Toyota Celica 1600GTV vs. Nissan Bluebird U 1600SSS-E (1972)
Publication: Car Graphic
Format: Group Test
Date: November 1972
Author: “C/G Test Group” (uncredited)
Comparison test: Toyota Celica 1600GTV vs. Nissan Bluebird U 1600SSS-E
The Celica GT and the Bluebird U 1600 SSS compete in the same market in terms of character and price class, and recently variations noteworthy for enthusiasts have been added to both series, namely the Celica GTV and Bluebird U Hardtop 1600 SSS-E featured in this comparison test. Both are equipped with 115ps engines and 5-speed gearboxes, but the Bluebird’s hardtop body is slightly larger and weighs about 60kg more. Needless to say, the Celica GTV is equipped with a DOHC 1588cc engine and two Mikuni Solex 40PHH twin-choke carburetors, while the Bluebird U 1600 SSS-E is equipped with the same Bosch electronic fuel injection as its big brother, the 1800 SSS-E. As mentioned above, both cars have an output of 115ps, but the power peak is 6400rpm for the Celica and 6200rpm for the Bluebird, and the maximum torque is 14.5kgm/5200 and 14.6kgm/4400rpm, respectively, so it can be said that the DOHC Celica is a higher-revving car.
The biggest changes for these two new cars are in the suspension and tires. Toyota and Nissan have very different ideas about suspension. To achieve sporty handling, Toyota simply stiffens the conventionally designed suspension and splurges on tires, whereas Nissan focuses on the design of the suspension itself and uses tires of a normal grade. The suspension of the Celica GTV has been modified to be much stiffer than that of the GT, and the vehicle height is 10mm lower. Specifically, the front spring constant has been increased from 1.7kg/mm to 2.3kg/mm, and the rear from 1.7kg/mm to 2.2kg/mm, and the rear damping force has been strengthened by about 30-40%. The tires and wheels have also been changed from the GT’s 4.5J x 13 rims and 165HR-13 tires to a wider combination of 5J rims and 185HR-13 tires.
Meanwhile, the Bluebird U has also had its suspension significantly strengthened for the new 1600/1800 SSS/SSS-E models, but only those equipped with the 5-speed gearbox. The spring constant of the front springs has been increased from 1.5kg/mm to 2.1kg/mm, and the rear from 6.6kg/mm to 7.8kg/mm, and the damping force of the front and rear dampers has been increased (from 40kg extension/25kg compression front, 80kg/40kg rear, to 45kg/28kg and 66kg/42kg). This strengthened suspension has always been standard for export models. Another important change is that the wheels for all models (except the van) have been changed from 13 inches to 4.5J x 14, which is also a re-use of the wheels for the export hardtop.
The cars are also a good match in terms of price, with the Celica at 863,000 yen and the Bluebird at 864,000 yen. The GTV is slightly simpler than the GT in terms of equipment; its radio is AM only, and it does not have power windows or hub caps, but it does have an oil temperature gauge, plus the wide rims and 70-series tires mentioned above. It is 12,000 yen cheaper than the GT, so it will be welcomed by those who are serious about driving. The equipment of the 1600 SSS-E is the same as the conventional 1600 SSS (5-speed, 814,000 yen) and is naturally simpler than the 1800 SSS-E (964,000 yen), but the only things you lose in the 100,000 yen price difference are radial tires and a height adjustment mechanism for the driver’s seat.
Power performance
The Celica GTV’s 115ps/6400rpm 2T-G engine, typical of a twin-cam engine, easily revs up to the redline of 7000rpm and above, allowing you to use the full high-rev range without any psychological stress. From the smooth idle of 800rpm to the maximum rotation, almost no vibration is transmitted to the body, and mechanical noise is kept exceptionally low for a DOHC engine.
The top speed at Yatabe was 175.4km/h (the average for a 1km straight section), which is 5850rpm in fifth gear. As mentioned, an oil temperature gauge is standard equipment, which is reassuring when cruising at high speed. In 100km/h cruising, the oil temperature is completely normal, and it rose to 110°C only when we maintained top speed and did five or six consecutive laps around Yatabe, and during continuous hill climbing for more than 30 minutes while maintaining 5000 to 6500rpm in second and third gear.
