carina and Corona sedans had gone to FWD for packaging efficiency and the Celica needed to still share that platform to be affordable. Heavier than desirable, sure.
There would probably be room for the MZ V-6 later used in the Camry, but I doubt Toyota would have done that, since it would have just competed with the A70 Supra. Besides, it would have been even heavier, probably enough to make the U.S.-spec 2MZ-FE’s extra 21 hp kind of a wash, performance-wise.
From what I can tell from Australian specs, the new gen Celica was ~20kg lighter than the old rwd Celica.
That’s what the JDM specs would suggest, but American and British road test figures suggest a weight increase of at least 40 kg. It’s hard to say for sure because those figures cover a spread of about 70 kg, for cars that were ostensibly equipped about the same!
With the Carina not coming stateside, the Celica version might have required beefing up to pass our crash tests. Not sure also if the 2.0 was heavier than the 1.6 most other countries had.
It was a problem for several Japanese products at the time. They had great 2.0 and smaller engines, but the USA versions were just too heavy for them. Especially when dealing with auto and A/C. There were reasons beyond annoying import buyers for the domestics designing their fours beyond 2.0 liters. And offering optional V6s.
The 3S engine is about 20 kg heavier than the 1.6-liter 4A, but that difference is reflected in the specs I mentioned, since the 2-liter 3S-GE engine was available on Japanese Celicas and standard on European escorts.
European Celicas, I mean. Gah!
Yes that Celica and all others were a Corona in a sports coat, and having driven a Corona 4wd recently some 450kms on a twisting demanding road I we remember why I sold my Amon tuned one in favour of PSA cars, despite Chris Amon’s best efforts Toyotas dont really handle and steer that well.
Earlier Celicas were quite a bit different from the Corona mechanically. In the ’80s, Toyota made them substantially more alike, but that wasn’t true originally.
These Celicas were very nice. I shopped them before I got my Prelude in ’88, and I was definitely tempted. One big issue was price: the Celica GT-S models the dealer had in stock were all loaded and cost thousands more than the Honda.
I am sorry to see how boring Toyota has become. The range of interesting cars they offered in 1988 (in addition to this Celica) was so much more impressive: Turbo Supra, MR2–even the pocket rocket FX-16. About the only thing memorable about today’s Toyota lineup is how shockingly ugly some of the cars have become (was parked next to a new Prius yesterday–wow–retina searing). Toyota also gets the award for one of the dumbest ads ever with the Camrys racing in Monaco–car enthusiasts scoff and appliance seekers don’t get it–epic fail on multiple levels.
On the Monaco Camry ad. Think the appliance seekers might actually appreciate it. They tend to be loyal to Toyota and own their cars a long time. One thing that would have changed from a decade old example is that they are a lot faster. If that Baruth guy on the other web site is to be believed, the track performance was pretty good as well. Gives them something more than new car smell to look forward to on the test drive. When they complement the performance, it gives the salesperson a chance to upsell to the ever more rare V6.
Didn’t watch the ad, but there was one here in Australia that tried to make the sporty Camry (nb 4-cyl only) trim seem “cool”, which probably worked with people who were going to buy a Camry anyway.
It’s a bit of a long shot, but I also wonder if that Monaco ad is an effort to connect with male buyers under 40. Why? Because that track has been prominently featured in a number of video games, notably the later iterations of the Gran Turismo series for the playstation consoles. It puts a very applicance-like car in a setting they may be able to associate with, even if they don’t watch F1.
‘Male buyers under 40’? That demographic generally wouldn’t touch a camry….or most any toyota that isnt a BOF truck/SUV. Most of my friends/coworkers/acquaintances are smack in that age range, many are noncar people and I can’t for the life of me name a single camry owner. There are many at my work and some are females of this age but most are much older. Think of these as oldsmobiles 20 years ago and you’re on point.
I have to echo Aaron’s feelings about your comment on the 86/FR-S, but I have to say you’re not alone in finding the car a tad forgettable. Here in Australia, it is usually the 2nd or 3rd best-selling sport coupe (along with Mustang and Veloster) and it is so common here I now kind of tune it out. But to tune it out is to do it a great disservice: why does the MX-5/Miata receive such adoration from many when its core concept is not dissimilar to an 86 roadster. Lightweight, RWD, nothing crazy in the engine bay. And yet it seems the 86 lives in the MX-5’s shadow. The automotive world is richer for having the 86, and it’s just a shame it didn’t usher in some competition. Yes, Toyota could and perhaps should do a turbo version, but it’s refreshing that both it and the MX-5 have eschewed boosted performance and instead just offered driver a moderate amount of power and a good chassis.
