Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18058068088108111028

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Since the interior of the Camry has been slammed continously and Toyota knows it has to step it's game up I would think that would be a no-brainer but who knows. I would expect them to upgrade it but they do some strange things sometimes.

    I forgot about the Malibu because I don't think it's going to be on sale until spring next year and I may have a new vehicle by then. I like the new styling except for the "camaro" tail lights. They may look good in person but they remind of the Camaro a lot and I'm not real fond of the rear end of that car either. The drivetrains that have been described sound pretty interesting. Another car that I will take a good hard look at this fall will be the Buick Verano turbo.

    I'm a little put off by GM and it has nothing to do with political crap or loans etc. It just seems that new GM models have tons of recalls. They also spend so much time in development and tease so much that after the they arrive in US dealerships they look kind of old already. I used to be a pretty devoted GM buyer for about 25 years but the quality really faded in the 80s-90s and I jumped ship. It will take some good product to get me back.

    GM cars/trucks owned:
    1960 Chevy Biscayne
    1963 Pontiac Tempest
    1971 Pontiac Lemans
    1965 Buick LaSabre(paid $325 in 1975, had two years and sold for $350)
    1980 Chevy Malibu
    1984 Olds Cutlass
    1987 Olds Cutlass Ciera
    1987 Pontiac Bonneville
    1992 Pontiac Grand AM
    1993 Buick LaSabre Ltd.
    1995 Chevy S-10

    A few of these were actually company cars but I drove em for couple years each and maintained them so I count them in my "car owning" experience even though I didn't have to pay for them.

    Anyway, yeah, I'll check out the new Malibu even if I already purchase something. Don't we all? ;)
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Reply to self.

    The 1965 Buick was an Electra 225, not a LaSabre. Had a 455 engine and flew. What a boat.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,700
    Since the interior of the Camry has been slammed continously and Toyota knows it has to step it's game up I would think that would be a no-brainer but who knows. I would expect them to upgrade it but they do some strange things sometimes.

    You would think so, but look at GM and C going 20+ years with crappy interiors before they got the message that it might be important to buyers! Honda has been getting slammed for declining interiors, yet the new Civic is worse than the previous one. I wonder if Toyota will slip more?

    GM has gotten the interiors message and has been improving in this area big time. They just need to get it together with reliability/mpg/power tradeoffs to be competitive. Perhaps the new Malibu will be a home run, as the previous one was a base hit after many years of pop flys.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Yeah, you're probably right. There's a better than even chance that any improvement in the interior from Toyota will be small at best. But after seeing what Chrysler, even moreso than GM, has done with it's interiors and in a very short time with new management there is hope. Maybe that's what Toyota needs......new management. :confuse:
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    Maybe a new management style is in order?

    Toyota deaf to outside advice?
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    (16-21mpg on prem. fuel)

    Try 19 avg 27 Highway on 87. Premium is not needed in the Ecoboost.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    That was what cars.com had for the all wheel drive model. Maybe premium is recommended but not necessary but they had just premium listed. I was comparing to all wheel drive Murano.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    If that's the case, I would be skeptical on what cars.com says then. The Ecoboost models do not require premium, it is recommended IF you want max performance out of it, but NOT required, so it should not be quoted as needing premium in these articles. In fact the jump to premium is so slight that to me it isnt worth the extra cost unless I plan to take it to a strip.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I'm a little skeptical of all the sites that list vehicle specs but they are usually easier to access the data quickly than going to the manufacturers site. I've seen errors like that at many websites including this one. Edmunds "comparator" used to be the best but now it is one of the worst since the revamp of the site. Cars.com has one similar to the old Edmunds but all are not perfect. Sometimes they say premium, sometimes premium recommended when "premium recommended" is actually the case. I stand corrected on the reference to the cars.com info then.

    MPG on the awd ecoboost is still EPA 16/21(per Ford's official site info) which is lower than I want especially when I don't need that much power in the first place.

