Howdy, Stranger!

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





Toyota Camry Real World MPG

1232426282939

Comments

  • (Manual transmissions do, in fact, get 15-20% better mileage than EPA estimate relative to the corresponding vintage of automatic).

    For those who wish to see just such a difference quantified, please review Post#636, the difference between two near new, low mileage, 2AZ-FE engined 4 cylinder Camrys ( 2005 AT and 2007 MT ) on multi day, multi tank trips by the same driver on some of the same real estate.

    As best I can recall having read every post in this thread recently, it is the only such data presented in as near an apples to apples comparison as possible. If anyone else has two of the same model years with one AT and one MT it would be nice to have that data, if possible.

    1-2 mpg was the range, call it 3-6% difference, not all based on strictly the transmission but as close as anyone has posted to date.

    For the record, the highway mileage on the 2005 AT and 2007 MT were within 1 mpg of each other under the same EPA testing procedure ( they could even have been the same, I don't have the 2005 original sticker anymore). A reasonable verification of the data as presented in Post#636 I might add.
  • lisntomelisntome Posts: 3
    I have a 1999 toyota camry LE, my car will only use premium fuel or the engine light comes on and will not go off until I refill with premium and ride almost to a half of a tank.(some time it stays on longer) Can anyone tell me why this is and how to fix this if it can be fixed. This is expensive, but it has always been this way.

    Looking to reduce cost!
  • I have a 1999 toyota camry LE, my car will only use premium fuel or the engine light comes on and will not go off until I refill with premium and ride almost to a half of a tank.

    Have you taken it to a dealership and had them tell you which sensor is throwing the code to the CEL?
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    I have never gotten more than 1/2 gallon into the tank after the first click, pumping slowly but not trickling. A 3.5 gallon air bubble seems awfully large.
  • I have never gotten more than 1/2 gallon into the tank after the first click, pumping slowly but not trickling. A 3.5 gallon air bubble seems awfully large.

    On my last roadtrip, I was experimenting with trying to mess around with fill error. It didn't work out the way I had hoped, but one of the things I learned while experimenting was the difference between 1st click off and absolute fillup on 3 different tanks of gas.

    1.0, 1.1 and 0.8 gallons, 1st click to spilling fuel.

    As a point of interest, I'll probably try and collect this information on all 3 cars now, just to learn something about the differences.
  • mcdawggmcdawgg Posts: 1,667
    I heard that you don't want to spill fuel out, because it can get into the charcoal canister?

    Yes, I can believe that it is a gallon that you can squeeze in after the first time the pump shuts off. 3.5 gallons - no way. Common sense tells me that a car manufacturer would not waste that much space. I can think of lots of other reasons that 3.5 gallons is not reasonable - I have never seen any proof of it. Troy's post above is good proof of about a gallon.

    I will try to post my MPG readings this weekend.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    My experience with the MT is that it gets a minimum of 5 mpg better than the AT at the maximum range (i.e., AT = just under 30 mpg, MT = 36+ mpg)

    I have tried 9 different camrys, all automatic, and none of them have gotten 30 mpg on pure freeway.

    I own a MT camry, and it never gets less than 29 mpg freeway. It is rated at 29 mpg. My AT camry is rated at 32 mpg, and averages 25-28 mpg. It does bounce around some, but not over 30, and not under 25.

    The latest camry I have tried is a 2008, and it got just under 25 mpg on nearly pure freeway (normal driving speeds). I did a direct comparison with my camry, a 2004, and got 27 mpg. I found the 2008, to be a larger, more powerful, and responsive car, but it seems to use more gas.

    On my latest tank "bubble test", I just did a short refill. This particular pump had very strong pressure. It clicked off at 8.5 gallons (~206 miles, 50% city driving, for an impressive 24+ mpg combined).

    However, I was able to leak another 1.7 gallons into it (10.22 total, 20.22 mpg).

    That's the smallest error I can remember - but one reason is that I couldn't even determine the error because of the high pressure of the pump. No fuel was spilled - I think there was alot more air left, but the pump just wouldn't pump slow enough.

    I regularly get 2.5, 3, and even more gallons into the tank after the 4th click. At many different gas stations. 3 gallons is very common, for me, in my car - and the 8 other camry's between 2004-2008 that I tested. Others have reported a different experience, but that is mine.

    One of my co-workers didn't believe it either - until he saw it (and looked under the car to see if there was a leak).
  • taz16taz16 Posts: 29
    2002 Camry SE V6 Fuel

    Hello I was wondering if anybody in here owns a Camry V6 between the model years 2002-2006, I was planning on buying one and just needed to know if it's alright to put midgrade 89 fuel inside it??? or will it just slightly decrease its power output?? or will it mess up the engine???

