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

1242527293039

Comments

  • leotskleotsk Posts: 13
    I am getting 34 MPG (90% highway and 10% city) for the last two full tank fill drive at 72 MPH at highway. Many up hill and down hill on the road, Not able to put it in neutral due to speed and trafic.

    I am happy with the results.
  • tpi10dtpi10d Posts: 6
    I had experience with a 99 Corolla and my '04 Camry on my commute. The commute was 80 miles round trip with about 15 miles suburban roads, and the rest 65 MPH steady freeway speeds (75 MPH morning 55 MPH afternoon due to traffic).

    The Corolla 4 speed automatic got 34-35 MPG on this commute, the Camry automatic 29 to 30 MPG. My impression from both cars is the Corolla was good for about 5 MPG over the Camry on hwy mileage.
  • caazcaaz Posts: 203
    havn't reported yet cuz i havn't found a place to rent a camry.....lol...but soon... I will do a few trips now in the summer and report, since all my previous reports and results were winter runs to phx & back. I'm interested to see if my mileage drops duo to a/c.

    TTYSooon

    later Caaz
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    well, if I may be so bold to suggest that I'm not alone:

    Reports of 40 mpg, or even 30 mpg with any recent AT camry don't jive with what I've experienced in my own car (or 8 rentals since of various vintages) or reports from any of the nearly dozen now camry owners at my building (excluding the single hybrid camry owner), or anyone else with a camry that I know.

    If there's anything that might be agreed to here, it is to assume nothing about a car's fuel efficiency based on what you see on a website (or even an EPA sticker).

    And we also might agree that, whoever next puts down 20 large for this car, should consider renting it before buying it, to make their own assessment of its fuel economy. In my opinion, this would be $100 well spent versus $20,000 not so well spent.

    Incidentally, on my last tankful I went about 450 miles on 16.7 gallons; the pump first shut off at 12.2 gallons, and I eeked another 4.5 gallons into the tank. That's ~27 mpg. Not bad. But my point, which I've made many times before but deserves repeating, is that the refill point varies all over the place, and the consequential error in mpg calculation based on a single tankful is huge.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,037
    Thanks for a dose of reality. I think the vast majority of people that visit these forums, especially the "real world mpg" threads are looking for just that.....REAL WORLD experience. I don't ever plan on driving like a hypermiler and putting the car in nuetral all the time and coasting, shutting the engine off(dangerous in my opinion in a lot of situations), drafting, coasting to a stop sign/light from a mile away and holding up everyone behind you from accessing a left or right turn lane, etc, etc, etc. I personally don't have a problem with most of the methods but some are just downright discourteous and I think actually cause other people to use more gas trying to avoid or get around these people.

    When I hear someone say "Oh, I just got 40mpg in a Camry for 10 miles on the freeway" means absolutey nothing to me. Give some reports of average mpg over several tanks either with a combo or straight city or straight freeway. I'd like to hear what an avg city/suburban mpg I can expect and an average straight freeway mpg is. I think there either is or should be a thread or forum that would discuss hypermiling and it would seem that the principles would apply to any car driven not a particular make/model which this thread is. Just my two cents and not meant to offend anyone.
  • Reports of 40 mpg, or even 30 mpg with any recent AT camry don't jive with what I've experienced in my own car

    We have covered this. Your experience with your Camry is a part of the total results claimed by the participants in this forum, as such, the results reported in this forum go beyond just "your experience". The results reported in this forum span a given distribution, with a mean and standard deviation, and truncation points, which I have listed previously. Within that distribution, results like those you have reported have a certain probability. The probability of getting your results is low compared to the average "experience" of those in this forum.

    Post # 752 has those results spanning ALL of our experiences.

    If there's anything that might be agreed to here, it is to assume nothing about a car's fuel efficiency based on what you see on a website (or even an EPA sticker).

    The EPA sticker for the Camry appears to be a little above average compared to the actual results. We have quantified, for the 2007's at least, how much different for those interested.

    Incidentally, on my last tankful I went about 450 miles on 16.7 gallons; the pump first shut off at 12.2 gallons, and I eeked another 4.5 gallons into the tank. That's ~27 mpg. Not bad. But my point, which I've made many times before but deserves repeating, is that the refill point varies all over the place, and the consequential error in mpg calculation based on a single tankful is huge.

