(first posted 1/2/2018) Those. Headlights.
I am sorry ladies and gentlemen. I will get into the nitty gritty about our featured vehicle for today in a minute; but I have to address those headlights before I go any further. They are an all-encompassing representation of the problems I have with this car. They are the only thing I don’t like about this car, actually. The styling itself is an evolution of the super-round styling that was brought on the previous generation with additional influences from the Toyota Soarer/Lexus SC400. A remarkable design. But, as I alluded when the last time that I had a go at a Celica, it seems as though something went wrong in a design meeting.
Someone must’ve decided that pop-up headlights were so…passe. They got stuck in the winter and would occasionally decide that a single light rising up was adequate lighting. Yes, that’s clearly the reason they had to go. However, that leaves the problem of what to do with the front end now that you have to place a fixed light in there. One that is compliant with US minimum surface area for headlights to boot.
For reference, here’s Honda’s solution to that problem from around that same time.
And here’s the Toyota’s again. You can see my point can’t you? Maybe I’m exaggerating. I say maybe because in the past 200 words or so I still haven’t gotten anything about the rest of the car. Just going on and on about how those headlights annoyed me and how they’re so awful when compared to the previous gen. A gen which, need I remind you, I am very much biased for.
So, the rest of the car itself. It’s honestly not that different from the previous gen. A new generation brought, unsurprisingly, a car that was a little bit longer and a little bit wider. The standard equipment was brought up to the 90s with an airbag and ABS. However, on the powertrain department, most of the engines were carried over from the past generation.
The one that wasn’t was the “poverty spec engine”. In keeping with tradition, Toyota made sure that there was a Celica for everyone who was looking for a 2-door, 4-cylinder vehicle. And at the low end, directly opposite from the 239 horsepower GT-Four sat a much more modest 105 horsepower model. Instead of a middling 1.6 from a Corolla, it used a 1.8-liter engine…lifted straight out of a Corolla. If you see one of these with an ST badge, this is what’s powering it. Presumably, they stopped using the smaller 1.6 over concerns of it being too sluggish on this particular application. Especially since the Celica had gone a bit heavy on the tempura and packed an additional 70 kilograms over its predecessor. If you were buying one in North America, you’d probably want to splurge on the 2.2-liter engine (Badged GT), as that was the most powerful engine you could get on this continent.
In a bizarre turn of events, Toyota decided not to bring the 2.0-liter GT-Four (known as All-Trac in the US) for this generation. They must’ve felt the market shrinking. Or, more likely, seen their sales charts. Thanks to that rather unfortunate cheating device, it was also stripped of whatever racing pedigree that would’ve made it attractive to both US Rally fans. Fortunately, people who liked to make choices still could pick from three distinct body styles. A 2-door coupe, 2-door liftback, And the ASC-built convertible for fans of limitless headroom.
However, the same reasons that would cause Toyota to focus on building efficiency and cost rationalization on the rest of the lineup would eventually affect the Celica. Federalizing a body style is very expensive. And you have to do it once for every engine that’s going to go on that body. Every. Single. Year. Do you want a reason why you aren’t able to have 9 different engine choices for a car a la Chevy Nova? Point at demand first, but this is a very close second. So you have five different combinations to federalize (the ST was not available as a convertible) in a market that is saturated and dropping in size. It doesn’t take a team of efficient Japanese accountants bitten shy by the asset bubble to figure out what they could do without some versions. In 1997, the same year the new (and more cost-effective to build) Camry was released and dumped the coupe and wagon from its lineup. the Celica GT Notchback too ceased to exist.
From a differentiation perspective, it’s not a bad move. You have the notchback as the entry-level car with the basic engine, the convertible as the most exclusive offering with a price premium and the big engine as its only option. The liftback acts as the proverbial stuffing in this proverbial Oreo and now you only have four different combinations to manage. Job done. Let’s work on the replacement right?
Wrong, they had another great idea in 1998. Instead of trying to get rid of just a trim, why don’t just get rid of an engine and kill two birds with one stone. No points in guessing which of the engines went. In any case, those 1.8-liters would be a hell of a lot better used to power Corollas, whose standout feature is being able to sell like potatoes (and be just as exciting to behold). Does that mean the notchback was out? Of course not. It was only sensible to bring it back…at least until they realized that they’d essentially gotten rid of just one version that way and they axed it again in ‘99. Leaving only the liftback and the convertible for that final year of production.
Meanwhile, back in Detroit, Toyota was showcasing this. The Celica XYR concept. Better known in hindsight as the Final-gen Celica with a conservative body kit. It and the Hyundai Tiburon would duke it out until 2006 for ever-diminishing returns.
I don’t like this car. But come to think of it, there is only one thing about it that I hate. Even the interior was still very nice and comforting for someone like me who spent quite a sizable portion of his young life being ferried around in Toyotas. If only they had done something…anything else with the front end.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Toyota Curren. A Celica with a much more palatable front end that actually looks good next to that Prelude and not like it’s trying to be a bad imitation of a W210. And now, if you excuse me, I’m going to go shout in the general direction of Japan for a couple of hours.
