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

1252628303139

Comments

  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    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.

    just a few points:

    a) when the gage shows 1/4 full, there is about 3-3.5 gallons left, not 4.625 (18.5/4)
    b) three tankfuls still is not much for a moving average, especially when there is such a huge error in refill on all camrys. It's hard to tell if the highway tanks were contiguous, or "picked out" among other city tanks. There may be even more error. You could have got 29.x, but since there are so few tanks (3) and its not clear that these are contiguous, there's no way to tell.
    c) 1.3 mpg betterment is well within the range of error for three tankfuls. I wouldn't make too much of this.
    d) I know that there is a belief, perhaps from the lower EPA estimate, that a V6 is less efficient than a V4, but that's not supported by what is posted on this website, including your post.
    Conversely, Manual Transmissions are far more efficient (in terms of real world mileage), than are Automatic Transmissions. The MT's just aren't that common, or popular, in the USA.
    e) congradulations on your fantastic fuel efficiency.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    I would guess there are much more than 3 gallons left @ 1/4 tank. Maybe about 3 left when the light comes on.

    I think the data from this site shows the 4 cylinder to be more efficient.

    Toyota does not make a V4.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    " 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! "

    Well - I think this is about me - and no - real world driving is not generally 500 miles a day (or what is that? 177,000 miles a year?) real world mixed driving is a few day trips, and some citiy driving. I don't make too much of it. I was reporting a single tank, and you know those issues with a single tank; who the heck knows where it was when you filled it up, or topped it off? If you assume 18 mpg city, its one thing, if not, its another, and, to be honest, I don't have a means to get the exact proportion of city miles at least in terms of how "pure" they were. But the freeway trips were few (like 2 or 3), so I assume the rest is some kind of "city". Based on what I know, I would assume that, in this case, the city driving was better than 18 mpg, and that explains the higher mixed mileage - if one wants to make anything about a single tank at all. The other independent line of evidence is that you could put the car on cruise control and drive it to the end of the earth at 65 mph, and you will get no more than about 28 mpg, and that's only with a few pit stops. It can vary quite a bit up and down around that 28 mpg (if you even get there), due to the fuel refill scenario I've pointed out....but once you get to 1,500-2,000 miles, those "amazing" 33's and 34's (or 40+'s, if you fill up every 250 miles), get weeded out in the running average.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    "#846 of 847 .. by dudleyr Jul 24, 2008 (7:53 pm)
    I would guess there are much more than 3 gallons left 1/4 tank. Maybe about 3 left when the light comes on.

    I think the data from this site shows the 4 cylinder to be more efficient.

    Toyota does not make a V4. "

    Reading or trying to authenticate mileage off a gas gage is not advisable. There is, in my experience, about 3-3.5 gallons at the 1/4 mark, about 6.5 gallons left at the 1/2 mark, and about 10.5 gallons left at the 3/4 mark. When full, there is (no surprise) 18.5 gallons +/- a few hundredths, but not anything like 19 gallons. The check gas light comes on shortly after it goes below the 1/4, at which point there seems to be pretty close to 2.5 gallons in the tank. Why the movement varies is unclear, but the impression that is given is that you get great mileage in the first 1/4 - 1/2 of the tank but you really don't. I suppose it's great positive reinforcement for those people who underfill on their 1/2 tank trips, and say they got 200 miles on a 1/4 tank (and they did, it took them 8 gallons to do it), but it's not very accurate, especially when the pump shuts off 3 gallons short of full.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the V6 auto turned out to be more efficient than a 4cyl. I don't think the reports show its less at all. It does surprise me indeed.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Why assume your city mpg is better than what Consumer Reports carefully measured (~18 mpg) when they tested the car and at the same time say the highway mileage they achieved is unobtainable (mid 30's). I would swag that your 25% city was actually worse than 18 mpg and your highway portion higher than the 32 I calculated. I was just being conservative.

    FWIW back in 1999 when CR ran their highway test at 55 mph still they got 42 mpg with a 4-cyl Camry. They now run the test at 65 mph.

