1983 Toyota Celica Reviews

1983 Toyota Celica ST 2.0 (8v - rear drive model) from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1983
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership1998
Engine and transmission 2.0 (8v - rear drive model) Manual
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.3 / 10

Summary:

Appreciating classic that will run forever and still look cool in 2112

Faults:

Passenger seat belt mechanism wouldn't lock, some welding required, and the rear fog light wouldn't work. This was on a £60 car purchased from a breakers and was the list of things it failed its MOT on. ALL put right for £75 all in.

NOTHING else went wrong with this car in my 18 months of ownership, and it was 15 years old when I bought it...

General Comments:

Comfortable sports tourer - not a sports car though.

Very nice seats for long distance, and they wear well.

Typical Japanese 80's interior - bland but functional.

Good size boot and seating for 4/5 adults.

Lots of electric toys, but it's Japanese so they tend to work well.

Suspension too soft to make it handle well, but it is rear wheel drive so some fun can be squeezed out of the chassis.

2.0 litre engine is good on fuel and will push car along quite briskly, but it's not a sports car.

VERY rare now thanks to the "drifting" craze, meaning anything RWD and fitted with a limited slip differential gets a LOT more horsepower and is then thrashed to death...

If you can find (or own) an original one, keep it that way as you have yourself a fast appreciating asset. Toyota stopped making the RWD Celica at this model, and never sold that many in the first place. Look at the prices of the old Mitsubishi Starions now, you could pick these up for £750 a few years ago, and now restoration projects are selling for £2500 upwards,

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th December, 2012

1983 Toyota Celica GT Liftback 22-RE, 2.4L? from North America

Model year1983
Year of manufacture1982
First year of ownership2008
Most recent year of ownership2009
Engine and transmission 22-RE, 2.4L? Automatic
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 5 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired132000 miles
Most recent distance137000 miles
Previous carOldsmobile Cutlass

Summary:

Fun car! Reliable! Eye-catching design!

Faults:

* Had to replace battery (easy) ~ $60.

* Had to replace alternator (easy do-it-yourself job) ~ $70.

* A/C clutch was scraping when disengaged, had to pull it and add a shim (not so easy) ~ 22 cents.

* Thermostat stuck open, so it took forever to warm up ~ $3.50 for new thermostat and $3 for new thermostat gasket (easy).

* Speedo was a little shaky, so pulled and lubricated speedo cable. Very easy to do, but cable pulls from the bottom of the car, so it's a little messy when you push it back up into its sleeve.

* Passenger-side electric mirror does not work. Took it apart and found the little plungers that push and pull it had broken off. Glued it and called it good (still doesn't work very well).

* A few small rust spots around the fuel-filler door.

General Comments:

I needed a new (used car) to replace an aging 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme that was killing my wallet at only 8-10 MPG and needing constant repair. I came across this 1-owner beauty that was purchased new in Dec. 1982 and had to be sold when it's grandmother owner could no longer drive.

I was specifically hunting for an 80's car, because I like their angular designs that are so much more interesting than the a-amorphous blob of a design that modern cars have. I also knew that 80's Toyota's are rock solid, because my parents had a 1984 Toyota Van-Wagon that ran happily to 380,000 miles.

This car has been nothing short of amazing. It's fun to drive, especially on windy roads, as it corners well. It runs on the freeway happily at 75-80 MPH and has made several trips between Sacramento and LA (~350 miles one way) without any problems.

Even after 25 years, all the mechanicals are smooth and all the electrics work (including the power windows, power door locks, and tilt-forward headlights).

It only has 105 HP and 137 ft-lbs of torque, which is not a lot by today's standards, but it's enough to get it quickly up to speed when merging onto the freeway and enough to beat a few cars off the line :)

It's a very easy car to work on and the shop manual is a must-have (easy to find on e-bay).

It gets a lot of looks because of it's unusual trapezoidal design.

Most of all, I only paid $1,800 for it, put ~$177 in repairs and 2 oil changes, and after a year of ownership, am still below the NADA pricing for this car -- which appears to be going up in value :) Buy a new car, and after a year of car payments you'll be up to nearly $1,800 in interest alone, not to mention the depreciation hit you'd take.

I only have 2 complaints: The oil filter is a pain to get to. The seats and driving position are not too comfortable for long trips.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 6th March, 2009

13th Apr 2010, 21:29

I guess the other person who commented didn't bother to read carefully that you NOW have those km's on it.

Heck mine has only 190,000 km's, and I expect to get a lot more km's out of it, and you made a great purchase since that car will last a long time yet.

It's only people that don't know anything about these lil great pieces of machinery that think they're not worth much, except for the fact these cars run forever, and always manage to still look a lil cool while doing it.

This is my 2nd one, and I bet the one I sold 5 yrs ago has 400,000 + km's on it now, and is still going.

14th Jun 2010, 12:21

Don't drive it anywhere near road salt. These things rust easily.

Average review marks: 8.1 / 10, based on 18 reviews