The gear spacing of the 5-speed gearbox is appropriate for the power and weight. If you push it up to 7000rpm in first, second, and third gear, you can reach 51, 91, and 132km/h, respectively. Even in fourth gear, you can reach 172km/h (6600rpm), which is proof that the power is more than sufficient. On the other hand, this engine is also tenacious at low and medium speeds, and the overdrive fifth gear can be used at speeds below 60km/h if you feel like it. Of course, fifth is originally meant to be an economical cruising gear for cruising on the highway at 100km/h or more. For example, 100km/h is 3800rpm in fourth gear, but in fifth gear it drops to 3300rpm, and the noise level becomes even quieter. The transmission noise does not change between fourth and fifth gear.
The shift pattern is the same as in the Fiat 124, with fifth gear located to the upper right, and you cannot shift into the reverse gate below that without lifting the lever, so there is no worry about making a mistake. The shift is sure and light, with a relatively short throw, which is pleasant.
What was a little disappointing about this car was the acceleration performance. The 0-400m time was 17.5 seconds, and 0-1000m took 32.3 seconds, which was far behind the 16.8 seconds and 32.0 seconds of the Celica GT we tested last year, and overtaking acceleration was even worse. On the other hand, the top speeds were 176.8km/h for the GT and 175.4km/h for the GTV, which are pretty much the same, so we don’t think that the GTV’s engine was particularly out of order.
The only possible reason for this is that, although the the specs say the two models are the same at 115ps, the current car’s engine has a much leaner carburetor setting than the 1971 model due to exhaust regulations, and we suspect that the accelerator pump’s output has been particularly restricted. In addition, this creates a tendency for the engine to keep running even when the ignition is turned off, a condition known as “dieseling,” and this was experienced several times during this test, especially immediately after high-speed driving.
The output of the fuel-injected 1600 SSS-E is also 115ps (at 6200rpm), which is 10ps more than the twin-SU carbureted 1600 SSS, but this is not a noticeable difference. Rather, the advantage of the fuel injection is the reliability of cold starts and the service-free nature that keeps the engine running smoothly under all driving conditions.
Most of what we said when we tested the 1800 SSS-E also applies to the smaller-displacement 1600 SSS-E. This SOHC L-series unit is a bit rough by modern standards, has a high noise level, and is by no means free-revving. The sharp intake roar, fan noise, and valve gear noise become even louder during acceleration. The 1600 SSS-E camshaft has a valve lift of 10.9mm (the twin-SU 1600 SSS is 10.5mm) and an overlap of 38° (30°), making it the wildest of all the Bluebird U models, and generally speaking, the noise level is higher than that of the conventional SSS. It is relatively quiet up to 100km/h (about 3300rpm in fifth gear). The rev counter has a yellow zone from 6500-7000rpm and a red zone from 7000-8000rpm, but the psychologically tolerable rev limit is much lower, around 5500rpm. Fortunately, this engine has good low and mid-range torque characteristics, so you can drive at a fast pace without revving it above 5000rpm.
The 5-speed gearbox with Porsche-type servo synchro that is now fitted to the 1600 SSS-E is the same as that fitted to the Skyline and Laurel. The final drive has been shortened to 4.38 (from 4.11 in the 4-speed model), with close ratios in the top three gears, and as is typical of Porsche-synchro gearboxes, the shift lever is extremely light to operate. If you push the engine to 7000rpm in each gear (the effective maximum), you can reach top speeds of 56, 91, and and 146km/h in first, second, and third gears. In direct fourth gear, it achieved 172km/h, exactly the same as the Celica GTV, at 6300rpm, 400rpm lower. The top speed was 172.4km/h (5450rpm) averaged over a 1km straight line. As usual, the speedometer was wildly inaccurate, indicating 191km/h. The best 0-400m acceleration time was 17.5 seconds, and this was achieved by shifting up at 6500rpm. The best time achieved by shifting at 7000rpm was 17.6 seconds, so there is no point in revving it that high.
Comparing the two cars in terms of power performance, the GTV is naturally at an advantage with its slightly superior power-to-weight ratio and slightly smaller frontal area, and it comes out on top in both top speed and acceleration. The Celica’s engine also easily revs up to high speeds. On the other hand, the Bluebird excels in top gear flexibility, and top gear acceleration from 40km/h to 120km/h is slightly faster than the Celica GTV. The Celica’s DOHC engine has an rpm range around 3000-4000rpm where the torque curve temporarily flattens and revs more slowly, while the 1600 SSS-E’s fuel injection engine’s torque curve is broader, so the top gear range is wider, and you can choose a more relaxed driving style if you want to.