    The target keeps moving. We are talking about pure highway mileage, not an everyday commute/routine. No two people define city driving the same so it is not that relevant to compare. Highway mileage can be compared if the pertinent factors are listed. That is why we are mostly discussing highway mileage here. So how many trips are in a tank of gas - that is a relevent question. A tank of gas can be all highway, but if it is 100 4 mile trips your mileage will be terrible as the engine will never be warm, and cold engines do not run efficiently.

    BTW the water temp is a poor indicator of engine temp - it shows water temp, which heats up much to quickly. Oil temp is a better indicator.

    I actually think your recent tank is quite good considering it is a bunch of day trips with some city driving. Get that thing out on the highway and see what it can do for mpg. You will be suprised.

    Did you get the scangauge yet? ;)
  • lmacmillmacmil Posts: 1,756
    Fyi, the highway tanks were fillups #1-3 (#2 was a 5.9 gal add since I was unwilling to fill up at $4.40/gal) and #7 & #8 (5.8 gal at home to calculate the final mileage).

    I believe the gas gage is optimistic (i.e., more than 1/4 of the actual tank volume at 1/4 gage reading) rather than pessimistic. Otherwise, people would run out of gas a lot more often than they do. My low fuel light doesn't come on until I'm below 1/8 tank on the gage but I do agree that there are about 2.5 gal left at this point.

    On the rare occasions I have filled up at the 1/2 mark, I have never gotten much more than 10 gallons in.

    I'm very happy with my mileage, whether real or imagined ;)
  • I would guess there are much more than 3 gallons left 1/4 tank. Maybe about 3 left when the light comes on.

    When the light came on in both my 2005 auto and my current 2007 manual, it takes approximately 15.5 gallons to fill the tank.

    So there is certainly more than 3.0 gallons in the tank when the gauge is showing 1/4 full.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    are not universally accurate to the tenth of a gallon by any means, even to a gallon. FAR from it, they don't really tell us anything reliable about how much gas has been used nor how much is left in the tank. We all know how to measure those things and the gas gauge is not a useful method.

    Could we just report our actual MPG with relevant details and skip the arguing, please?!!
  • I wouldn't be surprised if the V6 auto turned out to be more efficient than a 4cyl. I don't think the reports show its less at all. It does surprise me indeed.

    61 4 cylinder Camry highway datapoints reported in this forum, with an average mileage of 31.7mpg.

    32 total 6 cylinder Camry datapoints in the forum with an average of 29.3 mpg.

    The 4 cylinders are, on average, 2.4mpg better than the V6's.

    Current differences according to the EPA sticker is about a 3mpg difference, advantage to the 4 cylinder.

    Camry forum rules! :shades:
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    There are no "data" on this forum; they are posts of mpg based largely on individual tanks, of which the error is huge. The "data" would consist of a continuous record of actual gas purchases, and the odometer readings, over time. Thus, the information provided on this website is analogous to people reporting what they made on good days on the stock market, versus their actual yield since the beginning of the year. People tend to be more likely to report the good days, and the good mpg's, and not report the "in betweens". Absent a continuous record, there is no way to entirely eliminate this bias.

    If you take the reports in which there are actual multiple consecutive tanks, and consider the authenticating information in the post, such as odometer readings and/or fuel volumes, you will find no significant difference between 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engines. Imacmil is an example of an owner whose 6 cylinder vehicle clearly and authentically matches the efficiency of a 4 cylinder camry (i.e., 26-28 mpg, generally).

    The quality of the information provided varies across posts, and, from extensive review of the posts - it is clear that most of the high mpg's (i.e., above 28 mpg), and nearly all of the extremely high mpg's (i.e., above 32 mpg) are the result of individual tanks. One exception to this is Troy, which I attribute to the fact that he has a manual transmission.
  • There are no "data" on this forum; they are posts of mpg based largely on individual tanks, of which the error is huge. The "data" would consist of a continuous record of actual gas purchases, and the odometer readings, over time. Thus, the information provided on this website is analogous to people reporting what they made on good days on the stock market, versus their actual yield since the beginning of the year. People tend to be more likely to report the good days, and the good mpg's, and not report the "in betweens". Absent a continuous record, there is no way to entirely eliminate this bias.

