The Corona and Corolla had gained a solid foothold in international markets by the late ’60s, and studious Toyota was ready to strive for more. After earning respect through diligence and hard work, it was time to add some pizzazz to the lineup. And for ’71, it appeared in the form of the Celica (Sell-ah-ka), Toyota’s take on the pony car.
According to Japanese sites, the Celica was Toyota’s first car designed ‘from the exterior.’ In other words, the car’s styling took priority over other concerns. A typical pony car requisite. True to form, the Celica’s shape was tidy and sharp. Its proportions were in accordance with the genre, possessing a long hood and a short rounded deck. And its surfaces had nice sculpting and detailing, wrapping a cozy cabin. In short, the model’s mission was to provide a bit of sportiness and style, in a reliable and efficient manner. All while sharing a good amount of corporate parts. A template established by the original Mustang.
The Celica shared its platform with the new Carina, its corporate mate. As was the norm, US Celicas differed from Japan’s in some hardware. US models were powered by the 1.9L 8R-C engine found on the Corona and Mark II, though using a new camshaft to meet emission standards. Besides dealing with emissions, there were additional benefits with the tuning required for the new camshaft; a small increase in horsepower and an additional 500 usable rpm. (The Celica’s original JDM 1.6 Hemi engine first appeared in the US on the Corolla 1600).
Besides engine tuning, the new Celica improved on the Corona’s known suspension and brakes. At the rear, coil springs replaced the leaf springs and the axle was located via four trailing links and a Panhard rod. In unison, they kept axle hop under control. Front suspension was also new, consisting of MacPhersons, lower transverse arms, and an anti-roll bar. The Celica’s brakes were a noticeable improvement, reducing stopping distances by almost 90ft. against the Corona’s.
The manual 4-speed was slick and responsive, a known Toyota trait by then. Regarding the interior, it checked all the ‘pony car’ boxes. It was a stylish environment with full instrumentation, nicely arranged and detailed; a cozy and pleasant cabin for those seating upfront. The rear seats were cramped, of course, but that was part of the car’s spirit after all.
Not all was praise from Road & Track, as their test car suffered from some assembly issues. Doors rattled and clunked during closing, the engine was ‘noisy,’ and the differential was the ‘noisiest we’ve heard in years.’
Finally, while much had improved with Toyota’s sporty efforts, R&T directed its pleas to the one missing area: handling. While a nice car to push hard, the Celica still couldn’t match the handling of European competitors.
Yet, the Celica was a ‘handsome little coupe… an attractive and appealing car for someone who wanted a bit of extra sportiness.’ The muscle car era was reaching the end by the early ’70s, and along with cars like the Capri, the Celica was setting a precedent for a “new” kind of pony car.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1974 Toyota Celica Coupe – Betting On The Wrong Pony
Vintage R&T Review: 1971 Corolla 1600 – The Fun Hemi-Powered Toyota
Vintage R&T Review: 1975 Toyota Celica GT – Faster And Better Handling
Perfect 1st time sports car.
Only thing missing is a 5 speed transmission.
But still, I’d take one in a flash!!
In hindsight, the Celica is a winner. But given the reputation of European vs. Japanese cars in the US in 1971, and the info as presented in the “Comparison Data” box on page 98, the Toyota may have been a tough sell.
I assume that in 1971 Toyota dealers were more scarce than Buick/Opel or Mercury/Capri dealers as well. Of the cars presented for comparison, I probably would have selected the Capri.
A tough sell? Maybe in some parts of the country. I recall these cars were soon everywhere, and within a few years the Opel Manta and European Capri were gone.
The Capri and the Manta were casualties of the rise of the Deutschmark by 1975 and appropriate sporty domestic cars. The Capri was introduced at the same time as the Celica and outsold it. The Mustang II sold like gangbusters when it was introduced in 1974 (with the same basic mechanicals as the Capri) and Buick dealers got the Monza based Skyhawk. The Capri II continued through 1977 at a substantially higher price than the Celica. It was replaced by a domestically built Capri based on the Mustang.
Yes, the Capri was surprisingly popular when first introduced. As I recall, at one point in the early ’70s the “Capri” was the third most popular imported make of car in the U.S., behind Volkswagen and Toyota, but apparently selling better than the entire Datsun line.
I’ve thought it was the perfect economy car for Mercury dealers at the time. Sporty, distinctive, and affordably priced. A better Pinto.