    To date I have not been able to get more than approximately 1.1 gallons into ANY of the vehicles I own after the first click at the pump. My hybrid spilled at 0.6 gallons past 1st click.

    Is there the possibility that California pumps, with those fume retrieval devices, are clicking early compared to pumps without them?
  • When I hear someone say "Oh, I just got 40mpg in a Camry for 10 miles on the freeway" means absolutey nothing to me. Give some reports of average mpg over several tanks either with a combo or straight city or straight freeway.

    Excellent. Please review Post#636 for EXACTLY such a calculation of highway mileage between 2 Camrys with the same engine, but different trannys, by the same owner, over some of the same roads. I believe its nearly 13,000 miles of consecutive trip mileage and tanks, including odometer and general conditions, round tripped back to the same gas pump.

    My results tend to be a little better than average for Camrys however, but I use no hypermiling techniques whatsoever, just reasonable, non teenager driving habits.
  • kiawahkiawah Posts: 3,666
    Okay, here's my city mileage so you can fill in your spreadsheet. We got 25.16 mpg across 3 tanks of gas (Total of miles / Total of gallons). 2007 LE I-4 5speed (w/ the 2nd TSB for performance and shifting). Using our standard neighborhood el-cheapo off brand regular gas.

    Not sure how relevant this information is (other than another data point), because everyone's 'city' driving can be significantly different.

    This mileage is in the NC area, air conditioning typically on, three different drivers. Roads driven were typically two or 4 lane streets/state roads, stop signs and lights, no situations of sitting and waiting stuck in traffic anywhere. Mix of residential, light business, strip shopping. Speed limits 35-55. This did have two trips on the I-beltline at 60-70mph, and combined mileage of those two trips is less than 60 total miles, approximately 6% of the total miles driven.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    "Okay, here's my city mileage so you can fill in your spreadsheet. We got 25.16 mpg across 3 tanks of gas (Total of miles / Total of gallons). 2007 LE I-4 5speed (w/ the 2nd TSB for performance and shifting). Using our standard neighborhood el-cheapo off brand regular gas. "

    Is that a 5 speed manual or automatic transmission? I get that with my old 5-speed manual, but nothing close with the automatic, in any vintage. In fact, that 2007 automatic barely gets 25 mpg on pure freeway. My only other comment is that anything 45 mph and up on country roads or whatever isn't really city driving, especially if sustained. 45-55, in fact, may yield optimal fuel efficiency. Best to call that "mixed" driving conditions, of unknown proportion.
  • Okay, here's my city mileage so you can fill in your spreadsheet. We got 25.16 mpg across 3 tanks of gas (Total of miles / Total of gallons). 2007 LE I-4 5speed (w/ the 2nd TSB for performance and shifting). Using our standard neighborhood el-cheapo off brand regular gas.

    Got it. Another one in the books.
  • kiawahkiawah Posts: 3,666
    It's a 5 speed automatic.

    Have you had the TSB put on for engine and transmission performance? The engine ran significantly better after that was on.

    Could very well be called mixed, it is certainly not NYC driving. Probably don't go more than a mile before a stop sign or light at an intersection. Strip mall streets have lights every 1/10 mile or so. No speed is 'sustained' around here
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    hmm:

    25 mpg in mixed driving, alot in the optimum fuel efficiency range of 45-55, and 60 miles on the freeway, and some city, maybe alot - maybe not - depends on how much is driven at the higher speeds, I'd still call that "mixed". I can't drive 45-55 in the city where I live. Maybe 35, short bursts to 40, but there are lights, other cars, etc. I'd call that city traffic.

    Still wondering what transmission kiawah has, anyone know?

    BTW, the fuel refill error has nothing to do with california, if my recent trip to illinois last week was any indication (my sister has a camry). It has something to do with the neck of the filler pipe on the 2004-2008 camry. Just doesn't fill up as far before the pump shutting off, leaving lots of space in the tank that can only be properly guaged by topping it off completely.

