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

1383941434458

Comments

  • 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: 3,407
    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: 3,407
    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.
  • 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: 3,407
    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: 3,407
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.