Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Camry 2006 and earlier



  • I am still annoyed about getting sulfur smell inside while driving my 02 camry. I am now looking into government regulations on this matter.

    Aside: I recently switched to 92 octane on the 4cyl 02 auto, with noticeable improvement in performance.

    I am now trying 94 octane from Sunoco.
  • Someone posted: "At least in the Accord you'll have more power to get out of the way. "

    In response to a Camry or Accord power comparison, I find this to be a futile comparison. As a 02 camry owner, yes, the torque and power can be felt in the 2000-4000rpm range and is quite pleasing.

    But neither camry 4cyl or accord have the kind of low end torque to "get out of the way" if a torque-laden GM pushrod is up against you.
    I find this to be the ultimate and unfortunate misconception, that even I fell victim to, thinking that the quoted peak hp number or torque number will do justice to the driveability of the vehicle.

    I must admit that even my 02 camry LE 4cyl at the low end just doesn't have the kind of torque that my 12 year old chevy v6 does, to really get it up to speed. I have torque curves for 02 camry v6 and 02 accord v6, and both don't have substantial low end torque (i.e; within 30lbft of the peak torque), like you would see in a GM v6 engine.

    Yes the camry is fast, but with passengers and everyday driving, I find comparable GM cars are out-accelerating the camry due to the torque advantage.

    However, the camry excels in many other respects, too numerous to mention. Another point, the camry 4cyl front end is soooo light, the low end torque is definitely too much for it, i.e; my front wheels will spin easily, but the car just doesn't have enough weight to catch up. This, in turn, adversely affects the launch of the vehicle when you try to jack-rabbit.
  • I should correct myself, v6 camry I found was definitely more powerful than the 4, but not like a GM pushrod at the low end. I have not driven a v6 accord, but from the torque curve, I do not think it would satisfy my desire for high low end torque. Comparable GM cars are out-accelerating my LE 4cyl camry due to the low end torque advantage without the need for "pedal to the metal" type driving. Am looking forward to the 03 v6 accord and camry's rebuttal. I am not a GM fan, I find the interiors are ugly.
  • jimxojimxo Posts: 423
    Motor Trend (Sept 02) reports the automatic will hit the 1/4 mile in 14.98 @ 94.95 MPH. Camry is now third in the performance behind Accord and Altima.
  • Until 2002 Camrys made do with 136HP vs. 150HP in the Accord. Current 4 cylinders make 157HP vs. the 2003 Accord's 160HP. The HP numbers may seem similar but you have to take gearing, weight, etc into account. Now if you opt for a V6 there is no comparison. 240HP vs 192HP. 6.6 seconds vs 8.0 seconds.

    GM V6's do have alot of torque but generally aren't any faster than a well-made Japanese V6. Torque isn't everything. You also must take into account that with Honda's VTEC, or iVtec as they call it now, helps broaden the torque/HP range so it's putting out almost it's peak numbers throughout the rev range.

    Please tell me "numerous" areas the Camry excels in that are not subjective.
  • nhepker1nhepker1 Posts: 11
    How many Camry or Accord owners know (or care) how fast their car can cover a quarter mile? From what I've seen, the Accord has always had better performance than the Camry but I haven't exactly seen Accords drag racing at the stoplights either. These are supposed to be family cars, not sports sedans. I suppose if someone wants to drag race the BMW in the other lane while they have their children in the backseat, that's up to them. Maybe if I wait another 15 years, a redesigned Corolla to replace my 99 could have 250 hp. Sweet!
  • One reason that the Accord and Camry both have succeeded in selling 400,000 units a year for so long is because they appeal to two very different but very large niche markets. The Camry appeals to a consumer who wants a more quiet, sedated sedan while the Accord consumer prefers the sportier ride and feel of the Accord but they still want reliability and quality that you find in the Camry. If all I did was sit in stop-and-go traffic all day then the Camry would be the best bet but if I ever hit the highway or want to take the back roads home then the Accord would be the better choice.
  • coolguyky7coolguyky7 Posts: 932
    Examine the Accord and Camry 0-60 numbers given above:

    Yes, the Accord may look much faster but not really when you consider mathematics and reality. 6.6 is only 82.5% of 8, thus the Accord is only 17.5% faster number wise. Not too impressive for the 48 more horses. Now consider reality: time a 1.4 seconds. Pretty insignificant isn't it? At least it is to me.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    Rented one 2 weeks ago, all I can say is "AWESOME"!

    The Sandman :-)
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Here's the rationale people don't understand

    The transmission is made for smoothness, not accleration.

    Each shift takes longer to do (thus also worse for the transmission, but you don't see the transmission failures like the Acura TL transmission thread), thus the longer the shift, the smoother the shift, and most importantly the slower its acceleration.

    If you reference the Car & Driver comparison of the Solara SLE versus Acura 3.0L CL, you'll read the same thing.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    What post are you referencing? I don't recall anyone speaking of long shifts... although perhaps I missed something. Overall, I am very impressed with the transmission in our 02 Camry-shifts promptly and executes flawlessly, especially in passing situations. Given the debate over the 5 sp unit in the ES300, I'm glad we still have the 4 sp, which matches very well to the efficient and sprightly 2.4L.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    People who argue the Camry is a slow car....I said here's is not always the engine.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I guess I just didnt realize anyone was arguing that the (current) Camry is slow. And IMO, the 1997-2001 4 cyl IS slow, and it IS the engine.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    If you look at the regards to the V6...Honda upped the power on the V6. Will Toyota do that same? Probably yes.

    But still, even if Toyota matched or exceeded the Accord and Altima V6 power, it still would be a slower car, blame that on the buttery smooth transmission when it's running WOT.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    but as a side note, if you look at data from the 2002 models, in Car and Driver's Dec 2001 issue, the V6s are neck and neck, with the Camry edging out the Accord in several measures... obviously that will change with the advent of the superAccord V6. MY point being- they shifts can't be THAT slow....
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    The Avalon transmission is even slower.

    Yeah the transmission is that slow. In 0-60 times, the Accord V6 averages in the high 7's. THe Camry (with the automatic) averages in the low 8's, despite similar power to weight ratios.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    But I think it has more to do with the transmission's gearing than the actual amount of time it takes the transmission to shift. Documentation on gearing differences is easily seen in the comparo I mentioned in my last post. Show me stats that illustrate transmission shift times.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Just drive them both if you have the opportunity. You'll notice the difference especially at WOT.

    C&D comments on it in the 3.0L CL-Solara SLE comparo.
  • canccanc Posts: 715
    In which issue is that?
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    September 1999

    You can also access the article on C&D's website.
Sign In or Register to comment.