    Thanks,

    Taz16
  • My experience with the MT is that it gets a minimum of 5 mpg better than the AT at the maximum range (i.e., AT = just under 30 mpg, MT = 36+ mpg)

    Do you happen to have the data? For example, are the Camrys involved from the same generation? Do they have the same engines in them? Are they of similar mileage, odometer wise? Do you have a few thousand miles of consecutive highway only tanks from each you can list here? Just highway mileage of course, perhaps a long trip on each? Odometer and fuel used on each fillup would be fine. You can't really include any commuting mileage to minimize driving "style" from the equation as much as possible. You can use Message#636 as a template on how to do this if you'd like.

    The goal is to minimize some of the "optional" factors which can interfere with trying to get a clean highway figure. Any commuting whatsoever in particular. When dealing with data, its necessary to know the particulars to decide which lines up best to test the original hypothesis ( in this case the actual difference between MT's and AT's in Camrys ).
  • leotskleotsk Posts: 13
    I own two AT Camry, 1997 Camry I am getting 35 to 40 MPG (Freeway at 65 Mile/ Hr) with inflated tires (40 psi).

    For 2007 Camry 26 to 30 MPG with same driving conditions and style. I do use Scan Gauge for both the cars.
  • I own two AT Camry,

    Would you happen to have city mileage readings on these two Camrys as well?
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    If true, leotsk's 26-30 mpg is impressive. I could not pull 26 mpg from either of the two 2007 camrys of that model year I tested (one below 25 mpg). 100% freeway, ideal driving conditions. It's hard to tell from the post if this was a scan gage output, or a series of monitored odometer/tank refuelings and if so, consecutive or not.

    On another note, I have searched high and low for the actual data from "consumer report" where they have an oft-quoted 40 mpg for low speed freeway (55 mph), something I've tried and got 25 mpg. It made me wonder. Anybody know if there is a source describing the consumer reports test drive, what they actually did?
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    I have a 2005 SE V6. Regular is fine. I use it almost exclusively. Can't tell any performance difference. I used to think I got slightly better mileage with premium but now I don't think that's the case.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    Look for the April 2006 issue. Below are their results.

    Consumer Reports April 2006 for auto 2005 4 cyl Camry
    40 mpg @ 55 mph
    35 mpg @ 65 mph
    30 mpg @ 75 mph

    The 5 mpg increase for each 10mph speed drop is similar to what Car & Driver found testing an RX400h and using the trip computer for the same 26 mile runs (13 in each direction) from 40 to 80 in 10 mph increments. They got almost 32 mpg at 70.
  • Look for the April 2006 issue. Below are their results.

    Consumer Reports April 2006 for auto 2005 4 cyl Camry
    40 mpg 55 mph
    35 mpg 65 mph
    30 mpg 75 mph


    Why am I not surprised that my 2005 LE auto averaged 33 mpg on a trip where I drove 70-75 mph for large chunks of time? :shades:

    Why am I not surprised that the EPA claims 33-34 mpg for that particular car?

    Why am I not surprised that the data in a forum like this sits right around 31mpg at the mean and median? :shades:

    I love real data, particularly when it reinforces and verifies conclusions from other independant entities.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    Ummm. I saw those Consumer Reports issues. What I did not see is any data on where those numbers came from (i.e., the 40 mpg). Is this read off some sort of computer chip output such as those mpg "display" options you can have put on your car, or is it the traditional sense of odometer readings and fuel usage after several tanks of gas test. I have no idea what consumer reports did, or didn't, do. If there is any source information of what they drove, where they drove, how long they drove, that sort of thing, I'd like to see it. By "source information" I mean actual odometer readings and fuel usage; and protocols for determination of fuel usage. I'd just like to know. If it is somewhere stated in an earlier issue, please provide a reference.

    I don't recall that Consumer Reports stated the transmission type in their test. I assume it is an automatic, however.

    By the way, I have another pure freeway number. 349/12.5 = 27.92 mpg, pretty darn pleased, especially since I topped out at 65 mph on that run (couldn't take the 60-61 mph from my previous test that yielded 29.9 mpg, as I was getting tail gated by double semis). That was with the gas gage reading at half tank. Clicked off at something like 10.1 gallons. Took forever to fill it up with all the gurgling down there.
  • leotskleotsk Posts: 13
    For city driving ( I live in a samll city in east coast and trafic is not heavy like Boston. The following data collected every day drive to work for 15 miles long trip).
    1997 AT Camry 25 - 29 MPG (data from 9 full tank)
    2007 AT Camry 23 - 25.5 MPG (data from 10 full tank)

    I bought the Scan gauge and make a significant improvement in 1997 Camry MPG. I tried same with 2007 Camry and no noted improvement. I was thinking to trade in 2007 Camry and get a Yaris or Corolla.
  • I was thinking to trade in 2007 Camry and get a Yaris or Corolla.

