2002 celica ran 16.78 oooo fast!

[curtklze]

I as watching surertn2tv on TNN and these little biitches were racing their done up celicas(dual exhaust, intakes) and they only ran 16.78 HAHAHAHAHAHA what a joke. But thoses stickers add like 10 W.H.P. what happend? HAHAHAHAHA<p>I love my KL-ZE. <p>[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: curtklze ]</p>

[Marlon]

i just watched that too
my sohc mx-3 could prob take those guys
lol
what losers

[The_Great_Tonge]

celica are crap, i mean the old school 4wd ones were str8, but the new ones at the vvt-i stuff are just crap sucky thing is they are prob faster than my car

[azmtbkr81]

I don't know about the GT-S, but the GTs are slow as all hell, they have absolutely no torque! I got to drive this girl's 2002 GT around when she was drunk and it had to be above 5000 rpms for any kind of power and even then it still didn't feel like that much. Also those cars feel really heavy like they don't want to move and turn, nothing like our nimble MX-3s!

[Ryencool]

the torque is high in the rev range on those things, but the gts can hold its own with rsx-s's adn there also one of the best handleing cars built..

[Steeb]

the gts is much slower than a type-s rsx

[Guest]

ya man you guys cant say celicas are crap. Mx-3's cant touch them, Toyota makes a superior car too mazda, atleast in the years that mx-3's were in production. Im actually gonna trade in soon for a celica, the 1994-1999 model. Ya they might not be fast but neither are mx-3's! and they are good quality and sexy cars. My bud just got a 2001, it handles like a dream.

[Ryencool]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>the gts is much slower than a type-s rsx <hr></blockquote><p>do you have proof of that? im a regualr on the newcelica,org forums, and countless vids have been shot of the two racing head to head, the rsx-s that is...rsx is heavier, they keep up , trust me, its a drivers race

[azmtbkr81]

According to carstats.com:<p>02 RSX type S:
0-60 6.1
1/4 14.8<p>02 Celica GTS
0-60 7.3
1/4 15.6<p>Celicas aren't bad cars, but performance wise you can do much better for the money. For the same price as a nice Celica GTS you could get a WRX, a Mustang GT, or a base 350Z. If you want a car that will go 300,000 trouble free miles buy a Celica but if you want performance bang for you buck get something else.

[curtklze]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by sureshiit:
ya man you guys cant say celicas are crap. Mx-3's cant touch them, Toyota makes a superior car too mazda, atleast in the years that mx-3's were in production. Im actually gonna trade in soon for a celica, the 1994-1999 model. Ya they might not be fast but neither are mx-3's! and they are good quality and sexy cars. My bud just got a 2001, it handles like a dream.<hr></blockquote><p>WHAT THE FUK!!! YOUR FIRED!!! If I was a moderator I would kick you off the board.<p>and I can too say celica are crap, CELICA'S ARE CRAP, ANYONE THAT OWNS ONE IS A LOOSER!!<p>The MX-3 is a MUCH better car, Thats why we all own one! If your trading yours in I say just leave the board now so we dont have to listen to you bad mouth the greatest car ever built, the MX-3!

[mx3man83]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by sureshiit:
Im actually gonna trade in soon for a celica, the 1994-1999 model. Ya they might not be fast but neither are mx-3's! <hr></blockquote><p>why would you trade your mx-3 in for one of those years celicas?? They are a$$ ugly. If your going to get a celica, get a new one!! Those look hot..

[mrspanky79]

I have heard a lot of bad things about the new celica's. Things bake very easy on them and very week transmisions.