Fuel economy
In constant speed fuel economy tests conducted at Yatabe, contrary to expectations, the Celica with twin double-choke Solex carburetors performed better than the Bosch fuel-injected Bluebird at both 60km/h and 100km/h. The gearing was the same for both cars, with fifth gear at 30.4km/h per 1000rpm, and fourth gear at 26.2km/h (Bluebird) and 27.3km/h (Celica) per 1000rpm. The Celica was shorter geared, but the power-to-weight ratio must have had an effect.
However, in a practical fuel economy test of about 600km on public roads in a two-car convoy, the Bluebird was better in every section, with an overall average of 9.1km/l for the Bluebird and 8.4km/l for the Celica (after correcting for odometer error, of course). For example, on an 80km drive from Yatabe back to Tokyo on a typically congested national highway, the average fuel consumption over a three-hour period was 9.7km/l for the Celica and 10.4km/l for the Bluebird. The Bluebird’s better fuel economy may be due to the fuel injection feature that shuts off the fuel when the throttle is closed. Both cars require high octane fuel (the GTV also has a regular fuel version with a lower compression ratio). The Celica’s fuel tank was moved from under the trunk floor to behind the rear seats from the 1973 model onwards, taking into consideration safety in the event of a rear collision, but the 50-liter capacity remains the same. The Bluebird holds 55 liters.
Handling, ride comfort, and brakes
With a significantly stiffer suspension, generously sized Bridgestone Radial RD-102 185/70HR-13 tires, and a variable steering ratio (18.0:1-20.5:1), the Celica GTV’s roadholding and maneuverability are far superior to the conventional Celica GT. First of all, the steering response has become much more certain, and it now follows even the slightest steering input at high speeds. The increase in steering force is very slight and still within an appropriate range. The degree of understeer was a little too strong in the GT, but in the GTV it is just right for the preferences of fast drivers. In uphill bends at medium speeds (80-90km/h), the power in third gear at full throttle and the tires’ grip on the road are well balanced, allowing cornering in a stable posture. The grip of the fat tires is as strong as expected, and there is much less body roll compared to the GT, so the inside rear wheel does not lift and spin even when full power is applied in second gear in tight corners. The fact that the tire grip exceeds the engine power is also evidenced by the fact that there is almost no change in cornering attitude when the throttle is relaxed while cornering. The front wheels’ maximum turning angle is decreased slightly due to the wider tires, so the minimum turning radius has increased from 4.8m for the Celica GT to 5.2m for the GTV.
The GTV’s ride is generally harder than the GT’s, and especially at low speeds it feels as rough as the Alfa 1750, but at high speeds it becomes flat and comfortable. It is clear that the seats, with their good shape and firmness, contribute greatly to ride comfort. The Celica has recently been redesigned to add soundproofing and vibration-proofing materials to the dash and floor panels. Perhaps because of this, despite the wide radials, road noise is well suppressed and vibrations from the suspension are well absorbed.
The braking force is appropriate for the power performance. The servo is powerful, and 0.5g braking can be achieved from 100km/h with just 15kg of pedal force. Nose dive during sudden braking, which was excessive in the GT, has been significantly reduced in the GTV with its firmer suspension. In the 0-100-0 fade test, the pedal force started at 15kg and gradually increased, reaching 29kg on the tenth stop, but this is still within the normal range.
The most impressive thing about the Bluebird U 1600 SSS-E is the overwhelming improvement in maneuverability compared to the 1800 SSS-E we tested last year. The 1800 SSS-E was fitted with Bridgestone Radial 20 165SR-13 tires, but the 1600 SSS-E we tested this time had much better cornering power and roadholding, thanks to the ordinary bias-ply Toyo E-31 6.45S-14 tires. The understeer was still strong, but it was no longer excessive, and even when we lifted off the throttle in mid-corner, the tendency for the front wheel to cut inwards (which actually only weakened the understeer) was much less pronounced than before. When we applied full power in third gear on an uphill bend that could be taken at 80-90km/h, the initial understeer gradually changed into well-controlled power oversteer, and the steering became more stable. This allows the driver to slightly return the steering angle, which means the cornering speed is not sacrificed by the scrubbing resistance of the front wheels, and the car can exit smoothly and at high speed.
However, when we conducted a slalom test at 80-90km/h, weaving through pylons lined up at 30m intervals at Yatabe, the limitations of the Bluebird’s narrow bias-ply tires were revealed. When the throttle was closed to eliminate the excessive understeer, the tail swung out and the yaw angle gradually increased, making it difficult to maintain control. The Celica GTV was much stronger in the slalom, and was able to weave through the pylons in a straighter line. However, the slalom test is extremely harsh, and it would be impossible to do this on public roads.
