(first posted 3/21/2017) The Celica was a key player in the establishment and popularity of the compact sporty coupe segment. It arrived in 1971 along with the very popular Capri and the Opel Manta, and quickly established itself thanks to its typical Toyota qualities of quality construction and materials and attractive pricing along with a stylish, Japanese interpretation of a smaller pony car. It lacked the handling prowess of the two Germans, but it continued to improve thanks to a stream of refinements. The ultimate version arrived in 1975, with the all-new 2.2 L 20R SOHC four with cross-flow head. It didn’t really up the net hp rating much, to 96 (net), but a stouter torque curve made it decidedly brisker. And in 1975, that was rather bucking the trend. And handling was improved too.
Performance was improved, with almost a full second shaved off its predecessor’s time. 12.6 seconds nowadays sounds mighty slow, but everything is relative. the 5 speed transmission came in for the usual high praise.
The typical high-quality interior and other aspects also came in for praise, and its worth noting that these Celicas can still be found on the streets in front-line beater service, unlike its German competitors.
The Celica’s handling was finally closer to excellent, with the beefier radials compensating to a large extent to whta had always been the Celica’s weakness: understeer.
Speaking of these Celicas, I just had the pleasure to read Aaron Severson’s typically-superb new article on the Celica at ateupwithmotor.com. It’s chock-full of in-depth details, a real treat for lovers of vintage Japanese cars. Don’t miss it.
I have always loved this style era of Celica. We, my parents and I, where a Toyota family from 1969 into the ’80s. 95 BHP was puny by today’s standards. But, really. What are you going to do with HP ratings that put you into old fighter jet range 500+ HP? Top speeds over 150 mph? You’re going to use that, where? I have always heard it is more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow. Granted, hearing a Dodge Hellcat rumble at idle, would be far more..Ah, stimulating, than hearing this featured 95 bhp.
Like a sewing machine, running beside a Saturn Rocket! But I’d still take the sewing machine!
One car on which the battering-ram bumpers were integrated beautifully.
I was thinking the same thing, very unobtrusive.
Despite the fatter bumpers, which were better done than some other’s 5-mile bumpers, the ’75 Celica gained a much better 20-R OHC engine – one less prone to the previous 8-RC/18-RC OHC’s weak double-timing chain design.
If only the 20-R and 5-speed could have been combined with the original lighter body (Maybe someone has)
Happy Motoring, Mark
I wanted THIS Celica bad! “Car Fever” had infected me and the only antidote was a visit to my local Toyota dealer and drive one.
Loved the dashboard (as always), love the “snick snick” easy & precise transmission & shifter, loved the c-c-cold Air Conditioning (SO necessary in Hot & Humid New Orleans!), loved the already admired Toyota quality control. The engine, although not quick, was torquey, tractable and “Real World” pleasant. The interior and exterior quality of materials was quite apparent and pleasing to the eye. If I squinted my eyes it kinda-sorta resembled a first generation Mustang.
BUT:
Compared to my Opel Manta/1900: The Toyota’s steering effort was much heavier and not as precise, the low to the ground seats were not nearly as comfortable as the Opel’s almost chair height seats, the cabin’s interior volume was smaller, the trunk smaller, that dayum annoying “click click” sound EVERY time you pressed and released the brake pedal all amounted to a mood killer. The Celica’s interior was an almost tight fit for my 6-1, 48 Long suit, weight lifting, All American body.
Also, the dealer not only wanted sticker list price, he had an additional add on sticker for bullshoite dealer add on crappppp. (My first experience with this dealer greed maneuver).
Finally, the dealer insulted me by offering me HALF of what the NADA wholesale book value was on my low mileage, clean-as-new Opel (Not half of retail, but half of wholesale!) When I pulled the NADA book out of my pocket and showed it to the salesman; he just shrugged his shoulders.
“Son, if you don’t buy this car, someone else will!” This final salesman “logic” high pressure tactic was the final straw for me.
My perspiring face was the color of a Del Mote tomato as I quickly stomped out of the Toyota dealership.
My new Michelin X tired, already paid for BMW 2002 copy Opel never drove SO good as on the way home!
Since the Manta was nothing more than an Ascona (1900) with a few curves, its interior seating was sedan-like, not genuine coupe-like. And yes, the Opel was lighter on its feet. But the Celica was a…Toyota.
“But the Celica was a…Toyota.”
At this point in time many sports car guys still looked down their collective noses at Toyotas while worshiping any lack luster, unreliable, rust prone, older design British car and grudgingly accepted some German cars.
