Ford Puma Vs Toyota Celica?
Any of you guys driven both? How do they compare? I used to have a Puma, and I loved it! I actually considered getting another Puma, but I'm also thinking of getting a Celica now.
I hear you really have to rev the Celica up to really high RPM to get good torque out of it, is that true?
Comments
When researching cars to buy (even though I buy almost exclusively used cars) I go to the first source. I look for patterns of complaints (transmission failures, for example) and I try to read between the lines for what the owner was looking for in the car and how he may have been treating it. Some owners obviously abuse their cars and then complain about the engine, transmission and suspension troubles they had.
The reviews on the Puma look very positive except for the 1.4L version, which seems to be underpowered. One review complains about the reliability (a UK model) but the gearbox replacement at 6000 miles makes me wonder how it was treated. 90% positive reviews is the sign of a very good car and the Puma seems to exceed that easily. A lot of enthusiasm for the driving qualities of it, too, which sounds like an important factor to you. At the same time they are not complaining that their sporty new toy broke, so it is probably rugged enough. The older models have been around long enough for people to describe their failures and it seems to follow the Ford model - five years of very good service, gradually accumulating more failures so the life expectancy is around 15 years. Not a lot of major problems, just things breaking, again typical of the Ford experience.
The Celica GT does not get the rave reviews for sportiness, which may be the top of your list. Several people complained it was underpowered and that is bad news. Being underpowered leads to pushing the engine harder. The GTS fares better. Quite a few complaints about all sorts of things, including one buyer who leased a used car, complained the mats were worn, then tried to return the car after a week and was outraged that it cost him a bundle to break the lease... beware of reviews like that. The problem profile is more Toyota-like. About 10% complained of initial quality but the failure rate stayed low for most of the vehicles over a ten year period. Toyotas in general have about a 20 year life expectancy with relatively few problems in those 20 years, then something major happens at some point to end the car's run. (My daughter's 1982 Corolla threw a rod in 2002.) Celicas have a reputation for being somewhat more troublesome but not a lot more... just be aware the parts cost more than equivalent Ford parts, too.
I think you are going to end up with the Puma, especially since you had a good experience with it before.
Ford Puma Reviews
Depends. If it's the older Celica with twin round headlights then that would be a better choice for: • space • comfort on long journeys • reliability But the Puma: • better handling • smaller engines so probably cheaper • more modern looks I can see the attraction in both, but would be tempted by a Puma for the fun.
Ford Puma hands down.
But are you really serious??? Comparing a Ford that has a reputation for lasting forever and has high reviews against a second rate car made by a company that has had to recall 40% of the cars they made since 1998??
Please tell me this question is a joke...............
toyota all they way,puma is nice but the toyota will last longer