In this comparative test, the Celica GTV won out in terms of handling, but if you were to ask which one is easier for the average driver to handle, it might be the 1600 SSS-E, which makes it easier to make the tail slide with throttle work. The Celica GTV has exceptionally good tire grip for a normal production car, so it is difficult to grasp the cornering limit, and once you exceed it, both the front and rear tend to start sliding at the same time.
Returning to the Bluebird U, we would like to see what kind of results would come from combining the high level of maneuverability of the bias-plies with the grip of good radial tires. The specified standard pressure for the bias-plies is 1.6kg/1.6kg, but we always ran them at 1.9kg/1.9kg and obtained good maneuverability. However, road joints and other impacts caused loud clunks and thumps, and it seems that more steps need to be taken to block out road noise. Although we didn’t feel this so much with the 1800 SSS-E that we tested previously, with the 1600 SSS-E, there was always a sense of heavy unsprung mass moving under the floor, which we could feel as vibrations through the floor. Although the mileage of our test car was less than 2,000km, it felt like a car that had already been driven a long distance.
The brakes have also been redesigned since last year’s 1800 SSS-E test, with the pads being the fade-resistant S21B type, and the vacuum servo changed from a 4.5-inch to a 6-inch diameter. However, at the same time, the pedal ratio was reduced from 5.0 to 4.2, which seems to have offset the reduction in pedal force to some extent. The pedal force was already light, so there is no problem, but what has been improved is that the pedal stroke, which was previously excessive, has finally become appropriate. The fade resistance is also sufficient, and in the 0-100-0 test, the pedal force, which was 18kg on the first stop, actually decreased until the third stop (indicating that the pads exert their maximum friction when they are somewhat warm), and then gradually increased to 25kg on the tenth stop. Fade resistance was judged to be extremely good, although the handbrake is still an under-dash umbrella handle type, which is inconvenient to use.
Interior and equipment
The interior atmosphere of the two cars is a study in contrasts. The Bluebird has beige trim and houndstooth tricot cloth seats, giving it a bright, sedan-like feel (and making it look wider than it actually is), while the Celica has a sports car-like low seating position and surrounds the driver with all-black trim, including the knitted leather seats. In terms of dimensions, both are similar, and if you compare specs, the Bluebird is slightly longer from front to back, while the Celica is just slightly wider.
Most people said that the driving position in the Celica was better. The reason is that the Bluebird abandoned its traditional high-waisted seats in the U series and adopted a lower seating position, which resulted in the dashboard and steering wheel being relatively high (only the 1800 has a height-adjustable seat). The shape of the Bluebird’s seats is generally good, but some minor points that bothered us were that the width of the cushion and backrest that wrap around the body are a little too narrow, putting pressure on both sides, and the headrest that protrudes forward puts unnatural pressure on the back of the head. If anything, it is a seat that is more comfortable to sit on than to drive in. The beige houndstooth upholstery looks a little cheap, but one big advantage of cloth upholstery is that it reduces sweating in the summer. On the other hand, the Celica’s seats have thin cushions but are of excellent shape and generous dimensions, and the relative position of the steering wheel and other controls allows you to assume a very natural driving position with your arms and legs stretched out comfortably.
Recent Japanese cars, as if by omission, have started to feature unnecessarily wide rear quarter panels and steeply slanted rear windows. As a result, the visibility to the rear and over the shoulders is extremely poor, which is a drawback shared by both cars. Of the two cars, this is especially true for the Bluebird, where the rear side windows are narrowed by the rear quarters (which are also extremely thick at the bottom) that create wide blind spots, and the glass area decreases towards the rear. Furthermore, the rear window is too steeply slanted, which tends to distort the image reflected in the rearview mirror. The difference was huge compared to the bright and spacious interior of the Fiat 124 Coupe that accompanied us on this test, which had a view with almost no blind spots.
The same can be said about the roominess of the rear seats. The wide blind spots in the rear and the large headrests narrow the rear passengers’ field of vision, and the rear window that stretches up all the way over their heads means that direct sunlight hits them on the back, making the passengers in both cars feel claustrophobic. The brightly upholstered Bluebird is at least slightly better in this regard. The dimensions of the two cars are not that different, but a person about 178cm tall will hit their head on the hard rear window frame in the Bluebird, while the Celica has a cushion that is lowered, giving rear passengers more headroom. The Celica’s cushions are set into deep pockets, so only two people can ride comfortably, but the Bluebird’s seats are flat, so three people can ride in the rear. If the front seats are slid all the way back, the rear passengers’ knees will hit the backrest in both cars.