    And, another note, the County Division of Weights and Measures pounced all over my report of a fillup that exceeded the tank capacity by 0.02 gallons. The pump did meter out as completely accurate (no error at all compared to the standard, they pump out 5 gallons and record its volume in a measuring can of some kind), so I guess the camry tank, or maybe the neck and the tank, can take very slightly more than 18.50 gallons. Not my experience with my other camry (18.5 in that car means 18.5 at most, when starting with a dry tank).

    The bottom line is that my ultimax, 61 mph sojourn with 29.5 mpg efficiency in a 2004 camry LE-4 is accurate.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    thanks, kiawah:

    25 mpg is pretty good for mixed in an automatic. congradulations.

    I was composing a message as you replied. I have a 2004. I think the TSB (safety bulletin?) had to do with a 2007 transmission issue, and there were some manual transmission issues as well.

    Toyota corporation has done plenty of inspection of my car in 2005 after a year of consistent 26-28 mpg freeway efficiency. They say there are no unusuals and the printouts support that. It is what it is.
  • The bottom line is that my ultimax, 61 mph sojourn with 29.5 mpg efficiency in a 2004 camry LE-4 is accurate.

    In Post #26 you reference 33 mpg in a tank which you approximated at 90% highway driving.

    What would you like you official highway number to be? That one or your artificially slow one? I have a tendency to discount the slow driving MPG's like Caz has obtained in favor of the the more "regular" highway speed numbers. For example, I don't use my best ever fillup of 42mpg for that reason. You didn't specify your speed for that 33mpg tank though.

    Its your number though, so whichever one you think is more representative is the one I'll use. Just let me know.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    "Reports of 40 mpg, or even 30 mpg with any recent AT camry don't jive with what I've experienced in my own car "

    But they do jive with just about everybody else.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    """Reports of 40 mpg, or even 30 mpg with any recent AT camry don't jive with what I've experienced in my own car "

    But they do jive with just about everybody else.""

    The highest verifiable mileage on this website (i.e., not confounded by refill error) is 32 mpg by dudleyr himself - but it is not 35 or 40 mpg. Congradulations. Dudlyer demonstrated this twice, once he did this by running slightly over 600 miles with 18.2 gallons and once, he reported a series of tankfuls that averaged that. The rest of the postings which show high mpg (by high, in excess of 30 mpg) - are spot measurements. The top end of fuel efficiency is 32 mpg. Even this should not be expected.

    As shown by the numerous other posts on this forum, not just me, the true range of highway driving efficiency on this car is 25-28 mpg, not 30-40 mpg. I know over a dozen people who have this car personally, and no one gets 30 mpg on it consistently (i.e., multiple tanks). This is not a complaint about the car - it is a fine car - but it is large; 25-28 mpg is perfectly within the realm of expectation.

    Amongst the posts, however, are a number of spot measurements, based on single tanks, that are subject to huge errors (particularly when the gas refill volume is small, such as under 12 gallons), and are not repeatable over multiple tankfuls. When these questionable individual data are removed, the true range of mpg, of 25-28 mpg, is revealed.

    There are also a few, frequent posters, like troy, who have a manual transmission, which get significantly better mileage. That is not an automatic transmission and data from his or other MT cars should not be blended with automatic transmission data. Troy may actually get a consistent 30+ mpg efficiency on his manual.

    The range of true highway mpg efficiency on the toyota camry 2002-2006 is fairly tight, about 25-28 mpg. It is somewhat less in the 2007-2008. Perhaps tops out at 26 mpg. That's pure freeway. Finally, as leotsk's recent posts on his 1997 to 2000+ comparison have suggested, there may have been an equivalent drop in efficiency after the prior enlargement of the camry (in 2002). Again, perfectly understandable. Bigger car - uses more gas. Make it even bigger, as toyota did in 2007, and it will use even more than that.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    From nikkim on the reviews:

    "I purchased my 09 Camry when gas just so expensive for our 06 Tundra. Im happy with all but the sound of the slightly loud 4 cyl. engine. Once on the road is ok though, only when accelerating. Also we have dash rattling noises, not really bad, probably just need some foam padding in there. The biggest complaint I have is the fuel economy. It said 23-31 mpg. I am only getting about 26, and I drive very conservatively. Hopefully it will do better when the air is not on and summer is over. There is also a loud noise when I take off from a dead stop. Other drivers here on this site had the same problem. My car sounds like the problem is up front though. Am definitely going to take for a check up."