As for the fourth-gen Celica, these were considered a revelation here as it was really the first accessible FWD coupe – everything else was more a hatchback or an expensive European. And from what I’ve read over the years, these were tidy handlers and dynamically superior to their RWD predecessors. But hot damn is the hatchback better looking than the notchback. It was the same story with the following generation – the notchback was almost goofy. It’s also worth noting that the hatchback always outsold the notchback here, by a considerable margin, so perhaps that’s why I find the notch so unusual looking. I must say, other than generations 1 and 3, the hatchback always looked much more muscular and athletic.
“why does the MX-5/Miata receive such adoration from many when its core concept is not dissimilar to an 86 roadster. Lightweight, RWD, nothing crazy in the engine bay. And yet it seems the 86 lives in the MX-5’s shadow. The automotive world is richer for having the 86, and it’s just a shame it didn’t usher in some competition. ”
While there are many answers about why nobody cares about the 86/ FR-S, the two off the top of my head are 1. The Miata came first and has been an icon for decades. 2. The Miata is made by Mazda which seems to have christened themselves the “sporty ” car maker
I have driven a manual transmission Scion FR-S and also a manual Miata and though both share the same concept and the FR-S was fun to drive, it is still not as fun to drive as a Miata. A stock Miata is very tossable around corners, the FR-S wallowed around them unless you upgraded the suspension a bit. The Miata is also more roomy inside despite its exterior size, the FR-S feels like you have your knees up to your chest.
Then there the biggest handicap the 86 has, it is badged as a Toyota. As Brendan has stated in this article, nobody can say sporty and Toyota in the same sentence (which is sad because they used to make a lot of sports cars) Mazda however has made themselves out as the sporty car company. Those Zoom-Zoom commercials and the fact that every one of Mazda’s line up is fun to drive has indeed given the car buying public the notion that it sells sporty cars.
4 years ago I was given a base 2007 Mazda3 as a loaner car while CarMax was fixing my car under warranty. This car was several years old and had 70,000+ miles on it. It was an automatic car, but it was very roomy and fun to drive. It did corners very well and impressed me enough that I tried to buy it from them.
By contrast 2 weeks ago I rented a 2016 Corolla from Budget. It was white with a black exterior and chocolate brown seats. It drove well but was very uninspiring. It was a great Point A to B car but like mystery meat in the college cafeteria, boring and bland.
These Celicas weren’t the most exciting cars around, but they were an excellent value for what they offered, particularly in ST & GT form. They were also fun to drive – I’d driven a few of them when they were new(ish), and always enjoyed the experience.
The average buyer demographic is interesting, particularly if your intuition is correct that 30-year-old single professionals who formerly bought Celicas are now buying Audis, BMWs and Lexuses. Interesting not just in the shift of vehicle preferences, but also in terms of cost. If I remember correctly, a typical Celica GT would have cost about $12,000 in 1986 – well below the cost of an A4, 3-series or IS today. I wonder if a greater proportion of young professionals are buying used cars today, as well as buying different kinds of cars.
But back to the featured Celica – Toyota really hit a bulls-eye with marketing this car. It was affordable, but not cheap looking – and managed to be desirable to both men & women, and various age ranges, while avoiding being a cliche for any one market segment. Again, not the most exciting vehicle around, but a very well done example of its kind.
“Let’s go places” is a great slogan for Toyota because it’s just as bland, beige and non-descript as the cars themselves. Why they don’t just call in outside designers is beyond me. And putting a fake Audi/angry robot face on them doesn’t change their vibe one bit. They tend to be owned by awful drivers as well. Generally when I’m being held up by a line of cars, there is a late model Camry at the front of the line. Members of the anti-destination league, to quote old Car and Drivers.
That being said, I do respect their mechanical integrity.