    Interesting. Here is my comment. Of course we have "data", because it doesn't live up to some arbitrary standard does not disqualify it. It might be "noisier" than we would like, but it is OUR data.

    I would also venture that bias is not unidirectional, and if such bias is equally weighted, the mean answer DOES NOT CHANGE. The standard deviation does, but not the mean. So, given a random sampling here on the mileage forums, it would be reasonable to assume we have random bias, some optimistic, some pessimistic. This does not change the mean answer.

    I would also note that after reviewing all EPA sticker mileage for Camrys going back to the 1994 body style, the differences noted on this forum between 6 and 4 cylinders for the highway component are similar, and the numbers themselves strike amazingly close to the EPA's overall highway answer for these 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders engines.

    I would consider this a test of our basic answer, within the bounds of what we have to work with of course.
  • tpi10dtpi10d Posts: 6
    I was driving on hwy 93 in Nevada (04 Camry 4cyl AT)-elevation 5500 ft, air temp 90-95 degrees 65 MPH, light wind, windows up- AC recirc. Fuel economy was 40 MPG per scangauge over 100 mile distance.

    Best MPG I've seen at 65 MPH cruise. I attribute it to the nearly 9000 ft. density altitude- and resultant significant reduction in air drag.

    I can remember this well from riding a motorcycle in high elevations- there was much less wind drag on my chest compared to sea level.
  • kiawahkiawah Posts: 3,666
    tpi,

    Have you calibrated your scangauge, to both distance traveled (via gps) and fuel consuption (multiple fillups)?
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    If a particular poster feels that the "data" here is irrelevent, then one wonders why that poster continues to offer said data.
  • tpi10dtpi10d Posts: 6
    >>
    Have you calibrated your scangauge, to both distance traveled (via gps) and fuel consuption (multiple fillups)?
    >>

    Yes on both counts. I still won't offer the scangauge reading as completely factual - but the takeaway point from this is clear: The fuel economy of my car improves in 65 MPH cruise in hot thin-air conditions. With any and all inaccuracies in testing, I can say with confidence the fuel mileage @ 65 MPH, level ground, 5000' elevation, 90 degree temps, on my car is much closer to 40 MPG than to 30 MPG.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    "If a particular poster feels that the "data" here is irrelevent, then one wonders why that poster continues to offer said data."

    I'm not sure who dudleyr is talking about; I didn't say the "data" here are irrelevant, I said that the information here is not "data". It is relevant to talk about, because what is reported here is subject to biases due to incomplete refill which are enlarged when gas volumes are low, discontinuous measurements, selective reporting (i.e., only higher calculated mpg's), lack of ability to authenticate, and various other sources of bias towards reporting of high mpg's..

    The other thing that seems to be talked about, alot, is the feeling that a camry a) routinely achieves 30 mpg; and b) a camry is capable of achieving extraordinary efficiencies of 35+ mpg.

    I respectully submit that: (a) does not happen - on a routine basis; and that (b) has never, ever happened, anywhere, by any 2002-2008 camry in existence (with an automatic transmission).

    26-28 mpg is what a camry gets, and that's it.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    "I would guess there are much more than 3 gallons left 1/4 tank. Maybe about 3 left when the light comes on.

    When the light came on in both my 2005 auto and my current 2007 manual, it takes approximately 15.5 gallons to fill the tank.

    So there is certainly more than 3.0 gallons in the tank when the gauge is showing 1/4 full."

    The operative word being "approximately": You probably didn't completely top off the tank. I get 16 gallons in when the light first comes on, and have done this dozens of times in my car, and several times, in other camrys. It is 2.5 gallons left when the light first comes on, almost right on the money.
  • I said that the information here is not "data". It is relevant to talk about, because what is reported here is subject to biases due to incomplete refill which are enlarged when gas volumes are low, discontinuous measurements, selective reporting (i.e., only higher calculated mpg's), lack of ability to authenticate, and various other sources of bias towards reporting of high mpg's..

    Talking about data quality and bias is a completely reasonable topic. For some reason, you focus on issues which you have decided only give artificially HIGH results. What about all the reasons included in this data which give artificially LOW results? Remember, bias exists in both directions, and a random distribution of bias means you still end up at the same answer.

