I own a 1995 Camry LE and a 2004 Sienna XLE Limited. I was traveling in the Camry at 75mph and I switched lanes frequently and I bounced everywhere making me feel unsafe. My Sienna felt more stable but I have not gotten to those speeds do to Break-in. Maybe not a fair comparison but I was just saying.
Never did I say I was comparing my old Camry to the new Camry. In fact, I have a strong feeling the new Camry is way better than mine.
In fact, I am planning to eventually buy my 4th Toyota. A Camry SE V6 or XLE V6, Avalon XLS or Limited, or even the ES330.
I don't have the chance to fill up at the same pump every time, or even the same station (living in Manhattan means you fill up whenever you go out of town and find yourself in a place that has cheap gas prices).
But today I put in 9.5 gal after going 288 miles since the last fillup. That's just over 30 mpg, mostly highway. I realize this isn't anywhere close to controlled testing conditions, but considering the car has less than 2000 miles on it and the mpg should increase, I'm more than satisfied.
(BTW, I then drove 166 miles home and the needle was exactly on 3/4 full when I arrived. If that was accurate that would mean over 35 mpg, all highway. But I'm sure it's not. You can't trust the fuel gauge.)
A) When this originally came up, I tried to start a mileage thread for sedans (there is one for minivans, I believe) but the host decided not to.
Again, I don't put any stock in any of the MPG estimates from single tankfuls; the variation in where people "top off" the tank, and in how the pumps shut off, results most often in underfilling of the tank and overestimation of actual MPG. I've done some tests on this and have found that most pumps shut off with about 0.8-1.5 gallons of space left in the tank. If you were as little as 0.8 gallons under, you would have used 10.3 gallons to go your 288 miles (of pure freeway driving), which gives 28 mpg, not 30.
As several have already mentioned on this thread, more accurate MPG is achieved through several tankfuls and continuous recording of mileage. None of these have achieved 30 MPG on the camry.
C) on your 1/4 tank test, this is the least accurate...my gauge does that too (i.e., yields alot of miles in the first quarter of the guage reading)...and when I checked it had used ~6 gallons in the first quarter mark of the gauge, which gives an mpg of about 28 mpg (166/6) for your car.
D) I've heard that "mileage will go up" a couple times - but without a logical explanation of why that should occur. If someone can explain it, please post.
I base my rumor and innuendo of rising gas mileage on what I read about the computer that control the fuel injection on various newsgroups. I have never read anything official from Toyota.
The theory goes that as the computer adapts to your style of driving, it learns to adjust to fule requirements more efficiently, resulting in higher gas mileage.
It seems like there are milestones (pun intended) at 1000 miles, 5000 miles, and 7500 miles. There may be others.
I can not prove that these are facts, but I will defend to your death, my right and that of others, to spread these rumors ... or something to that effect.
If someone has official Toyota collateral, I will change my story to accommodate the facts.
I had not received anything "official" from Toyota saying that the mileage would go up after 5000 or 7500 miles. Several people from the dealership told me this would happen (both my salesman and a few people in the service department).
And in my experience, they were right.... my mileage *did* go up particularly after 7500 miles.
Once again, if all (or even most) pumps consistently shut off at the same level, it doesn't matter if it's below full, exactly full or even above full (if that's possible). As long as it's consistent from one tank to the next you still are going to know exactly how many gallons you used to go the distance you drove. That's why the only caveat I included was the fact that I don't fill up at the same pump. But hey, who knows really...
The mileage increasing over time is something I've heard anecdotally from quite a few Camry owners, but not from Toyota. It makes sense if you consider that there is a break-in period.
When this originally came up, I tried to start a mileage thread for sedans (there is one for minivans, I believe) but the host decided not to.
I don't remember that specifically. There was a discussion here for a very long time on mileage, maybe I referred you there? Or did you make it specific to one model?
In any case, the old one moved itself into the archives some time ago and it's probably pretty stale now. Feel free to start a new sedans mileage discussion here! Let's keep it to sedans in general, though - we can't support a separate mileage topic for each vehicle under discussion. Email me if you have any questions.
I had a 93 Camry LE and can confirm that quick lane changes can induce instability, out of my own experience, while driving non-agressively at about 65-70MPH.
In my situation, the car's front end was oscillating from right to left, with the front struts traveling their entire ranges. The car was skidding and fishtailing for about 30 seconds until it regained stability and tracked straight. I felt it was almost rolling over!