I’m going to argue that the modern counterpart of this car might well be the Prius. It’s a vaguely sporty, fuel efficient hatchback that had a very striking design before we all got used to it, and once again, has morphed into something polarizing. A 30 year old, single and financially stable Millennial would have a different outlook than an upwardly mobile Reaganite. Today’s Millennial, interested in making a statement about image, would be more interested in the eco-friendly green factor of a hybrid or electric car than, let’s say, driving around in a convertible or a sporty 5-speed. When the new Tesla comes out, and is made affordable to the Celica demographic of yore, it may well upend the Prius as the modern soul sister of this car.
That was my first thought as well–the modern equivalent of the Celica buyer is probably the Prius buyer, in that it’s a car that transcends income and status. It can be a statement of environmental concern, a statement of frugality, a rejection of car culture without going so far as to not own a car, or simply a reliable, efficient, roomy vehicle. Realistically though there’s probably a bifurcation of that buyer demographic today, with some flocking to the entry level luxury IS/A3/3-series/CLA and others going the Prius route. And you’re right that the Model 3 just may mop up a lot of buyers from both sides.
On another note I *really* don’t know many 30 year olds making $86k+ yearly. Maybe programmers and financial analysts, but that category isn’t what it once was given the deflation of starting incomes. And many of the ones that do probably have a hefty student loan payment to balance it out.
I’d tend to disagree on that: (No idea when Prius started rating as ‘sporty,’honestly, but good for them) …Celicas always seemed to hit a rather big part of the market that loves to drive but needs practicality (and maybe at the time didn’t want to be seen in sedans.)
And I think the Toyota 86 suffers a lot from being compared to sports cars rather than what it really kind of is, …an old-school sports coupe/hatch. It’d be nice if they could make hatchback cargo areas as useful as they always seemed to be, but apart from being practically designed to attract tuners, not everything *has* to have 350 hp to be worthwhile: I’d look at one if I could have a little new car to scoot around in: really, anything much more powerful would rarely even get wound up with the actual driving I regularly do around here.
You CANT be serious! The prius is arguably the LEAST sporty car you can buy…that’s one of the reasons its so reviled and ridiculed.that, combined with the image that surrounds it. These celicas…and pretty much any sporty coupe were considered universally acceptable andbeven ‘cool’. Only among environmentalists, technophiles, and the extremely frugal will you find anyone who finds them hip, stylish or ‘cool’. And it’s certainly not young buyers snapping them up. Look around…any newish prius is owned by someone deep into their 50’s, like 90% of the time. Younger owners ( I know of several) own them as banged up hand me downs. But hey…free car.
This same ‘yuppie’ demographic has flocked to CUVs, upscale hatches, and near-luxury sedans. They aren’t anywhere NEAR a toyota dealership (except maybe the Lexus side) and certainly aren’t buying priuses. Their grandparents…yes, probably.
Strongly disagree with your analysis of the Prius brand. I’m not exactly a social butterfly by any means, and instantly I could think of 3 people under 30 who currently have one form of Prii or another they chose themselves. Your narrow view of what a Prius “is” needs a rethink. If you can swing the payments, a new Prius is a very nice place to be. So are a lot of other cars, but how many of them only need $30 a month to fill up? That’s the real appeal. You may save more coin with a different car, but at the end of the day, a 600+ mile range has it’s draws to some folks.
While I’ve yet to warm to the styling of the latest Prius, as a family car for urban commuters, it makes an enormous amount of sense, particularly if your commute is long. Since that’s the case in Southern California, they’re predictably very common here, and they days they were limited to a few environmentally minded middle-aged folks have long passed. If they’re not super common with The Youth, it’s because kids have no money, not because of conceptual rejection.
As an 11-year daily driver of an ’87 Celica GT hatch, and a 16-year daily driver of two Priuses I think scott, cjiguy and AUWM are right. Prius is not a sports car, that’s what my old Miata is for. Great all-purpose car for commuting, road trips, everything. I’m motivated by Prius technology and efficiency combined with Toyota practicality and reliability. Here in Portlandia, Priuses are everywhere, city and suburb, driven by all ages and types.
If I could have my ’87 Celica back like new, but with a torque-rich 100-mile EV drive train, I’d be thrilled. And I’d keep the Prius for long trips.
Here in the Portland area, the roads are pretty thick with Priuses. A younger person driving one that’s only a few years old is VERY rare. Yes, you do see some by people under 50 but its a noticeable minority…and they’re usually filthy, beat up and neglected. Granted, when a car is on its 3rd-5th owner the chances itll get chewed up and spit out increases dramatically. Although I cant imagine this is a car with a lot of pride of ownership…its not that kind of car, and it doesn’t appeal to that kind of person.