I don’t find them nearly as offensive, but I will say they were an enabler. Thank this car for Mercedes going round and eventually peanut shaped in the late 90s instead of the big ice blocks they had before.
I can’t say I disagree with you, but then again my opinion is that this generation of Celica looks better than the 90-93 model. The 90-93 model looks pinched from the doors forward, like Toyota hastily grafted the front fenders and hood from a smaller car onto a slightly larger car.
The picture of the Toyota Curren? That “revised” front end makes the Toyota look much too similar to a Nissan 240SX.
Probably the biggest problem I have with this front end design is that Ford copied it for the Escort ZX2 which badly diluted it’s novelty.
And then there is the powertrain selection. It’s like Toyota just didn’t care about customers for the less expensive ST models. As far as the All-Trac model goes, Toyota had trouble selling that model in several markets, it wasn’t a huge seller in Europe, either.
Well there’s no accounting for taste. I actually thought the front end treatment of this vehicle was one of its few unique and defining features. And it was hardly alone at the time; in addition to the SC the contemporary Acura Integra wore a similar face. And it’s so, so much more distinctive than the Toyota Curran you posted (which looks an awful lot like the front of the 240 SX)
Headlights or not, I like this generation of Celica better than the previous one, which had a slight resemblance to a deep sea vessel.
I have one if anyone is interested
To me it is expressive, like a Dodge/Plymouth Neon. But instead of a smile, it’s a scowl.
Instead of, “Hi!” it’s “Bah!”
And instead of two eyes, like a human, it’s got four, like some otherwise-humanoid alien in “Star Trek.”
I agree about those headlights. But the 1994 Acura Integra is even worse. Downright beady eyed.
This one I agree with, the thing I like about the Celica is that the hood and fenders are thoroughly styled into the lights, and that the lights are larger on the outboards. The Integra front end was too conventionally shaped so those those beady little rounds tacked in like some cheap customization, the more conventional Honda version abroad truly was better.
Agree as well. Japan introduced the Intergra with the 4 lamp setup, and sales tanked. 1996 is when the new face emerged, yet they still kept the spider eye look available on the hatch in SiR form (our GSR) for the remainder of the production run.
I so disagree. The Curren front end looks like a Camry, boring. And the fourth gen Prelude is an ugly sewer rat looking thing, it’s predecessor and successor were far better.
The Curren photo is actually the facelift model from mid ’96 +. The original front is even more Camry-like. I literally laughed when I read sewer rat, by the way!
Love the headlights, along with the Integra’s, and in fact I prefer the first “bugeyed” version of the 2nd gen Impreza to all the subsequent facelifts. But I didn’t like that Toyota dropped the AllTrac Turbo … with the newer styling and a high performance AWD configuration I would have seriously considered buying one when I was shopping for a fun vehicle in the late ’90’s. I definitely consider this the high point of Celica styling; the wedgy successor never worked for me.
Toyota didn’t bother with a North American All-Trac for this generation because the 3S-GTE was no longer compliant with California emissions standards in 1995. The MR2 Turbo couldn’t be sold there that year either because it used the same engine.
Also, U.S. sales of the T180 All-Trac were minuscule.
The high point of Celica styling for me was the 1987 fastback I fell in love with, and drove for 11 years. After this one they got all blobby.
This. Nice-looking 80s car.
THAT’S a proper Celica!
I’ve come to the conclusion that the words “Sports Coupe” don’t translate well into Japanese. Which is odd, because all the major manufacturers introduced solid sales hits into this market, only to fumble the concept to the point that the models were ultimately dropped. Considering the lofty prices a Supra Turbo or an Integra Coupe bring on today’s market, it’s a real mystery. At the same time, the car that all these models were shooting for still soldiers on 53 years after its introduction. Here’s the contemporary competitor to the subject vehicle, and likely the ultimate cause of it’s demise. At least in the US Market.
A lot of it really came down to the U.S. market losing interest in the ’90s — Boomers trading their sporty coupes for SUVs, mostly — combined with exchange rate problems making it hard to keep U.S. prices down.
There was a lot to like about this Celica. I’ve talked about my ’95 GT coupe before on this site, so I apologize for the repetition if you have already read some of this. One big thing people should understand in context with this generation is that the exchange rate at the time really hurt this car; mine was just shy of $22,000 with only A/C and alloy wheels as options (power windows, locks, mirrors, cruise, and a 6 speaker stereo were standard in a GT). That’s equivalent to $36,000 today. These were not purchased as a value proposition. What you did get, however, was an impeccably built vehicle with very high quality interior materials and a bulletproof mechanical package. I owned mine for 11 years, 219,000 miles and only feel that sway bar bushings were the only failure that fell outside of normal wear and tear. It even had the original clutch when I sold the car. The 2.2 four only made 135 HP, but with the 5 speed you could hit 60 in eight seconds flat; plenty quick.
Now, regardless how you feel about the looks of those headlights, I will say this. They were by far and away the most powerful headlights I’ve experienced. The 4 lamp setup meant dedicated beams for both high and low, and wow. I literally called my high-beams “light cannons”, and the low beam wasn’t anything to sneeze at either. Yeah, I miss that car.