More than a few car guys (in 1975) thought of the Celica as a cute, reliable, fairly cheap car that they would recommend for their girl friend(s) to buy; but nothing Japanese would be in THEIR driveway.
Your last point is completely at odds with the success of the Datsun 240Z. That car, in effect, killed off what was a successful British sports car market.
cjiguy: Indeed it did! I heartily agree with you! NO argument.
The 240Z was/is a revelation. Truly a ground breaking Japanese car. It looked, sounded and drove very much like a sincere imitation of an E-type Jaguar.
I have lived in the deep south/Caribbean/French/Spanish influenced city of New Orleans, LA for 99.8% of my life.
Change happens slow in the southern part of America; happens even slower in New Orleans. Many (so called) car guys were still nursing along and automotively worshiping muscle cars of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. We often were/are “behind the curve” here in #NOLA.
FWIW: I bought a well used but still delightful “Z-car” after selling my beautiful but notoriously fickle e-type Jag. I liked the Z-car MUCH better.
(I was still living at home at this time, could devote almost all of my money to my car fever hobby/obsession, had parents who were also car lovers.)
@Mark:
Sorry that I misread the intent of your comment to be regional. Neat to hear you had a Z; my father bought a 1973 240Z himself (In Minnesota). Prerequisite orange. He loved it too, and kept it in pristine condition until 1986. Only thing he disliked was vapor lock in 80+ degree weather. This was apparently a common malady for the ’73’s due to their unique emmision system. What year was yours?
cj: My Z-car was a 1971.
The dual side draft carbs were unusual; but after the Jag (and other British cars) getting them adjusted and synched up was no problem.
This … is exactly how I and my car-guy friends felt about Celicas, and in fact Toyotas in general, at the time. The 1600cc 2nd gen Corolla was intriguing, especially with the later 5 speed and SR5 trim, but we all thought the Celica was just a more reliable and only slightly less awkward version of the Mustang II. 40 years later, and I’ve now owned 5 Toyotas, albeit 3 of them 4wd trucks.
Which Toyota dealer did you go to? I remember in ’76 when my brother got his Celica that the dealer was in that “there are plenty of people who want this car if you don’t” They were right–it was definitely a different dynamic than for domestic small cars.
GN: If memory serve me right (after all, this over happened over 40 years ago) it was the Toyota dealer on Canal Street in mid-city New Orleans. (I think, at the time, this was the only Toyota dealer in the metro New Orleans area?) Was it Joe Conte Toyota, later Gandy Toyota?
I have NEVER responded well to salesman’s high pressure tactics or thinly veiled threats. There’s just too many other cars out there to buy! My usual response is to give them a “death ray eyebrows” dirty look, grunt good bye and walk out.
Yep, I figured as much–that was the same dealer on Canal where my brother got his Celica. I do think it was Joe Conte Toyota–I’ll have to ask my brother and see if he remembers.
Compared to his later experience buying a Honda Accord in 1984, the ’76 Toyota experience was pleasant… It’s amazing what high demand and low inventory can generate in terms of dealer attitudes (and profits).
The dealers may have been bad, but the cars were great.
GN: Yeh, Honda dealers became just as bad, just as greedy…if not worse.
In 1985 a sincere appearing salesman for the Honda dealer on the west bank (Superior Honda??) kindly offered, for several Benjamins, to advance my name to the top of the waiting list for the wildly popular at the time Prelude.
In 1986 another Honda dealer quoted my Parents a 4 month wait for a 5 speed Honda Accord Coupe.
By late1987 supplies must have increased greatly? The Honda/Ford dealer in Metairie, on Veterans Highway, sold me a new, “leftover” ’87 CRX SI for $500 off the sticker. (“We can’t give those stick shift models away”, the finance manager confided to me).
Today, thanks to the internet we car enthusiasts no longer have to suffer at the hands of greedy, avaricious car dealers. Car prices are much easier to find and guarantee today.
When I bought my last new car, a 2011 Toyota Camry, I walked into the dealership on Causeway Blvd, dickered just a bit on my trade in, placed my internet read out on what was considered the “Good Price” for the car on the salesman’s desk and bought it at that price.
The internet has helped give customers more power in negotiating with Honda dealers, but during the early 1980s, Hondas were really in short supply, due to the “voluntary” quotas that the Reagan Administration had negotiated with the Japanese auto industry.