And one thing I have noticed is that most of the time one of these is owned by a young-ish person, it has the Uber and Lyft stickers on it. Which is one place where a car like this does make a lot of sense.
As to the car being a ‘nice place to be’…have to agree to disagree. Ive had uber/lyft rides in them and its horrible. Everything seems very flimsy to me, and I feel like I’m going to break something and get a fat surcharge….
Again, young people don’t have any money! A $25,000 car is a lot if you’ve got student loans to pay.
My sis had an 88 Toyota celica St, dad bought it brand new. It was a nice car, fast, very good on gas and a head turner. The only thing I didn’t like was that the seats were uncomfortable on long trips. I raced this car and only car I lost to was an 89 Mazda RX-7. I messed up on my launch and guy beat me but he claimed it didn’t matter cause he would be beat me either way, I didn’t want a rematch. Dad said he always bought cars that were new but left over from the previous year, the celica was an 88 but he bought it in 89. He found me an 87 Volkswagen Jetta GLI that was new in early 89 but I waited too late to make up my mind if I wanted it and someone else bought it, always wished I’d moved on it. I ended up buying a new 90 Honda Civic EX. I hated it because I got the automatic instead of the 5 speed. Traded it 2 years later for a new 92 Integra. Sis wrecked the 88 ST & dad replaced it with an 88 GT. The 88 GT had more options but the ST actually felt faster. She didn’t like the the GT.
As to your question regarding what today’s young men are buying these days, Ford’s market research after the launch of the Focus ST showed a demographic that skewed heavily toward guys in their twenties with comparable income levels to the Celica buyers of yesteryear. I imagine that demographic also purchases the GTI and WRX as well. Coupes are dead because why sacrifice practicality when you don’t have to?
Exactly, that’s what Hot Hatches & sports-sedans proved, in opposition to Pony Cars: there’s no need to trade rear passenger & cargo space for fun. Maybe buyers have wised up a little.
Though there’s something to be said for coupes and 2-door hatches if you’re, say, a photographer, or otherwise carrying something, though: Open one door, put stuff behind you, and go, rather than opening up passenger doors and all that. In back you can have hatchback or a lockable trunk that hides everything. (I mean, I drive a wagon, but haven’t unfolded the back seats in years, rarely more than one passenger, if often lots of *stuff* is back there. )
While that may be very true regarding Focus ST buyers, in terms of the male, 20-something demographic overall, that’s a really broad sample. Factors such as location, career field (independent of income), lifestyle, etc. come into play.
Regarding coupes, my argument has always been that they generally look much better than sedans, and convey the more personal car image (i.e. “I bought this car for me because I like it and didn’t have to settle”).
As a coupe owner, I can say that for my lifestyle, I don’t find it impracticable. 90% of my driving is just me driving to and from work, and when I do have people in the car, usually it’s just one passenger. Usually when I’m going out with friends, everyone is always meeting each other so everyone takes their own cars.
I of course understand that this isn’t always the case, so if rear seat space and access is a must, 4-doors make more sense.
Pony Car-like coupes are indeed impractical, but the GTI & BMW 3-series paved the way in making practical 2-door sporting cars socially acceptable. You get about the same useful volume as 4-doors but with better looks.
And since Americans move incessantly, it seems reasonable that sporting car buyers, even those unattached, might want some space in back, should they not care for pickup trucks.
I’ve never found the supposed impracticality owning a coupe either, like you it’s mostly me driving alone or with 1 passenger. My car has fold down rear seats, and I’ve found that provides a whole spectrum of utility as far as cargo volume is concerned, and with the forward foldable front seats(for rear passenger ingress) with the longer rear end than a hatch I can actually get some long stuff through there. The worst part about ponycars are the trunk openings, but frankly this plagues a lot of cars on the market lately – the volume is massive with the fashionably tall butts but the openings of the rakish rooflines are a joke.