    Lets start with the basics, dirty air filters, low tire pressures, a hole in someone's gas tank, people who drive their automatic with 2 feet, dragging emergency brakes or poorly functioing regular brake system, improperly functioning transmission ( common in more modern Camrys ) general warranty issues which go unfixed and affect efficiency, wheel bearings, CV boot issues, etc etc.

    So there are as many reasons, some might venture MORE, for why a normal Camry reported mileage should be LESS than it is...and I'm sure we have some of those issues reported here, demonstrated by people who took their car in and demanded it be "fixed" by the dealer when it doesn't give them the results they expect.

    And my 2005 2AZ-FE auto tranny Camry regularly returned 33 mpg, check out post #636 for the odometer readings, mileage, gallons, wind, weather and load. Not exceptional at all, and verified by the data here in the forum, as well as the EPA.
  • "So there is certainly more than 3.0 gallons in the tank when the gauge is showing 1/4 full."

    The operative word being "approximately": You probably didn't completely top off the tank. I get 16 gallons in when the light first comes on, and have done this dozens of times in my car, and several times, in other camrys. It is 2.5 gallons left when the light first comes on, almost right on the money.

    Why do you assume something is wrong? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

    Your numbers and mine sounds like it is perfectly within reason for 2 different Camrys. And of COURSE when the gauge is on 1/4 of a tank I have more than 3 gallons, I know this because my light comes on well below the 1/4 of a tank mark, and it takes some driving, some more driving, and then some more driving to get it there, and I certainly wasn't using air as fuel during the time and miles it took to get from the 1/4 tank mark to the light coming on.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    "The other thing that seems to be talked about, alot, is the feeling that a camry a) routinely achieves 30 mpg; and b) a camry is capable of achieving extraordinary efficiencies of 35+ mpg.

    I respectully submit that: (a) does not happen - on a routine basis; and that (b) has never, ever happened, anywhere, by any 2002-2008 camry in existence (with an automatic transmission). "

    We really need an icon with a car rolling its eyes.

    So people that get 35+ mpg are lying? At least the bar has been raised at one time it was "impossible" for any Camry to get 30 mpg on the highway. ;)

    I wonder how many pure highway (not even 5 miles of city) tanks it takes a person to reach a conclusion about everybody elses Camrys? :confuse:

    phd86 - How is the scangauge install going? Let us know how it helps.
  • caazcaaz Posts: 203
    if dudley or phd, live with 800 miles or so from calif or Arizona... i'll drive my 03 camry to thier area... go for a 200 mile drive @ 60 pmh and show them i can get well over 35 mpg, just to shut them up... i cant believe they doubt so often... o.k. you two... any takers?....lemme know.

    Later caaz
  • tpi10dtpi10d Posts: 6
    >>

    The other thing that seems to be talked about, alot, is the feeling that a camry a) routinely achieves 30 mpg; and b) a camry is capable of achieving extraordinary efficiencies of 35+ mpg.

    >

    a) If the speed is between 40 and 75 mph, no net elevation gain, light winds, mild to warm temps, and few brake applications- it is trivially easy to get 30+ MPG on a late model 4 cylinder Camry.

    b) Efficiencies in excess of 35 MPG are not extraordinary for a car this size/weight under optimal conditions (60 mph cruise, light wind, mild temps, few brake applications). In fact I'd expect similar configured fwd cars to achieve the same fuel economy. A four cylinder Accord would be the most directly comparable. There are reports of mid 30's fuel economy out of GM FWD V6 vehicles at steady low cruise speeds. The efficiency of the Camry is competitive and first rate, but not extraordinary.
  • phd86phd86 Posts: 110
    " i'll drive my 03 camry to thier area... go for a 200 mile drive 60 pmh and show them i can get well over 35 mpg, just to shut them up... i cant believe they doubt so often..."