The Curren: Meh. It’s different, not necessarily better. Looks like generic inoffensive Japanese car front end № 3a, very similar to the headlamps on a similar-year Camry or Accord.
As to the quad round(ish) headlamps on the Celica: it had been done before and would be done again. Viz E23-E24-E28-E30 Bimmers outside North America and W210 Mercedeseseses all over the world.
Moreover, if we disregard the Celica’s inboard lamps, the effect is very Neon-like. I think this is where the focus should be of a design-based objection to the Celica’s face. Eliminate the inboard lamps (and those weird hood ridges behind them) and the front end gets a great deal less busy and more defensible.
It was pedestrian-protection aspects of UN (formerly “European ECE”) regulations, together with aerodynamic issues, that ushered out pop-up headlamps. Those wintertime issues you mention are real, but they only tend to occur well after the car’s out of warranty, so as far as the maker’s concerned, that merits a ¯_(ツ)_/¯ .
There is no surface area requirement for headlamps in either the US or UN regs. Lit-area requirements apply to front turn signals (min 22 cm2), rear turn signals (50 cm2), and stop/brake lights (50 cm2) in the US regs. Less-stringent visible-size requirements apply to those lights in the UN regs. But neither set of regs calls for a minimum headlamp size or lit area.
I can’t quite tell for sure, but it looks to me here like you’re conflating emissions certification tests and safety certification tests. It is not the case that all of each of those two kinds of tests must be done “Every. Single. Year” (or even just every single year).
(What is that ridiculous red Italian-looking thing with the quad rectangular pop-up headlamps?)
That’s the Cizeta-Moroder.
Yeez. It looks equally and a very little differently idiotic vs. the rest of its ilk.
It looks like it’s seeing double, but it’s got an interesting story. All alone it has cried, silent tears full of pride….in a world made of steel, made of stone.
The Cizeta V16T was built briefly by some ex-Lamborghini people. I used it to start part II of the CC history of hidden headlights (link here).
Belated and well-deserved thundrous applause for that piece, Mike!
Well thank you, Daniel!
I liked these, but with the carryover engines they were underpowered compared to the competition.
Celicas were for girls.
Supras were for guys.
I know. I sold them when Toyota had both lines. Girls wanted the Celicas and guys wanted the Supras. One car was a little front wheel drive car to make girls happy, and the other car was a rear drive machine to make the guys happy.
Ford had Probes for girls and Mustangs for guys. GM had the Beretta for girls and Camaros for guys. Plymouth had the Laser for girls, and the Dodge Stealths for guys. Once again – FWD/small engines for girls and RWD/AWD(Dodge)/big engines for guys.
So this car’s headlights just need fake eye lashes.
That is why it looks like it does.
Good points! I was in the biz too (we had them all- Ford, Chevy, Mopar, and a ‘Yota store). Chevy also had the ultimate guy’s toy- the Corvette. I’d forgotten how expensive Celicas had gotten back in the day. cjiguy’s Celica, when new, was 75% of the way to a new Corvette.
Bad imitation of a W210? Didn’t this car launch before the Merc? And this front end looks much better.
It did indeed. However, the front end reminds me too much of the W210 to not mention it. The W210 itself got its respective thrashing on this excellent article by Nigel Tate
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-mercedes-w210-mercedes-deadly-sin-2-hubris/
I’d say by now, about 90% of former female owners of Celicas, now are in RAV4’s or Highlanders.
Since we’re on the subject, I’m going to just leave this here. It’s a 1999 Toyota Corolla (AE112R) CSX liftback, Australian model.
Weird.
Just a Corolla lots of em about in NZ, never realised they were Aisia Pacific moddels only, I rented one in Sydney it did the job.
That shape was also used in Europe, but definitely not Japan.
I’d also like to point out his generation Celica was approved just before the Japananese economic bubble bursting, and as such, the home market models were very much superior to what overseas markets received. This applies to the Curren as well; that’s just how Japan sold the coupe. Four wheel steering? Yep, you could get it if you could live with a 3S-FE motor with the SS-I (only slightly less powerful than a US GT). Super Strut suspension was common on the 3S-GE powered cars, in either SS-II or SS-III guise. Those were good for 180 PS from 1994-1997, and with the addition of VVTI in 1998, 200 PS. Auto climate control was nearly universally used across the range, something we never saw. Factory navigation? Yep. It’s really a shame the Yen to Doller rate forced the US cars to be basic by comparison.
Yep no shortage of toys in the JDM versions they were quite popular here as used imports.
If there’s a minimum for headlight area, how does Prius get away with this?
This is the special tri-hybrid model powered mostly by the screams of frightened children.
“Those headlights” remind me of the Taurus ‘Aero’ with the trout-looking front end…very odd, at least IMHO.
In my book , one of the best looking toyota ever was the 7th gen celica or the final gen . Still look fresh even by 2018 standard . Sharper in any case then my current Tc .
I’d like to have a :”90’s Celica” now.
It’s like the love child of the last Riviera and a 62 Dodge.
Scotty Kilmer’s car?