>From: Alan Pozner <AlanP@identicard.com>
>To: "'carguychris@hotmail.com'"
><carguychris@hotmail.com>,"'autox@autox.team.net'" <autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: 2000 Celica GT-S
>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:41:04 -0500
Okay, just a few more notes on my GT-S vs. Type R "bench race"... 8-)
>I just picked up my '00 Phoenix Yellow Type-R and boy, I sure hope you're
>wrong about the Celica :-) )) Seriously though, I did test drive a '00 GTS
>and I thought it was impressive but I don't think its going to really kick
>a** in GS.
Okay, well maybe I was overstating it a little bit, but that's a good way to
start a discussion on lists like this one 8-) 8-)
>1) Torque - Although Honda/Acura cars are criticized for being torqueless
>wonders the Celica seemed worse at low RPMs then even the Integra GSR.
True, it's no torque monster, but IMHO it felt better than the last GS-R I
drove. But that's using the "butt dyno" which is notoriously inaccurate 8-)
>2) Big stock wheels - those 16" wheels are going to weigh more than the
>Type-Rs 15" further exacerbating the torque deficit. They are wider but it
>remains to be seen if anyone will be able to fit bigger than 225s in the
>wheel wells (the Type R can get 225s on the front with stock-legal 1/4"
>spacers. I think the DSMs can go bigger.
The 16's are optional on the GT-S. The "base" wheel is 15x6.5 (same width as
the 16's FWIW) with a 205/55R15 tire. This means you can run 225/50R15
g-Forces without hurting the gearing 8-)
>3) Limited head room - Without a helmet, 5'8" me was brushing my head
>against the roof. The car I tested had a sunroof so maybe there'll be
>another 1" clearance but still not enough to sit fully upright for anyone
>5'10" and up.
Yeah, they're a little tight, but 1) they're much better without a sunroof,
and 2) I'm 6'2" and I used to race a D Stock CRX Si with even less headroom,
and trust me, you get used to it 8-)
>But good luck finding a non-sunroof GTS this first year. The
>dealer I spoke with said the GTS models are all coming in loaded.
Toyota of Plano, my local dealer, has a GT-S without a single option. No
roof, no ABS, 15" wheels, no spoiler. Your results may vary 8-)
>4) Outward Visibility - The GTS was not terrible but front corner
>visibility
>was not as good as the Teg
True.
>5) A possible engine glitch? Two magazines have reported a significant dip
>in HP curve at the cam crossover point on the GTS. When I test drove the
>car
>I only went up there once and did not notice a dip but I also did not
>notice
>a real kick when the second cam profiles took over like you do with Honda's
>VTEC. I would be concerned that when I jumped on it, it wouldn't be there.
I kinda wondered about this too. C&D has tested two different cars, one ran
16.0, one ran 15.7. R&T - which is usually slower due to lack of "altitude
correction" (i.e. shaving time so you're faster than R&T) ran a 6.8 second
0-60 and 15.4 @ 92 quarter mile. The car I drove felt like it was capable of
15.4's easily. Your results may vary 8-)
>All that said, I was extremely impressed with the GTS handling. Turn-in was
>GREAT. and the car was pretty darn neutral for FWD.
That's what prompted the post in the first place 8-) Really, really nice
handling car.
>It did not seem as quick
>to take a set as the Type R but that may be a tire thing. Overall I think
>the GTS will give the Type R and DSMs a good run but I do not believe it
>will dominate.
We'll see. Of course, that's what bench racing is for 8-)
Chris Walton
87 Toyota Camry <--- soon to change, I hope 8-)
|