Front seat belts are standard in both cars, and while the Bluebird has two-point seat belts, the Celica has three-point belts, which is more rational, but they are uncomfortable as the retractor’s winding spring constantly tightens around the stomach (the Bluebird only offers retractors on the 1800).
Both dash panels are luxuriously equipped with a wide array of gauges, including a tachometer, fuel gauge, water temperature gauge, oil pressure gauge, and a clock, and the Celica also has a current gauge and an oil temperature gauge. There are no particular problems with visibility of the gauges, day or night. The Celica’s instruments are visually more attractive, but the Bluebird’s light switch is superior in terms of functionality. The pull switch on the bottom right of the dash simply switches on and off, and by moving the indicator stalk back and forth, the parking lights, low beams, high beams, and passing flasher can be conveniently controlled with your fingertips while still holding the steering wheel. In contrast, the Celica’s light and wiper switches are still located on the dash, under the deep hood of the instrument panel, and require you to reach behind the steering wheel, making them difficult to reach even if your seat belt is not fastened. One saving grace is that the knobs for the main switches in the Celica are internally illuminated (the brightness can be adjusted along with the gauges), so they are easy to find even at night.
Both steering wheels have leather grips (the Celica’s is covered in real leather, while the Bluebird’s one-piece molded vinyl rim only appears to be). As mentioned above, the position of the steering wheel in the Bluebird is too high and its diameter is a little too large. The Celica’s is adequate in all respects. The Bluebird’s horn button is in the center pad, but it should have buttons in the spokes so the horn can be sounded with the fingertips while holding the rim, like in the Celica. Also, both are equipped with a steering lock as standard, but the Celica has a safer two-step operation where the key cannot be removed until the lock button is pressed. The Bluebird’s handbrake is still an umbrella type under the dash, and it would be better if it was moved to the floor for easier use, at least in the hardtop.
Other small improvements include the addition of a speed warning device in the Celica that can be set to chime when the car exceeds 100km/h (110km/h on our test car), and is not as annoying as a conventional buzzer. The GTV does not have power windows, unlike the GT, but manual windows are probably best for quick operation and, moreover, reliability. Both cars come with a standard AM radio, but the top-of-the-line versions of both have upgraded sounds systems, with an AM/FM radio in the Celica GT and a push-button AM radio with cassette player as standard in the Bluebird 1800 SSS-E.
These days, it seems that the newer the design year of a Japanese car, the better its ventilation system is, and these two cars are at a high level in that respect. First of all, there are vents on both ends of the dash that direct fresh air at face level, and on the console there is a forced ventilator that is linked to the heater blower. The vents on the dash effectively draw in outside air even with the windows closed and the car is traveling less than 50km/h, and the ones on the console blow out a fairly strong wind even with the blower on its lowest setting. Of course, it is easy to create the conditions for a cool face and warm feet in winter. It is good that thermal wires on the rear windows for defogging are standard on both.
The Bluebird has more interior space for storing small items. Both cars have average-size glove boxes (both can be locked with a key), and the Celica has an undertray on the left side of the dash and a shallow coin tray in the console, while the Bluebird has undertrays on both sides, a console storage compartment, and a deep box with a lid that doubles as a center armrest.
There is almost no difference in trunk space; both cars have the fuel tank placed behind the rear seats for safety reasons, so the depth of the trunk is shallow. As is typical of short-deck-styled cars, the trunk lid is small and the opening is high in both cases, making it difficult to load and unload heavy luggage. The Celica previously had the fuel tank under the floor and the spare tire stored upright, which gave it a lot of usable space, but with the new fuel tank placement and the spare tire buried under the floor, space is reduced.
There is a big difference in the tools provided. Toyota has always provided a good set of tools, including an adjustable spanner, a six-prong spanner, and two screwdrivers, regardless of the class of the car, but the Bluebird’s is meager and doesn’t even include a plug wrench.
In conclusion, these cars are comparable in terms of performance, and they both have high levels of maneuverability. They are both fun to drive, which is rare for domestic cars in this class these days. The Celica GTV is a step ahead in terms of handling, but this is largely due to the 5J rims and 185/70HR-13 radial tires. If the Bluebird were fitted with wider tires of the same class, the competition would be even more interesting. Previously, Nissan was far inferior to Toyota in terms of interior finish and equipment, but this gap has narrowed significantly since the Bluebird U was introduced.