    Try 19 avg 27 Highway on 87

    Don't know where you come up with those numbers. Even the standard 3.5L in the Flex front-wheel drive is EPA rated at 17/24(per Ford). I got 36mpg in my Mazda6 one trip but I certainly wouldn't come on here and say it gets 36mpg highway because in reality it most routinely gets about 32mpg hwy. I checked the Flex forum for real world mpg and none were getting 27mpg hwy except one post of yours for one 300 mile trip. CR reports a 17mpg average in their test. I know, I know CR is not the be all or end all but they do test cars in a very methodically manner for comparison purposes.

    I prefer to deal in EPA numbers for comparison purposes because I see many people complain that they can't get the EPA numbers and many others say they can beat them easily. The EPA numbers do seem to be a pretty good average.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    Try 19 avg 27 Highway on 87

    Don't know where you come up with those numbers.


    Those are my actual numbers. I own a 2010 Flex SEL EB, and those are my AVG MPG numbers. I have seen 27 MPG on long stretches of highway, as long as I'm not fighting a headwind, then it drops to 24. My daily commute consists of back country roads, which has a few stop signs(gas wasters), turns, and a couple 35 MPH stretches with lights(more gas wasters), so 19 is my overall avg. I would say that is VERY good considering how much I play with the giddyupgo peddle.

    In any case I am getting better than the rated EPA standards, but then again, I did put 50K+ miles on hybrids, and those I went well over the EPA ratings.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I'll stick with the EPA numbers for comparison purposes. Most vehicles if driven normally will meet or beat the EPA numbers. They got so beat up prior to the 2008 reality check that the revised numbers are fairly easy to beat unless you drive like a jackrabbit. It's really not anything special to any particular vehicle IMO.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    Just took our 2006 Fusion SEL V6 on a long road trip. Car has about 72,000 miles and with an average speed of 75MPH, and A/C on once in a while I was able to pull down almost 28MPG. This is now considered to be an "old" V6.. I was happy. :shades:
  • luckysevenluckyseven Posts: 134
    edited July 2011
    Few days ago I took 2011 Camry LE V6 with 1500 miles on the ODO, on a long trip. Had 4 adults and trunk full of luggage, A/C on all the time speed was about 75MPH+. Got 31.5 MPG. Waiting to see all new 2012 Camry soon.
  • ...yesterday and found it a pleasant car. Styling more understated than say a Sonata, and appears well made. Driving impressions are that it's very competetive with the others in the 4-door 4-cyl, low-to-mid-20K MSRP group that has gotten very crowded, but I wouldn't say it stands out. Acceleration seems about average for the group, which is weak but will be acceptable to most people for the price. Unfortunate that the 2.0T is not even an option. It may well be a completely different car with the 3.6. Certainly one to consider in this class. It appears that Volkswagen took aim at the CamCord and got there.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    When I need to rent a car, I usually rent a Camry, which gives me 30mpg overall. The Camry is an excellent car to rent, fuel efficient and comfortable. I was seriously thinking about the Camry as my next car. (Car shopping took my to Infiniti and wound up with a G37 however, even though I'm a BMW guy.)

    The last time I rented however, I chose a Sonata, which was a 2011 model. In my next post I'll go through my impressions of it, I had it for three weeks so had an opportunity to really be with the car. The car would not have made my short list.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    Click me!

    An ugly blend of TSX, Forte, and Corolla, all rolled into another coma-inducing Buick-wannabe.

    Fail... Again...
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,218
    Even the interior shot of the IP is gross. Yuck.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    Agreed, fugly. Your comment on the Buick, funny, one of the images had a link to great prices on 2011 Buicks.
  • gooddeal2gooddeal2 Posts: 749
    Actually, I think the outside is better than the current generation but the inside seems to be a mess.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    edited August 2011
    These are poor quality pictures. I'll wait to see better ones before I decide. Lot of Camry haters "in here" versus "out there" and would say the same if the car looked great. Based on what I do see in these pics it doesn't appear the exterior has been made much better or worse...just different. The exterior and drivetrain never bothered me as much as it bothered a lot of people. The interior is where they really needed to step up their game and it's hard to tell if quality stuff is present and the pics don't really give a good view IMO. Have to wait for better pics and touchy feely to pass judgement.
Sign In or Register to comment.