Toyota dealers suggested the main cause was worn struts, coupled with FWD design, in which the front tires have to do both driving and steering!
I immediately installed 4 new Japanese gas struts. The car's instability was scary enough that I do not wish to repeat the same incident.
If you have ever been behind a car with a wheel that appears to be attached to a pogo stick, it's a sure sign of a bad strut. The wheel will actually come up off the ground when it hits a bump. I've seen this on many cars while travelling the freeway, and I can tell you, neglecting a strut is one of the worst things you can do handling-wise. The main job of a strut is to keep the wheel in contact with the pavement. And yes, bad struts can make lane changes scary if not dangerous, especially in wet weather. Nose-diving during braking is another sign to look for. Okay, I'm off the soap box, sorry about that.
I have been driving Camry for last 15 years and traded it in for 2005 LE with all safety options. So far I have driven 2700 miles in about 5 weeks and I wanted to share the design issues that I found to my disliking. I wish Toyota paid better attention to the brake pedal design issue especially. The brake pedal arm gets in the way while braking. I wear a size 12 shoe and I found the front of my shoe (toes) going over the brake pedal arm which is located about 2 inches or so from the left edge of the brake pedal. You will immediately realize when this happens and relocate your foot on the pedal but you lose valuable time in the process. I thought it is just a question of getting used to but after 5 weeks I am still finding it difficult. Hope Toyota has a remedy to this and change the brake pedal arm design. Gop back to the old design. Second issue is with the cruise control. I wish it has an LED or something to indicate that Cruise is set. Instrument panel shows onlt that cruise is turned on. Third thing is that oiver the shoulder field of view is non-existent in this car. I am 6' tall and find this to be dificult. I have better view in my gigantic Odessey. I think this problem is a result of the backlite design to make it sporty and also the wide pillar between backlite and door that seems common on most of the cars. Just wanted to share.
exactly my point. manual beats auto on this car by about 20%.
your manual tranny 01 has the same mpg sticker as the automatic 04-05s we've been discussing. altho there have been a few posts about reaching 30 mpg on an individual tankful or so, nobody claims getting the 32-33.
my manual 92 still meets or beats its 22/29 mpg sticker at 270,000 miles and counting.
why did they remove the key hole in the passenger side door in every camry except the standard model in the 05 year?why are the side pockets not high enough to hold papers,etc.92-96 pockets were just right.
Disappointing mileage for new 4cyl auto for sure. I paged back a few and read up a bit. One of the biggest reasons we buy the 4 is GREAT MILEAGE to go along with the reliability and refinement. A Mineral Green Opal 2005 LE sounds good, but in the back of my mind I figured with the 'advanced' automatics I could get mileage equal to my 2001 5sp. At 28-30 max, a whole bunch of 6cyl models from various makers look good. PS...Went to the Redwoods last week (from Seattle). Quite a bit of rubbernecking and stopping, and drove up the coast on the way back. First refill 35.4, second 32. Also, ran on dirt for the first time. Around 6mi total, no dust or giant holes. The trees were heart thumpin' awesome!
I wear a size 13. The brake pedal seems fine in my estimate.
I don't really have a problem with the visibility either. If side view and rear view mirrors are properly adjusted, one need only see the blind area. I see the the blind area fine when turning my head.
exactley my point in case you need it.it comes in handy.not everyone wants keyless entry all the time.ever put it in your pocket and trip it by accident?c'mon toyota stop being so cheap.they seem to have cheapend the camry every year since 1994.they seem to have sent the camry by the wayside. or am i being to critical in comparison to other carmakers quality?
It isn't important. You can always get in through the drivers door in the rare case something goes wrong with one of the keyfobs or the battery dies. There is no key holes on the rear doors either. No big deal. Accidently tripping the remote keyfob has not been a problem and I never heard of anyone who uses the remote keyfobs preferring to use a key instead. This is a non-issue. If there was true demand for more key holes, more key holes would be supplied.
Our '01 Altima and our '03 Sentra both have no key hole in the front passenger door. Back in '01, I even went back to the dealers lot and looked at other Altima's and found the same thing. I reasoned that with the keyless entry, there wasn't a need for anything on the passengers door.
I currently lease an '04 Sienna & an '05 Camry. Both cars do something I find strange: On a long downhill at road speed, i.e. 60MPH, if I apply the brakes to slow down, the engine revs about 800 RPM.