    Having bought my 2007 exclusively as a traveling, highway car, I wasn't worried about its weight or city characteristics as much as what it can do warmed up, steady rpm's, top gear, 60-100mph. Mixing in ANY commuting is sure to hurt its overall average.

    I've got an AWD Escape hybrid as my around town car, and its good for low-30's city mileage in warm weather, rolling terrain. If I was shooting for maximum city mileage I'd do what you suggested, smallest, lightest thing I can find ( unfortunately that still is probably a 30-35mpg max ) or get a Prius. I've test driven the Prius, and I'll bet with even mild attention to driving technique its good for 50mpg+ around town.

    I've only owned perhaps 2 or 3 cars which could crack 30mpg in the city ( Metro, slowly driven Suzuki Esteem, 80's vintage Civic ) and they were all pretty low brow as far as cars went.

    I just don't know if its reasonable to expect the Camry, considering its size and power, to really be a good city car. Steady mixes of 40-60mph involved in your city driving can help out of course, but when I refer to city driving I'm thinking 40mph maximum, stop and go everywhere type stuff.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    "I was thinking to trade in 2007 Camry and get a Yaris or Corolla."

    Do the math first. I think the bath you'll take on the first year depreciation from the Camry will be far more than the gas savings you'll get from the smaller car over the next 5 years.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    "By the way, I have another pure freeway number. 349/12.5 = 27.92 mpg, pretty darn pleased..."

    Two years ago, I took a 2500+ mile trip in my 2005 SE-V6 (3.3 liter engine). I averaged 27.5mpg and filled up 9 times. If you would like to assume my last fill was a 3.5 gal underfill (which I'm sure was not), the mileage would still have been 26.5. This trip was probably 85-90% highway where I typically cruise at 72-74.

    I will have new data from a similar trip in a few weeks which I will post.
  • "By the way, I have another pure freeway number. 349/12.5 = 27.92 mpg, pretty darn pleased..."

    Two years ago, I took a 2500+ mile trip in my 2005 SE-V6 (3.3 liter engine). I averaged 27.5mpg and filled up 9 times.


    I just took the wife's minivan on its first trip ( 2007 Toyota Sienna LE, V6 260 HP ).

    28 mpg, 26 mpg and 28 mpg on the first 3 tanks. Oh..and it was carrying me and the wife, the dog, enough junk to keep the kids clothed for another 2 weeks and my 410 pound streetbike. When people saw the license plate and turn signals through the rear glass they would pass us laughing and thinking it was wild.

    Imagine the physics of a full sized minivan loaded to the gills with 100HP more than my Camry and twice the cross sectional area getting better mileage than someones sedan. The only explanations I can come up with are mechanical issues, like half the spark plug wires disconnected, holes in the gas tank, permanently engaged emergency brake, missing rings, etc etc, or operator issues, like people driving their automatics with both feet firmly planted on each available pedal.

    The physics alone of what is possible and regular results with other types of vehicles make this mystery very....mysterious.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    "For city driving ( I live in a samll city in east coast and trafic is not heavy like Boston. The following data collected every day drive to work for 15 miles long trip).
    1997 AT Camry 25 - 29 MPG (data from 9 full tank)
    2007 AT Camry 23 - 25.5 MPG (data from 10 full tank)

    I bought the Scan gauge and make a significant improvement in 1997 Camry MPG. I tried same with 2007 Camry and no noted improvement. I was thinking to trade in 2007 Camry and get a Yaris or Corolla. "

    Well - if those 2007 numbers are pure city, that is beating the tar out of the EPA estimates, and if your city driving consists of primarily sailing along at 45-50 mph, then your mpg is right there with what I got for testing that model on pure freeway.

    You might look around for a manual transmission car; those definitely get better mileage, from what I know. I know several people with MT corolla's and they knock the sox off of any camry with near-hybrid efficiency (35-40+ mpg pure freeway)
  • You might look around for a manual transmission car; those definitely get better mileage, from what I know. I know several people with MT corolla's and they knock the sox off of any camry with near-hybrid efficiency (35-40+ mpg pure freeway)

    When my Camry already gets 35-40 mpg on pure highway, I certainly don't consider that hybrid efficiency or anything close to it ( 52 mpg on my Prius test drive, if you trust the computer).