    Hate to break it to Nikkim, but 26 is not bad for the 4 big camrys I tried. None of them (2007-2008) broke 26 mpg. And that dash rattling; jeepers - been there too. You would think they could be able to figure it out. I can't. They can't. The foam muffles it but it doesn't go away. It's small solice to hear what appears to be the common vernacular in mass produced autos: "they all do that" (still).
  • The highest verifiable mileage on this website (i.e., not confounded by refill error) is 32 mpg by dudleyr himself - but it is not 35 or 40 mpg

    Please review Post #636 where I traveled approx 5000 miles with an average of right around 35mpg for the entire trip. All consecutive tanks, roundtrip, same driver, back to the same gas pump.

    As shown by the numerous other posts on this forum, not just me, the true range of highway driving efficiency on this car is 25-28 mpg, not 30-40 mpg

    The distribution of results to date on this forum has been quantified, and the average answer is not 25-28 mpg.Lets not put words in the posters mouths, they have spoken and the answer quantified. Not liking it doesn't mean you get to make up numbers and then assign those results to those of us who participated.

    25-28 mpg is perfectly within the realm of expectation.

    It is. But it is below average for the results quantified in this forum.

    There are also a few, frequent posters, like troy, who have a manual transmission, which get significantly better mileage. That is not an automatic transmission and data from his or other MT cars should not be blended with automatic transmission data.

    Please review Post #636 to see the difference between the 2AZ-FE motor, one auto, one stick ( approx 1.5mpg ), to see the approximate difference based on transmission type. Feel free to provide your own data if you don't like the data presented.

    The range of true highway mpg efficiency on the toyota camry 2002-2006 is fairly tight, about 25-28 mpg

    What is "fairly tight" mean? Is that 1 standard deviation maybe? 2? What is the distribution? Where did you truncate the data? Please provide more information, and the data behind it because in this forum, "fairly tight" has already been quantified the correct way, and the average is NOT 25-28 mpg on 2002-2006 Camrys ( its actually better than the average for all Camrys because the 2007's bring down the average ).
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Actually that is far from the truth. I don't even own a Camry - almost bought, but the stick was too hard to find. The mileage I reported was for a Sienna - just to show how ludirous it was to state a Camry can't get 30 mpg.

    I have stayed away from mentioning the mpg of my Accord because it is a little off topic, but her goes. 33.35 mpg lifetime in 37,000 miles. That includes SD winters. Now that summer is here the calculated average of my last 10 tanks is 36.9 mpg. This is not one long trip, but includes small town stop and go. Speed limit in my town is 35 mph.

    I consistantly get over 40 mpg on pure highway and have had many tanks in the mid 40's. My best tank is 46+ as calculated and backed up by a calibrated scangauge ii. For pure highway I have been in the mid 50's many times - as indicated by the scangauge over at least 200 miles.

    How you may ask? I drive slowly (sometimes as slow as 55) , use 0w-20 synthetic oil, 40 psi tires and I use my brakes sparingly.

    With the same size engine and similar technology, the camry should be close, and many posters here seem to agree. As many have stated 30 mpg is on the extreme low side for highway mpg. City mpg is too hard to compare because of the number of variables.

    One persons inability to achieve high mpg does not discount the ability of others.
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    Hey Troy, don't waste your (typing) breath. Some people are never going to believe that others get better mileage than they do. They will always claim too few tankfuls or some ludicrous 3 gal underfill as the culprit for reporting mileage they consider unattainable. It's a lost cause to keep supplying the same data. It's not going to be believed.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    Relative to the EPA estimate, manual shift of anything is WAY, WAY more efficient than an automatic. Camry, Accord, anything you like. This is both experience and widespread knowledge which, unfortunately, has not made it into the EPA estimates, or is disseminated by automakers. Rather, they purport to sell autos that make the same mpg as MT's, but what happens is that the auto's fall below the EPA est, and the MT's beat the EPA. I have reviewed post #636. The forum host does not permit contributors to question the authenticity of the information in other posts. Accordingly, I cannot respond in a fashion which would be consistent with the forum host's direction.