The Opel Manta two door was a good looking car!
Which issue of Road & Track is this from?
It’s from the September 1971 issue.
If you’re looking for other early R&T material on the Celica, there was also a write-up in the Feb 1971 issue (reporting from the Tokyo Motor Show) as well as an October ’71 comparison test between the Celica, Capri and Opel Rallye.
Grazie! I have the February 1971 issue, but not the September one. (I was looking at an R&T index, but i was wondering if September 1971 was too late for what’s clearly an introductory road test. On the other hand, it looks like Motor Trend didn’t publish their introductory test of the Celica until the August 1971 issue, so I suppose that follows.)
I remember very well the sensation the Celica created when it showed up in Toyota dealer showrooms.
16 year old me was in a dealer showroom on a Saturday afternoon standing around with a crowd of others equally impressed with this sleek little car. Can’t remember though if this was before or after the introduction of the 240Z. Another car that created a sensation among car enthusiasts. Yes, I was in a Datsun showroom near Edmonton’s downtown crowded around one of those models.
These were wonderful times in the new car universe.
Neat little cars, no they dont handle well but neither does anything else from that era out of Japan in factory condition, mechanically they were better than others Toyota had their multitudes of powertrains well figured out.
Yeah, the handling of the early Celica is mostly hopeless, at least in any sporty-car sense, without decambering the front suspension or making the springs and shocks punishingly stiff to obviate the camber loss. The Capri and Manta were better in this respect, although the Celica had a better ride, so it was generally a much more pleasant commuter car.
The high front weight bias, narrow track, and lack of caster and camber gain in the front struts made the handling even below that of many other small Japanese sedans of the day.
The U.S. spec engine was difficult to modify for performance, and the factory engine performance was very middling for the time period.
What the Celica did offer, besides looks and style, was the very nimble driver’s feel, typical of the small Japanese sedans of the time. For performance driving, it was neutered, but for daily driving, it worked very well.
Indy racer Janet Guthrie started her racing career with a ’72 Celica that she campaigned in SCCA events. Janet praised the handling of the Celica, saying it was every bit as good as the Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTV, but of course she did some serious rebuilding on the car before it was competition ready. She seemed to think there was still quite a bit of anti-Asian prejudice in effect with regards to Toyota’s reputation in the 1970s.
Competition handling is not really comparable in this case, except maybe in Showroom Stock type events. The Celica could be made to handle competently if you were not concerned about ride compliance and/or if the rules of the particular class allowed alterations to the front suspension geometry. In stock form, the early Celica, even the GT and GTV, suffered from excessive front camber loss that exacerbated the fairly narrow front track and strong front weight bias. Late cars of this generation (1976 to 1977) shifted weight off the nose and widened the front track, which helped a lot; on earlier cars, you’d have to do that work yourself.
Always thought they looked like little Dodge Challengers. The next generation looked more like a Mustang. Pleasant car for what it was, only real vice was their propensity for rusting
I always thought it was more of an homage to the Mercury Cougar, but then again I guess the Challenger itself was in a way as well. The way the front bumper ends with the turn signals on top is a direct reversal of the 69 Cougar’s rear bumper. The vertical grille bars are even incorporated
I’d agree (especially the Celica’s grille which sure looked like it might have been designed to have hidden headlights just like the Cougar).
It fits, except for one thing: the fastback version of the Celica was, quite obviously, styled to be a 3/4 scale 1969 Mustang fastback. That, alone, sealed the deal as to where Toyota’s head was when they came out with the first Celica. There was a great article in Car & Driver that included photos of someone wearing a Nixon mask seated in the Celica.
But the 2nd generation Celica? Not so much.
One of the few japanese cars I really like. Haven’t seen one for years.
Btw: Was the mentioned Opel Ralley 1900 a Kadett B based car or a Manta A based car stateside in 1971 ?
The “1900 Rallye” mentioned in the article would have been a Manta A-based Coupe. In 1971 and 1972 the Manta was sold in the U.S. as the “1900 Coupe” while the Ascona was sold as the “1900”. Starting with the 1973 model year, Opel began using the Manta name on the coupes in the U.S. and offered a “Manta Rallye” for the 1973 and 1974 model years. Asconas continued to be sold as the “1900”. The Manta and 1900 were withdrawn from the U.S. market after the 1975 model year.