    I've cracked 50mpg with an old Honda Civic CRX HF back in the 80's, which makes me curious, now I have to go check out the modern Civic and Corolla 5 speed sticks forums and see what their results look like. I already know of a few low 40's Corolla's, and my insurance agent lady claims 45mpg highway in her modern Civic.

    Those little 1.8L 4 -bangers better be able to beat my 35-40mpg Camry with lots of weight and a big engine.
  • So I scanned through the first 3 or 4 pages in the Corolla forum, and its noticable pretty quickly that the smaller car and motor do pretty good when compared to our Camrys, general impression of course.

    There were quite a few people with auto's and manuals talking about 40mpg+ figures, something which a few of us have achieved while driving slowly in our Camrys, but with Corolla's it looks like a common occurrence.

    They also had a few examples of disgruntled owners, some claiming only 20mpg, who were very unhappy with their results. 20mpg out of a Corolla would make me pretty unhappy as well I suppose.

    Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.
  • hause7hause7 Posts: 153
    How was the power of the 3.5L V6 in the Sienna?
  • How was the power of the 3.5L V6 in the Sienna?

    Excellent. I test drove an 06 with the older 3.3L engine in it, and thought it was marginal. The 3.5L has plenty of power, its only downside for me is that it isn't torquey power, but more revvy power. On the trip back I towed a utility trailer with the motorcycle on it, and it was difficult to keep the van from shifting out of 5th into 4th all the time. It just didn't have the torque to pull any sized hill with a full load and while towing 1200# at the same time.

    Around town it gets 17-18mpg with the wife driving it. Towing on the highway it got a low of 15mpg and a high of 20mpg.
  • caazcaaz Posts: 203
    Hey guys, LTNS.... After reading your recent posts, i'm very interested in renting a new camry to see what kiind of mpg i can really achieve. Ive told you many times in the past, that at 80 mph i get about 31mpg .....75 about 33 to 35..............70mph......35.37............65 or 60... i seem to get between 38 and 40... 03 LE autom 4cyl. my 03 seems to crack at 82 mph...once i hit 82 it brings me into 29.7 mpg territory.. And in the past ive read several times where phd has driven 8 camrys or so and never broken 30 mpg. I'd like to see if they get that much worse then the older camrys before i do something stupid like and sell it. Been thinking about a newer camry. Will report after i rent 1 and do my weekly so cal to phx and back trip.

    later caaz
  • Been thinking about a newer camry. Will report after i rent 1 and do my weekly so cal to phx and back trip.

    I rent cars only occasionally, say once or twice a year, but in the past decade I've never seen a Camry for rent. Toyota doesn't seem to flood the rental market like Ford and GM do, a good thing because my Camrys have always had excellent resale value, whereas anytime the rental market gets flooded with something ( Cavalier, Fusion, Malibu, Taurus ) its resale value tends to be dismal.

    I am working on a full tank city commuting mileage data point in my Camry, its taken me a month to use 1/4 tank, maybe I'll have the datapoint in time for Thanksgiving.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    I go to the dealer to rent camrys. Actually, the last time (aug 2007), they gave me one while they tore my dash apart the last of 6 times trying to find a "creaking" sound that it had from day one to 50,000 miles. Although they failed again to find the source of the "creak" (they tried, including replacing numerous parts and doo-dads, just plain ran out of ideas), it gave me plenty of time to try out the fuel efficiency of the 2008 version.

    Toyota also gave me a rental when they investigated my original concern that a mere 26-28 mpg freeway pointed to some issue with the car; in addition to the reams of technical notes and printouts (showing pretty much nothing in terms of variance); their rental did about the same mpg as mine.

    No biggie. my 2004's 28 mpg seems pretty good; especially compared to the measly mileage put out by the 2008 rental. 4 years of creak in the dashboard is far more annoying.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    Indiana to New Hampshire. All freeway. Cruise set around 69-70. Tires 33 psi. 2 people & luggage. No significant traffic issues but lots of 55-60 mph stretches due to traffic in the last 200 miles. GPS average speed (actual driving average) on day 1 (475 miles) was 65. Second day 64.7 Trip so far: 927 miles, 29.5 mpg.

    FYI, paid $4.40 in Connecticut for regular (I only put in 6 gal knowing that gas in NH would be much cheaper. It was $4.04).

    Will report part 2 upon return to Indiana in about 10 days.
Sign In or Register to comment.