Advertising Last completed movie pages
1981 Toyota Celica [A40] 
Class: Cars, Coupé — Model origin: 
![1981 Toyota Celica [A40]](i379033.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2011-02-25 18:39 |
![[Image: lv31n.2230.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/0is716/lv31n.2230.jpg) |
|
◊ 2011-02-25 18:47 |
1980+ [A40] |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2011-02-25 20:57 |
Sure coupe? looks more likes a 2-door sedan in the thumbnail...  |
|
◊ 2011-02-25 21:04 |
Take a look at all Celicas on the site. Roughly said, the first half are coupes, the other half are hatchbacks ... no sedans are among them. |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-01-07 18:10 |
Actually, 1982. 1982 plate for Buenos Aires province. |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 02:49 |
i'm not sure how the plating works, but by 1982 worldwide, Celica had moved into the next body style. can we assume the car was a late registered 1981 perhaps..? |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-02-06 02:54 |
No, 1982. Please see the topic in the forum, okay? thanks for your time One example: http://auto.mercadolibre.com.ar/MLA-139616821-toyota-celica-16-st-_JM Other: Link to "auto.mercadolibre.com.ar" -- Last edit: 2012-02-06 02:55:30 |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 03:00 |
wow. odd. thanks for the links. |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-02-06 03:01 |
For nothing -> Link to "forum.imcdb.org" |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 03:02 |
I'm hardly convinced. Notice that the ones in your link say "año 1982", not "año de producción". It could be "año de primero registro" (or whatever, my Spanish isn't what it used to be). Everyone knows (or should know) that the production of the 2nd gen Celicas ended in 1981. -- Last edit: 2012-02-06 03:03:27 |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-02-06 03:07 |
Bueno, van a vivir cuestionandome todo acá, ya no se puede hacer mas nada? - Still sold in 1982 this model, because after the Malvinas war, the imported cars was totally (almost for the imported makes) forbidden. If ended in 1981, was sold in 1982 too, any trouble? |
|
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-02-06 03:08 |
1980 was wrong... almost late 1981, you're kidding me and unrespect one more time? |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 03:09 |
Sold, not produced, those are two completely different terms. |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 03:15 |
We don't know for sure that it's a 1981, 1980 will be the earliest possible option. Can't be late 1981 either, production ended in the middle of 1981, calling that late would be a stretch. I'm not saying it's not a 1981, but naming it 1981 would be based on assumptions. I wasn't the one to rename it into 1981 just now, btw. Unrespect? You've got to realise that this is nothing personal, it's just business. That is, getting the correct model year down. |
|
◊ 2012-02-06 03:32 |
i was the one that bumped it up to '81... both as a compromise, and maybe as a bit of an assumption as well. since we use plates in general to move model years forward where we can, it seems fair enough to me. i'm fine with either personally. "first as thus" would set the date as 1980, but i can see how it would most likely be cars built for the 1981 model year that would be those held up to be first registered in 1982. * bows out * .gif ";)") |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