As far as I can tell, the “Kadett Rallye” was withdrawn from the U.S. market after the 1970 model year. Beginning with the 1971 model year the the previous “Kadett” name was longer used in the U.S. and it was sold as simply the “Opel,” through the 1972 model year after which the Kadett (sold under the “Opel” name) was withdrawn from the U.S. market.
Thanks !
Loved those “Celica’s”!!
The Celca was the car in 1976 that I traded my lousy unreliable 1971 Mercedes in for – and never regretted it!;
Funny thing, I never for a moment thought of these as stylish shrunken Challengers, or thereabouts. I simply didn’t make the connection.
In truth, I just thought they looked like yet another gaudy and over-decorated Japanese oddity, with even smaller back seats – which, having been motored about in Coronas or Datsun’s sedans, I didn’t believe possible – and just not very interesting generally. The reviews of the day were pretty lukewarm, and we (Oz) got the 1.6 crossflow engine, without pollution stiflers.
Having once driven an early Celica years later, compared to the drive of a comparable Euro sporty, they were indeed pretty rubbish. Well, the drive was: the reliability was vastly in excess of anything that the best of Old Europe had to offer – and as to that, and shamefully, from that day to this.
As a young family man, I owned a nice 4 Door Corona Mark II. But I really wanted a Celica. Always looked at them longingly whenever I passed one.
My mom had the a ’77 ST coupe 4-speed. The last year of the first gen Celica, albeit with a bit of an update on the edges partly thanks to US bumper laws. It was her second car, after briefly owning an even older Corolla. It’s still regarded as one of her favorite or perhaps her favorite car she’s owned.
It’s what she was driving in 1985 when I was born and because my maternal grandmother never learned to drive a manual and her car was down, my mom had to go pick her up and drive herself to the hospital when she went into labor with me. I asked her if she was in pain and she said “Yeah, but I was not giving birth in a Toyota Celica so I was getting to that damn hospital!”
Maybe this is where my love of manual transmissions began? haha.
I love seeing stories about these first-generation Celicas since I had one as my first car. My comment from another Celica story here from 10 years ago (updated):
“My older sister bought a ’72 Celica in 1981, and while I was a year from getting my driver’s license, I was hooked. It really looked and felt like a Japanese Mustang. My mother liked it as well and bought a ’73 Celica a few months later. Then, I bought a ’74 Celica in December, 1982.
I drove that Celica throughout the rest of high school, college and my first year out on my own. It had ~65,000 miles on it when I bought it and close to 130,000 when I replaced it in February 1989. As the car approached 100,000 miles during the summer of 1986, it seemed to have a nervous breakdown, with something breaking on a nearly weekly basis. By the time I got rid of it, it probably needed a valve job or a complete engine rebuild. It died on me once on one of the busiest streets in town, and I had to push it the last block to the Toyota dealer. The front window was rolled down, and when I finally pushed it to the service entrance, I slammed the door so hard the glass shattered inside the door. I called my Dad: “Go to the junkyard, get a driver’s door window, and don’t ask!”
Despite the mechanical issues I had with it in its last years, it was a fun little car to drive. I can confirm that the 4-speed shifter was marvelously slick, and while not exactly a powerhouse, the car was light enough that the little 18RC could move it along briskly. The seats were comfortable, and the dash — other than the embarrassingly bad fake wood — was one of the best of any car I’ve owned. Full instrumentation, including tach, temperature, oil pressure and ammeter. No, it wasn’t a 240Z, but it wasn’t priced like one, either. It felt plenty sporty to me.
I would love to find a first-generation Celica as a fun car, but the aforementioned rust issue (mine was a Texas car and there were small rust areas behind the rear wheels) has made them very hard to find. Plus, many of the survivors have been heavily modified with the twin-cam engines that were only available in Japan — making them pretty pricey.”
This was written two years before I bought my Miata, which is superior in every way except for shifting. Even the Miata’s stellar gearbox isn’t quite as slick as the Celica’s was. But having a small sporty car with a stick shift certainly brings back memories of the younger me. There was a ’72 Celica at an autocross last fall, and I snagged a ride. It was very cool to get to see one of these again.
A picture that was likely taken shortly after I bought my Celica. Hard to believe that was more than 40 years ago!
A friend traded in his beetle for one. In a few years the price really went up, so I thought the Celica was overpriced.