Those quotas eventually expired, and Honda also increased production capacity, which increased the supply of cars. I bought a brand-new 1988 Civic DX sedan in November 1987, and while I didn’t receive much of a discount, I also didn’t pay anything over the sticker price.
At one point I had read a Toyota Today article (their internal dealership magazine) from about 1975 explicitly explaining that Toyota was working on increasing North American production as fast as possible, and that the low inventories were a result of the 1973 to 1975 recession that led Toyota to believe the market would slow (which didn’t happen, obviously). With that context in mind, it’s not hard to see why one would come across attitudes like that in the dealership. They really were selling cars faster than they could replace them at that point in time.
Steering was a major weakness of a lot of ’70s Japanese cars, Toyota not least. Toyota was surprisingly reluctant to adopt rack-and-pinion steering because they thought it transmitted too much road shock, so you had these heavy, soggy recirculating ball setups. Maybe acceptable for a Corona sedan, but kind of out of place in Celica.
I quite agree! The rack & pinion steering in my Opel Manta (and Ford Pinto) made the Toyotas feel like a 1950’s Studebaker.
BTW: Admire and enjoy the “Ate Up With Motor” articles immensely.
Thanks!
Yeah, it’s really a pity that Toyota didn’t come up with a good rack-and-pinion steering box for the first-generation Carina and Celica — it would have been a great opportunity to do so and it would have done wonders for their dynamic character. The heavy understeer of the RA20/21/23 would have been less frustrating if the actual steering feel had been sharper and more precise. (Of course, it would have been nice if they’d tidied up the front suspension geometry as well, but that’s another matter.)
Yes indeed, I quite agree!
I drove (thanks to recommendations to various friends) several early 1970’s Toyota Carona 2 and 4 doors, the steering never bothered me all that much in these cars.
In the Celica, with it’s “sporty” inclinations, it was a sore point.
‘Course (as I have mentioned here) my daily driver was a nimble and extremely competent Opel 1900/Manta when admiring and test driving the first generation Celica. As Paul pointed out, not really the same class of cars.
If only my Opel had the truly excellent, integrated air conditioners of the first gen Celica! A sore point in all German cars of this time period; from Benzes on down to V-dubs.
Complaints about Toyota roadholding ability led to them giving Chris Amon free reign of their parts bin to retune the suspension on NZ assembled Coronas and it worked, a FWD sedan that you can hang the tail out on tight corners and slide around with confidence at any speed it would do is worth owning, it worked just as well on gravel as bitumen.
These were (are) a great car.
There are seem to be quite a few around.
Here’s the one at body shop next door awaiting some TLC.
76 model perhaps?
Here’s a picture.
The other way.
Anyone else view these as a shrunken, scaled down, 4/5 scale, 1969 Mustang Mach 1?
To my eyes, the resemblance is there.
That was the consensus at the time. I believe that Road Test went so far as to state this in its review of the new hatchback.
This fastback did become available for ’76. It was the model my brother bought. We joked at the time that it was like a “modern Mustang” (my Pop had owned and loved a first year Mustang V8 hardtop), since the Mustang II was subpar and the Toyota was really closer in looks and attitude to the original Pony Car formula.
The Celica was the first Japanese brand car anyone in my family owned, and it was impressive. The build quality and thoughtful details were simply unbeatable. The Celica was also fun to drive and economical. That Toyota demonstrated first hand how well conceived and executed a small car could be, and started a trend in my family where all my cousins wound up buying Toyota, Honda or Datsun as their first cars. Very bad news for Detroit, but a great ownership experience for the buyers.
The Liftback was only exported for 1976 and 1977. (In Japan, the Liftback originally debuted in April 1973, but it was JDM-specific, on the shorter original wheelbase.) Statistically, it’s most likely to be a ’77, since that was the best sales year for the Liftback in the U.S. by a solid margin.
It’s a 76 or 77. Those years had the extended wheelbase and squared up front end styling.
I can’t say I’ve seen one of these anywhere in the last few years, much less it’s German competitors. And while this generation of Celica is okay, I prefer the 2nd generation Celicas to the 1st generation.
There’s still several of these in Eugene. I’ve shot and posted them here before.
They turned to dust many, many moons ago in these parts (n.e. Ohio) as all of their counterparts.
I freely admit that my beloved Opel didn’t have the longevity of any Toyota of this time period. Darn it!
All I can say is that any pillarless hardtop (rear glass operational) can’t be all bad!
I actually liked these, but never got to drive one, let alone check one out. The guy in the top photo looks like he barely fits in it!.