“Regarding coupes, my argument has always been that they generally look much better than sedans, and convey the more personal car image (i.e. “I bought this car for me because I like it and didn’t have to settle”). ”
^THIS.^
Save for a few ’70s era barges with ludicrous proportions, you wont make a car look better by adding 2 extra doors to it. And you pretty much summed up why Ive always sneered at sedans. They aren’t much more practical and what little utility you gain, you pay dearly in the form of a wretched looking car…IMHO. A wagon or hatch can look sportier than any sedan if properly executed (Dodge Magnum, most any Audi wagon among others) and crushes it in terms of usefulness. A sporty coupe just ‘feels’ right for me, in that as ‘regular cars’ go, that’s a choice that’s made free and clear of some other responsibility.
Careful with the sneering–your face might stick that way.
+1 X 10^23 Regarding Coupes Brendan. And great article BTW. Back in the early nineties, my ex and I bought a notchback version of the previous generation of Celica GT (’84 IIRC) and loved it. Very toss-able. It was her commuter car, but loads of fun when I got to take it out once in a while.
As to “coupe practicality” it’s all about perspective and needs. When my beloved Mustang needed a transmission rebuild at 170K, it was time to look for another daily driver, and my wife suggested that word every car guy/driving enthusiast doesn’t want to hear… “practicality”. I relented (just a bit) and went car shopping. My short list was the Mazda 3 (but it had 2 or 3 too many doors for THIS guy), a Chevy Cruze… I liked the color (a really awesome blue like my wife’s Lancer below), and the Honda Civic. ALL of these cars were at the top of Motor Trend’s list for ‘favorite commuter car’. We snuck over to the Honda dealer on a Sunday, as I was sick of dealing with salesmen and the dealer was closed on Sunday. The day before, we went to the Mazda and Chevy dealers and the Chevy guy was WAY to eager, and the Mazda guy was the exact opposite, so chill he felt the car would sell itself.
And there it was… like a light shining down from heaven… the little red turbocharged coupe in the picture below. I exclaimed in disbelief, “It comes in a COUPE!?!?!?” I was smitten. I took it for a test drive the next day and struck a deal. It’s fun to drive like the Mustang, gets awesome gas mileage, and has the CORRECT AMOUNT OF DOORS, since 96% of the time it’s just me. And when I do have another passenger, it’s just one, like my wife!
My wife argues the practicality of 4 door cars. I counter with this question at cross examination: “How often is it more than just you or me driving your Lancer?”…. nothing further your honor.
Oh, and Demographics Schemograpics! I’m 56 and my wife is 50. Settling is not an option. We all get what we like, when we can.
The Fleet at Curbside…..
The practicality issue really comes down to two questions: Do you have kids, and if so, do you have something else to carry them in? If you have a one-car family and you have kids, I have to think dealing with child seats in a coupe becomes obnoxious very quickly.
Good point, Aaron… I do not have kids of my own. A personal coupe has always been just fine for me.
My wife has a granddaughter (who now is finally legally tall enough to ride up front), but being 12, and smaller of stature fits just fine in the back of my Mustang. As to the Honda, that car actually has quite a bit of room in the back. The rear wheels are pushed back to the corners and this yields almost as much space as the sedan. (I think the sedan and coupe have the same wheelbase, although the overall length of the coupe is shorter). I say ‘almost’ as its fastback roofline sacrifices a little headroom, but I am nearly 6′ tall and fit just fine back there. That height makes dealing with a car seat (when the granddaughter was younger) in a coupe fairly easy, but my 5′-4″ wife liked the Lancer so much better when dealing with her granddaughter’s car seat.
I will admit on the extremely rare occasion we have more than two adults, we do end up taking her car. Although small, that Lancer is VERY roomy.
Kids is the key. If you only have one a coupe is much more manageable than with multiples. My parents got a minivan because they had kid (full stop) because it seemed like the right thing to do, and the cumbersome nature of having a car bigger than my Mom had before or since was seen as much more burdensome to her on a regular basis than whatever convenience shuttling lonely little me around in it provided. Other parents are very judgmental I’ve found, so a lot of the obnoxiousness of a coupe is through their eyes seeing a fellow parent drop a kid off in one.
Nice-looking Civic; I hadn’t seen any of the new coupes on the road yet. The coupe wears the current design language far better than the sedan, it appears.