    To reiterate - - - based on the information provided on this website, 32 mpg is the tops, absolute maximum mpg which can actually be achieved on any 2002 or later camry, and even that is unique. It was the one, sole instance in which someone got 600+ miles on the camry at 18.2+ refill (thought is was you, dudlyer, but maybe not - I didn't check, but perhaps you will).

    I do know, from my experience with my own camry, renting 8 other camrys, and talking to 10+ people with camrys where I work, that this car is incapable of achieving 30 mpg in "real world" driving, where the volume of gas is accurately measured. I'm not talking about driving 75 or 80 mph either. I mean, for me, no more than 65 mph, constant speed, no unusuals in driving conditions or driving or weight load or weather, or wind. The top end for typical mpg on this car is 28 mpg. Not more. 25-26 mpg is the low end. Even lower (<25 for the 2008-2009). It is not my belief. It is my experience and knowledge.

    I have not, as recently queried, driven as low as 55 mph - I did do a test at 61 mph and got something slightly above 29 mph if memory serves, but not 30. My tires are, by coincidence - also set at 40# cold.

    I have not tried synthetic of that specification.

    I have, recently, pumped the tires up to 40# cold.

    On topic, I just turned 493.4 miles on 18.456 gallons (plus fumes) in MIXED DRIVING (25% city, by miles).

    26.733853 mpg.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    This is really getting old.

    I don't buy one person getting over 30 mpg. There have been many people here that have reported well over 30 mpg many times. I think there is only 1 person that gets below 30 mpg in a 4 cyl Camry on pure highway.

    30 mpg is bottom of the barrel for highway mpg for any Camry of any year with any transmission. Now if you call 80, 5 mile trips on the highway "highway driving" then you will not get good numbers. Fill up, drive 400+ miles on the highway and fill up again and 30 mpg will be a distant bad memory.

    Now for a Sienna 30 mpg is tough to achieve (but doable), but in a 4-cyl Camry it is a piece of cake.

    I strongly suggest those that can't get 30 mpg buy a scangauge II. The cost of $169 is way less then productivity lost by complaining about mpg. This tool will teach you how to drive efficienty and will show you were mileage is lost. For example it takes an extremely small amount of city driving to bring down mpg on a trip. The scangauge will pay for itselft shortly.

    This constant denial of the high mpg that most can attain is pointless. Those with low mpg (if there are more than 1) need to pinpoint the problem, and short of having somebody there to see what the issues are a Scangauge is the solution.

    I will wholeheartedly agree on one point. The manual transmission is more efficient than the AT despite what they EPA may say.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    I was reluctant to do this because I have gone over it so many times in other forums, but here goes.

    If one goes 493 miles with 25% city that means about 370 miles are highway and 123 are city. Real world city mpg of 18 mpg (may be much lower in real congested areas) would result in 6.8 gallons used for city driving, that leaves 11.65 gallons for highway driving. 370 miles divided by 11.65 gives 31.7 mpg, so it looks like 30 mpg is certainly attainable.

    The actual highway numbers are probably better as any stops/starts in that 370 miles would bring the number down. Also averaging less than 18 mpg for the city portion would bring up the highway portion. Was this 493 miles in one day? If not the highway portion would again be considerably higher as the engine wastes energy getting up to operating temp.

    Congrats on getting over 30 mpg - who knew!
  • Relative to the EPA estimate, manual shift of anything is WAY, WAY more efficient than an automatic.

    Post #636 quantifies the difference between two Camrys with the same motor, one manual, one auto. WAY WAY more is defined as approx 1.5mpg by the best information available on this forum.

    To reiterate - - - based on the information provided on this website, 32 mpg is the tops, absolute maximum mpg which can actually be achieved on any 2002 or later camry, and even that is unique

    Post #636 also quantifies nearly 7000 miles of driving an automatic, 2005 Camry which AVERAGED some 33 mpg during that time.

    The following is a partial list of posters to this forum who have achieved a UNIQUE result greater than 32 mpg, nearly all of them with an automatic.

    Westside, leob1, lunarmist, geezer55, 210delray, phd, gardner5236, solara6, lpage1, njerald, fatrap,tuffy, etc etc.