In the second paragraph of the R&T road test, a classic example of technical nonsense by some gullible journalist, perhaps parroting it from a Toyota press release. The benefits of crossflow head layouts include more space for ‘rightsizing’ all the ports and their shapes and layouts, plus perhaps better mechanical and thermal design, etc.
But, the claim of greater efficiency (than a single sided head) ‘… Because the incoming fuel vapor forces the burned gases out of the combustion chamber more quickly..’ implies some kind of linear flow conditions, which are nothing like those in a functioning internal combustion engine.
And while some two stroke engines do use pressure wave principles for this purpose, again the propagation of pressure in gases is not directional, in the way that this article tries to suggest .
I’ve always admired these, love to own one.
Wasn’t a big fan of this generation’s late 60s American influenced styling. The ’78 Celica quickly changed that view.
Agreed, that Calty Celicas were and still are a very clean handsome design that has aged well IMHO.
The ’76 Celica was MT’s first “Import Car of the Year”, when they separated the awards.
Was the ’76 another generation, though? Or did it get ICOTY since it was first year of the hatch?
Never mind, I see that the ’76 was a facelift and added hatchback to US line. Enough to warrant any MT award.
It was a bit more than a facelift; for some reason Toyota decided to increase the wheelbase by something like 3 inches, and the track width was increased as well. These changes actually improved the dynamic aspects of the car substantially.
Correct. The increase in wheelbase was all ahead of the cowl, which shifted the weight bias to the rear. They still understeered (mine did), but apparently less so.
I puzzled over the reasoning for the change. It definitely improved handling, but I don’t think that was the principal goal. As I said in my article, I suspect it was a matter of bringing the dimensions of the Celica and Carina (which was stretched the same way) close to those of the latest Corona so they could be more easily built on the same lines. I think if it were just a matter of improving handling or making more room in the engine bay, they would have done it sooner or just waited for the A40.
Thanks for pointing that out. Changing the wheelbase to improve handling, for just 2 years at the end of the product cycle, never really made sense to me. And Toyota is the master of parts-sharing and manufacturing efficiency in ways just like what you suggest. Your detailed history was a really interesting read – as always! Thanks.
“Liftback”.
These 1975-1977 Celicas were the best of the bunch of the first generation in North America. The 20R engine was vastly superior to the earlier 8R (1971) and 18R-C (1972-1974) units not only in that they had better driveability, they also did not have the tendency to fry valves if worked hard or neglected.
The Toyota 20R engine seems to have the same “street rating” as a small block Chevy engine or a Ford 289/302 engine does.
I had a 76 coupe, very similar to this, but with the longer nose. It was really my first car (forgetting the 74 Impala I had owned for 3 months), and I loved it – the styling, the torquey engine, the direct shifter…everything except the rusted out front fenders. Apparently the 77s had inner fender liners…oh well.
With a bit of money from a good paying summer job, I splurged on a weber carb conversion and tubular headers. It completely transformed the car in terms of drivability, and the 2 inch exhaust gave a nice throaty snort when I dug into the throttle enough to open the secondary on the weber. It wasn’t terribly fast, but it SOUNDED so good!
Sadly it got to a point where I couldn’t fix it up, didn’t trust it outside the city, and I didn’t have the skills to do repairs myself. I still miss it, and if I ever find one in nice shape, it might prompt a long conversation at home…
My older sister had a ’73 Celica ST coupe, silver with black interior. She loved that car and swore it was the best car ever. Back then even as a kid I remember thinking it was very small and different looking. She was definitely a Toyota lover as she had a ’92 Camry that she kept for years and that became her favorite car. I think the memory of her old Celica was always in the back of her mind!
As far as seeing these in Rhode Island they are all but non-existent. I can’t tell you the last time I saw one on our roads. I’m sure if the conditions were better here for cars not to become rust buckets in a few years there would still be some roaming around.
Some serious Celica action…
https://youtu.be/BnQP95aVv04
I’ve always loved the 1st generation Celicas. My mom had a Celica in this body style. Her’s was a ’77 ST with the 4-speed rather than the GT with a 5-speed. She loved that car and still talks about it today. Every car gets compared to that Celica.
Here’s my mom and my aunt standing beside it on Easter 1985. My mom is on the left and I’m cooking in there as I was born in August of that year.
She actually had to drive herself to the hospital while in labor with me because her’s was the only car working at the time and my grandmother can’t drive a manual.