It does all depend on what you need it for. My wife’s car is a coupe, as that’s what she specifically wanted when we bought it five years ago. And in that time it’s been 100% fine for our needs. However, what eventually replaces it will not likely be, for the reason AUWM stated–dealing with child seats in that thing would be a giant pain. There’s enough *room* in the back, sure, but getting to it is, shall we say, challenging and that’s not something any sane person would want to do day in, day out. We’re not there yet, but it’s in the thought process. While my car has space to spare, the 20 year old Crown Vic is not going to be the primary family vehicle!
Thanks, yeah, I agree that the Civic coupe wears the new aggressive styling better than the sedan… the back is actually a little different between the cars. The coupe has an integrated spoiler with led lights to continue the taillight angles up into the center of the trunk. The sedan just has a non-lighted lip spoiler and somehow looks incomplete.
As to the car seat in a coupe, for us, if we had our granddaughter for the weekend, we’d just leave the seat buckled in and that was that. She knew how to strap herself in (of course we always checked), and ingress and egress was no problem for her.
When it comes time to replace my wife’s Lancer, we’re thinking Mazda CX-5 for its “practicality”… plus it looks cool too (IMO) for an SUV. While I was shopping for my Honda, I was quite impressed with the Mazda products. My wife’s son has the previous generation Mazda 3 Hatchback, and with its 6 speed stick, it’s pretty awesome to drive. Zoom Zoom as they say. ;o)
Oh, and kudos to you and your Panther… I always had a soft spot for those (except when they pulled up behind me with the lights flashing). LOL
Take note of the black convertible photo posted below the black All-Trac and ice blue GT-S coupe; it’s a European model. ASC did the North American conversions, whereas in Europe it was a completely different firm (not sure who). The top stack is the distinction. While the white convertible posted above it has a clean, nearly flat fold, the Euro model had a much chunkier top that was not nearly as flush with the top down.
I remember this generation Toyota Celica. My cousin had one. It’s the most attractive Celica since the 1977 Celica. The only thing I didn’t appreciate was the front-wheel drive drivetrain.
The generation of Celica after the featured car was one of my favorites, but out of my price range as a poor high school student, so I looked for one of this generation at the time. Found an ’86 GT hatch in my price range, liked how it drove and how it looked (and the fact that it had a sunroof), but it failed our mechanic’s once-over. He said it needed a grand or so of suspension work as it was well over 100k miles, so that was a no. Nice car though.
The guy who took me out for the test drive was a middle-aged guy who was selling it on behalf of his college student son. As I was a 17 year old guy, he wanted to demonstrate the upgraded stereo system to me, but he only had what was on the radio to work with. So there we were, driving around town with the song “What’s Up” by 4 Non-Blondes blasting from the open windows. Still a funny memory almost 20 years later.
Regarding what today’s equivalent Celica buyers would be buying: most likely something quite different. One has to keep in mind that there are ever-changing fads in car buying. The majority of Celica buyers back then didn’t drive them in a sporty way,or buy them because of their handling dynamics. Sporty coupes were just the fashion back then. As would be the Jeep Cherokee starting about this time. Same difference: the great majority of Cherokee buyers didn’t go off-roading. Buyers of Celicas and Cherokees were willing to put up with the limitations of their respective cars because they were cool.
So if you want to know what buyers of this demographic are buying, it’s pretty obvious: VW GTIs, Audi A3/4, BMW 3/4, etc., etc. Prius? Some, maybe, depending on their location and proclivities. But the market is a bit more fragmented today, just like everything else.
I do like the looks of that Celica and it looks like it has been well taken care of by its owner(s). Most of them fell victim to the ricer look.
My brother had an 88 as his first car and it was nice to drive. I like the notchback better then the hatch.
I think that those 30 year old upward mobile professionals nowadays are probably driving Minis, Mustangs, Civics or Accords. The ones I know of are driving Civics because to them buying a home instead of renting is more important.
Very odd that you’d call the 86 “ho-hum,” while referring to the Celica as “a sports car at heart.” I love Celicas, but they’ve usually been derivative of the Corona platform and its later successors. They are no more sports cars than Integras were. Celicas were “specialty coupes,” not sports cars. The 86, on the other hand, has a largely unique architecture (though pieced together with parts of the IS platform sedans in the rear); it’s more fitting of sports car classification. There are aftermarket supercharger kits available to make the most of what it has to offer, too.
Celica owners in the 80s/90s are now in RAV4’s or Highlanders. Examples, my cousin and her best friend. CUV’s are as much about style and expression, as utility.