    Well -

    a) unless you have a manual transmission, you aren't going 35 mpg in any automatic camry. If you do, like Troy's manual, you might.

    b) 200 miles driving of trying to "hypermile" at 60 mph doesn't show anything due to gross errors in refill volume of such a short trip; and you wouldn't be able to get "well over 35 mpg" in that or any other situation. The claims here are made for people going 65-70 mph and getting 30, 35, or 40 in routine driving. Sure, you might come up with an "apparent" 30 or 35 in one tank, but that isn't the true mileage. I don't put any stock whatsoever in a 200 mile drive, so no thanks. Now, if you were to drive 5,000 consecutive miles (mostly freeway, not throwing out the lower mpg tank records)- and keep the records (odometer readings, every receipt of gas), and show 35 mpg, then that's another story. But claiming something on 200 miles is not a true test of "real world" mpg.

    Lots of people drive 90% freeway - but none of them claim such long term high mileages as their average mpg. What people do claim is that every once in a while they calculate on single tankful that they get thirty this and that.

    c) I'm not "doubting" - I am making a statement of fact, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, so does a camry get 26-28 on pure freeway. Perhaps a little more (or less, if you are so unlucky to have bought those 5 speed automatics), but not much. Maybe 32 on a pale minority of a few vehicles, and that's a rarity, attributed to some factor about those particular cars that has yet to be identified. But not 35, and not 40 mpg. Not on an automatic.
  • tpi10dtpi10d Posts: 6
    >c) I'm not "doubting" - I am making a statement of fact, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, so does a camry get 26-28 on pure freeway.

    Much closer to trolling than a statement of fact.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    caaz

    Please read my posts. I know the Camry can get 40 mpg and 35 is a piece of cake. No need to convince me. :shades:
  • fact: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened;

    I'm not "doubting" - I am making a statement of fact, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, so does a camry get 26-28 on pure freeway.

    Based on the information contained within this forum, you are doing no such thing, as all independantly available information has shown to date. Your statement doesn't even apply to 6 cylinder Camrys for that matter.

    speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

    Strikes me as a little closer to the definition of whats been going on.
  • caazcaaz Posts: 203
    re #B......... ive listed MORE than 5,000 miles of records here....and yes... IT IS routine driving for me... I do the drive twice a week... fill up exactly the same way each time..and posted all my findings... they equal out well over 35 mpg at the 65 to 70 you think is proper criteria... i listed almost 15,000 miles of my drives... id say that makes for a pretty accurate...non 200 mile jaunt, set of facts thats absolutely states that my 03 camry indeed gets well over 35 mpg. you asked for 5k worth.. i tripled it and posted results... . It will get over 35 all day... everyday..until i break 75 mph. And it really appears that troys manual does even better when i compare his notes. I did 850 miles a week for 17 or 18 weeks to substantiate my findings, until a few in here said enough already...we've heard enough... then i stopped posting.. but almost 4 months worth of findings proves an 03 AUTOMATIC will indeed do what you wont believe.

    i guessed yopu missed the posting when i tested my wifes much heavier 06 Sienna v6 and got 33.6 mpg... trust me.. my camry does much better than that and i gave you 17 records to prove it.

    P.S. Sorry Dudley, i re-read some of ur postings, its cool

    Later
    Caaz
  • 2007 Camry LE 4 cyl Auto.
    Averaged 36 mpg on Hwy driving only, at about 65mph. Yes, I tried it both ways (fill the tank up to the max vs stop at the first click). Both yielded similar results over a 1000+ miles total trip. Light wind, 4 adults and luggage, Tires at max psi as per manual (sorry I forget the amount - 36psi?)

    BTW, we haven't done the TSB to reprogram the engine/transmission yet (Jan '07 build).
  • 2007 Camry LE 4 cyl Auto.
    Averaged 36 mpg on Hwy driving only, at about 65mph.


    I shall add your numbers to the database. They sound pretty good.
  • In 15,000 miles of Camry driving ( 2007, 2AZ-FE, 5-sp stick ) this is my second partial tank of ONLY city driving.

    I filled up on June 01, and Aug 05. I drove 270.4 city miles in that time. Fillup to 1st click was 9.7 gallons, fuel at the neck was 10.00.

    27.0 mpg, no trip longer than 10 miles, most <5 miles. All warm summer weather ( I've noticed seasonal variation in the 2005 2AZ-FE auto before, but have not quantified seasonal variation yet in the 2007 ).
Sign In or Register to comment.