My first car was a 77 gt liftback with many mods (more aggressive cam, bigger Webber carb, tube headers into a free flow exhaust, cut and shut emissions, redone suspension, disconnected a/c, electronic ignition, etc). Damn near untouchable on the blue ridge mountain roads. Truly the mouse that roared when it came on cam at about 2750 rpm. Bought it like that from the previous owner for 1250 in 1993 after watching it languish in the classifieds for about a month with the price dropping each week.
I had some passenger seat time in a 74 Celica, mostly in city traffic. The gal driving it could drive a standard pretty well, but had trouble on uphills at stoplights. Never stalled it though, and the car fully cooperated with her.
It was a very reliable car, roomy inside, and rode well on bumpy streets, sometimes over cobblestone brick work. Easy to get in and out of, it was a well made car.
A mate of mine got out a 2.3L V6 German built Capri into a Celica this model he reckoned it was a better car all round, Capris had a rep for losing the tail end, they didnt handle all that well.
It could be argues that this car, most probably the “peak Celica” was the car that made Toyota in the American market – because it showed the U.S. market that Toyotas could be fun, but not juet that – reliable and well equipped – not a penalty box. The 240z might have killed the Vritish sports car market – but middle America didnt buy those. Middle America bought these.. So many “young secretarys” bought them, and often as not married and brought the car along. Hence “my Mom had one.” Suddenly Toyotas were everywhere. My friend had one, easy to work on, ans generally reliable at that.
Always liked this first gen Celica and especially the original 1971-1973 models. The mid-70s bumpers aren’t as bad as many other cars, but they still don’t look as good as the original designs on the early Celica’s.
An “81-82ish” Celica still makes the occasional foray in my neighborhood. Mostly just sits in it’s old garage. When I’m walking/jogging, generally see it as I pass down the alleyway..
It’s beige, that omnipresent, “Toyota” light brown inside.
Not a show car but quite presentable.
Couldn’t agree more – my daily driver has all of 46 air cooled hp and I keep up with traffic just fine, whilst having a lot of fun doing it!
The only place I really love having a lot of power is in Germany, where I can use it on the parts of the Autobahn that are still unlimited….
This page has a bunch of clickable samples of how “Toyota Celica” is pronounced all over the world. Even in the Anglosphere it’s not all the same; some say “SELL-ick-uh” and others say “sel-EEK-uh”. Italian is fun. Iceland, too. Finnish manages to get four syllables out of “Toyota”; I guess they stole one from that Japanese speaker who said “Toyota” using only two. Australia? Fair dinkum. Polish? “Tselitsa”. Second Turkish one (third up from bottom of page)? Neat. I’d call some of the Russian ones entertaining, if there were anything entertaining about Russia right now. Welsh, wow.
(there are multiples of most countries, so if what I say makes no sense, try the others)
I had one of these, a ’75 ST 4 speed. Good, not great little car for the day. 2nd owner, bought from a friend at 8 years and 75K.
The good. Nice engine, felt stronger to me than the 96 rated HP, or was it less here in Calif. Driveability. in an era where flat spots, bogging, poor idle, hard starts etc were the norm, it just started up and ran. Miles of vacuum tubing, but it worked. Sweet shifting tranny, it was like butter. Nice seats, at least to my back, very comfortable for long trips, a rare occurrence for me.
The bad. Terrible handling. Perhaps new shocks might have made a difference, but they passed the push on the fender bounce test. Terribly undergeared, but perhaps that’s why it felt so strong. 4th was what 3rd should have been. The Toyota/Japanese rubber of the time reacted poorly with what was then newly alcohol enriched gas. Fuel lines broke down internally sending splinters of rubber into the carb causing all sort of problems. Paint at 8 years was absolute toast. I tried rubbing compound on it and quickly hit primer. Again, at 8 years, the interior was in tatters.
Overall compared to the Mustang II that came with my wife when I met her it was absolute head and shoulders above it. Much better engine, much better driveability, more power, better MPG, no comparison. It felt like a nicer car. The Mustang handled better and the red fastback arguably looked better with a wash and wax. The Toyo was a better car, but they were in the same market and competitive. The Celica was worn out when we sold it at 150K, not bad for the era, engine was tired, clutch was weak, diff was starting to make noise, but it still drove well. And the new owners were ecstatic, they were replacing a Celica that apparently was very rough, so my tired, but unmolested one was a gem to them. Don’t recall the number, but sold it cheap, what I thought it was worth.
Buy cheap, drive for 75K, sell cheap. Works for me!