I bought an ’87 GT hatchback new, and just adored it. Drove it daily for 11 happy years (happy with the car that is, my life not so happy then). I’m amazed you found a GT hatchback. Even here in Curbsidelandia (Portland) I rarely see this generation, and never have seen a hatchback, even though they were common when new.
When this gen Celica came out I was most excited by the styling, especially the wraparound rear windows, hidden headlights, and its clean sleek lines. Sounds like I was a pretty typical Celica buyer: 35, college educated and my first Toyota. I also test-drove the MR2 (too small) the FX16 (too ordinary) and an RX7 (too expensive). Toyota had four entirely different sports cars then (Celica, Supra, MR2, FX16)! Now sadly it’s all about trucks.
I replaced my Celica in ’98 with a used Taurus. I had remarried (life very happy) and my high-school stepson was 6’3″, so a real back seat was necessary. But it was always temporary, waiting for the next exciting new Toyota about to come out, which was……
My 2001 Prius. I got one of the very first off the boat. So scottn59c you’re right, at least in my case. Drove that Prius for 10 years, replaced it with a new 2010 Prius which is my current daily driver. I’ve never considered either Prius to be especially sporty, just the highest technology on the road until Teslas came out.
For sportyness I have a ’93 Miata which cost a mere $4K a few years ago.
As a devoted Toyota driver I’ve been very frustrated by their resistance to pure EVs. Always thought ‘who better than the Prius-builder to go full electric?’ Very disappointed in the short range of the plug-in Priuses. Toyota just said they’re going electric after all, so I’m keen to see what they come up with.
Thanks for finding a very clean example of one of my very favorite cars.
This generation of Celica was certainly well equipped, well designed on the inside, peppy and reliable and not very stylish compared to the competition. A shame it went front wheel drive. Still, I see a few of them running around here piloted by young males.
Great piece, Brendan. These Celicas still look good to me, especially the lift backs – they were one of only a few Japanese cars that really did it for me at that time. I test-drove an ST notchback version of the preceding design, and it was smooth, responsive, and felt very solid. Of course, it was this generation (and in hatchback form) that I really wanted. I ended up buying an ’88 Mustang that I loved, but it felt a bit clunky compared to that slick-shifting Celica.
The third gen Celica was a really high content car for the time – I recall an acquaintance in high school getting one new as a graduation gift and it was an extremely impressive car.
Thinking of that particular iteration of Celica as if it was the equivalent of a four cylinder Fox Mustang is a mistake. It was really like a Japanese Porsche 944, in the best sense of the concept.
It’s too bad Toyota bailed on the concept and turned the Celica into just another FWD sporty coupe.
I love my Toyota Celica! As a second owner with only 129,600 miles on it, I can see what all the hype is about. It runs amazingly well and has never left this gal down!
Interesting.
Ford had the Probe and the Mustang
Toyota had the Celica and the Supra
This was a time when rear drive was to be phased out for FWD – but it didn’t quite turn out the way that it was expected at the time.
I was a Toyota salesman at the time, between career changes. These two Toyotas were on the lot, alongside rear drive and FWD Corollas. It was an interesting time.
We were told to steer women to the FWD vehicles, and men to the RWD vehicles. That is how the Toyota sales department explained best to sell these vehicles. That is what seemed to happen. While some men chose the Celica, if they could, they preferred the Supra. Same with the difference between the Corollas – men went for the old RWD Corollas being phased out and women went for the new FWD Corollas.
All the cars being sold, RWD or FWD were very good cars. It was a toss up which one was “better”. While the Supra and the Mustang had the traditional RWD muscle – both the Celica and the Probe had a lot to recommend as well.
My choice? The MR2. Except for the Mazda RX, the MR2 hug a curve and was TOO FUN like nothing else. The driving position of the MR2 was freaking ideal for that pistol grip manual stick. Magnificent. For me, the Celica was too gentle and the Supra was too expensive – but the MR2 and the Mustang 5.0 were PERFECTION.
2022, and we still get the corny, dated, out of touch “Oh what a feeling’ in Australia.
“Oh, what a feeling…of boredom and ennui.”
Great article on the 1988 Toyota Celica GT! It’s amazing how these cars have stood the test of time and still look stylish today.