    For the record I would note that once we have more than 1, they are no longer unique.

    I do know, from my experience with my own camry, renting 8 other camrys, and talking to 10+ people with camrys where I work, that this car is incapable of achieving 30 mpg in "real world" driving

    Would you like to disavow your highway mileage datapoint of 33 mpg contained in Post #26?
  • I think there is only 1 person that gets below 30 mpg in a 4 cyl Camry on pure highway.

    Being dispassionate in my search for the truth on Camrys, consider me an equal opportunity defender of the data.

    The following are some of the posters who have reported <30mpg on the highway. PhD is not included on this list because he has claimed a 33 mpg datapoint in Post #26.

    andrelaplume, imacil, motownusa, quill, dmtucker, toyotatoys, lalit, glanwin, etc etc Some are undoubtedly 6 cylinders, but they nearly average 30mpg anyway so I felt it reasonable to include everyone with <30 mpg.
  • kiawahkiawah Posts: 3,666
    Guys,
    There is no reason to argue over this. It is clear, that different vehicle/driver/location characteristics matter (in some way), and yield different MPG for their owners. For all we know, it could be a sensor out of tolerance, an AC compressor creating drag on the engine, a vehicle w/brake pads dragging, an ECM software settings that got whacked up, or probably any number of problems.

    Your mileage is what it is. You check and do the obvious things, and then you live with the results. It's a hunk of metal, if you don't like it...get rid of it and get something else you'll be happier with.

    I can easily appreciated how frustrating it would be, if one cared about the mpg they got and couldn't figure out why their vehicle wasn't there. I've thought about phd's situation, and although I could easily understand how one particular vehicle didn't get rated mileage....can't explain why a group of ten or however many friends he has nobody gets some arbitrary number (unless it's "in the gas", or altitude). I think if I had 10 folks who all got a particular number, I'd think the same thing.

    I personally don't care what my mpg is, I didn't buy it for the cost of fuel, I bought it for the safety and reliability for a new driver. I have my share of gas hog vehicles, and mpg is an interesting number....but not something I would use to make a purchase decision on. I am lucky that financially I don't have to worry about the cost of fuel in this stage of life.

    So let's be civil about this, report the data as it is, refrain from making claims about whether somebody can or can't achieve some number...and move on. I have no axe to grind with Toyota, nor any allegiance (my first ever Toyota in 40 years of buying, driving, and maintaining our vehicles). Troy's work on collecting and reporting on the data was great. Anybody visiting the site can get a summary of many users worth of data, and understand the range of mileage that they might get.

    As with the stock market.....prior performance is no guarantee of the future.
    So lets move on, life is too short to quibble about variances in MPG.

    Group hug.........well, go hug your kids/spouse/significant other.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Excellent post, kiawah, very well said. Thank you.
  • All city driving averaging 26 mpg over the first three tankfuls
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    Trip was Indiana to New Hampshire to NYC to Indiana. Total miles: 2422.7 About 1500 miles was pure freeway, cruise typically set at 70 +/- 2 mph. GPS reported average driving speed of 65-66 on the way out. Last day (480 miles) avg speed was 67.8. The rest of the miles were mixed: mostly highway but some two lane country (35-50) and some city.

    Total gallons used 84.1 for an overall average mpg of 28.82. The all-highway tanks were tightly grouped at 29.54 (384 miles), 29.53 (543 miles with a 6 gal partial fill at $4.40/gal!!!), and 29.62 (426 miles). The 426 mile tank still showed almost 1/4 full and took 14.4 gallons which is about right considering the 18.5 gallon capacity.

    Needless to say, I am ecstatic with this mileage. This is 1.3 mpg better than a very similar trip 2 years ago when the car only had about 12K miles on it. I attribute most of the improvement to slightly slower speeds (I used to set the cruise at 74-75) and maybe a little to a more broken in engine.
  • Total gallons used 84.1 for an overall average mpg of 28.82. The all-highway tanks were tightly grouped at 29.54 (384 miles), 29.53 (543 miles with a 6 gal partial fill at $4.40/gal!!!), and 29.62 (426 miles).

    Your numbers sit right on the mean for a V6 Camry on the highway.
Sign In or Register to comment.