Toyota Celica 1994 fuel consumption
Toyota Celica from 1994 to 1999 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 7% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Since 1994 the Toyota Celica average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been less than industry average.
Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values
| Year | Gasoline cars | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All carmakers | Toyota Celica | |||
| 1994 | +6% | insignificant | ||
| Show all years | ||||
| 1995 | +5% | insignificant | ||
| 1996 | +4% | insignificant | ||
| 1997 | +3% | insignificant | ||
| 1998 | +3% | insignificant | ||
| 1999 | +3% | insignificant | ||
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Toyota Celica.
1994 - 1999
Toyota Celica 1994 coupe fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 26.6 MPG 8.8 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 27.5 MPG 8.6 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | insignificant |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.8 liter petrol engine | ||
| Toyota Celica 1994 1.8i 116 HP manual | 29.8 MPG 7.9 l/100km |
28.7 MPG 8.2 l/100km+4% |
| 2.0 liter petrol engine | ||
| Toyota Celica 1994 2.0i GT 175 HP manual | 25.8 MPG 9.1 l/100km |
26.4 MPG 8.9 l/100km-2% |
| Toyota Celica 1995 2.0i GT Turbo 4WD 242 HP manual | 24.8 MPG 9.5 l/100km |
|
* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.
User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.