Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
Looking to reduce cost!
Have you taken it to a dealership and had them tell you which sensor is throwing the code to the CEL?
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.
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.
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).
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
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 ).
For 2007 Camry 26 to 30 MPG with same driving conditions and style. I do use Scan Gauge for both the cars.
Would you happen to have city mileage readings on these two Camrys as well?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
later caaz
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.
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.
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.
I am happy with the results.
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.
TTYSooon
later Caaz
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Got it. Another one in the books.
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
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.
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.
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.
But they do jive with just about everybody else.
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.
"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).
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 ).
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.