I called my service facility and they told me this was "normal" and that the car is attempting to downshift. No other brand of car I have ever driven does this. At first, I thought it was a quirk of the Sienna but, apparently, all newer Toyotas do it. I have no idea why.
My guess is that the service people are right on; most electronically controlled automatics these days have a feature that causes them to shift to a lower gear on long downhill stretches to help with braking. This has been a feature of all of our recent cars [Honda Accords, Mercedes], and while our last Camry was a '92, I presume that Toyota has implemented this feature on the newer models.
Both the Honda and Mercedes software is actually pretty sophisticated; our C240 will also hold a lower gear on uphill stretches where you've been repeatedly accelerating and slowing down for corners - you don't have to do anything, it just gets 4th or 3rd [as appropriate, it's a 5 spd automatic] and holds it until it senses that you're back on the straight and level. This kind of thing is pretty universal among most imports I've driven over a certain price point [Audi, BMW, Acura, Lexus, etc.].
I think the computer set it down to neutral and conserve fuel consumption (VVT-i) I drive a 98 camry, at 60 mph the rmp is 2300 (D and in 4th gear) and the instance i release the gas pedal, the rmp is slightly over 2000, if you shift it to neutral, the rmp will drop to about 750 rmp at 60 mph, without pressing gas or brake petal! What I think many people say that there is hesitation (about 1 sec or less)in new toyota models like camry, highlander, sienna (5 speed auto), etc, is because the computer set it to neutral during braking and when the instant the driver need the sudden acceleration, it takes time (the 1 sec or less) to shifting back to 1 of the 5 gears. <-- Correct me if i am wrong about this concept!
it does not literally "shift to neutral". From my impression though, if you lift the gas pedal at lower speed (before the auto "lock" on the highest gear), japanese (toyota) auto seems to become loosely engaged that the rpm drop to below 1000 right away, while bmw etc. will hang tight to the current gear and keep the rpm high.
pro and con to that of course, don't know if others share the same observation.
I am not arguing anything, but to express my idea about low revs on 05 camry + 04 sienna from flyingfox! I dont actually own a car from toyota that has 5 speed auto. Here is my "uncertain" theory! My theory was that the newer version toyota want to conserve fuel, they program the computer to shift to neutral whenever brake apply... i did an experiment from the 98 camry. The only way to drop the the revs to 800 rpm @ 60 mph is to shift it to neutral! lower revs = lower fuel consumption! do you understand my point, alpha?
I do understand your point; what Im saying is that its in attempt to prove a statement that was never made. I think you might be misunderstanding the initial comment, which caused your confusion
What flyingfox said was "On a long downhill at road speed, i.e. 60MPH, if I apply the brakes to slow down, the engine revs about 800 RPM.".
This means that the engine revs INCREASE 800 RPM.
Flyingfox did not state that the revs go down to 800 RPM. Reread the posts. For the reasons mentioned by jrct9454, your assertion that the new automatic transmissions in Toyota shift into neutral is incorrect. And indeed, flyingfox is stating that revs increase, not drop down to 800RPM.
The hesitation that some people perceive is due to the drive by wire technology, the transmission's "think time, and the 2 or 3 gear kickdown from 5th to 3rd or 2nd for passing manuevers in certain situations.
Hi there, I got my 2005 Camry V6 recently. I have 2 questions:
1. What's the best time to change the 1st oil ? some people say 1000km, some people say following the manual( 6000km ). Which one is better ? Who knows whether the original oil filled by manufacture is the same as the dealer's "Toyota Genuine Motor Oil" ? or is it a special oil for the new car for the first run ? Is it worth to change to "Synthetic Motor Oil" for the 1st oil change?
2. Which gas (octane) should I use for my Camry V6 3.0L with 10.5:1 ? 87, 89 or 91 ?
Premium is recommended for best performance and fuel economy, but you will run just fine on regular from my understanding, and it would take a very discerning bottom to tell any difference in acceleration. The difference in fuel economy (greater with premium) is probably a wash against the higher fuel cost.
Your call.
Regardless of what the Owners manual, I am of the old school that best practice dictates oil changes every 3750 miles. (Changing your oil at that interval makes it easy to keep track of tire rotations every 7500 miles as well). Sorry, I'm a lazy American completely complacent with the English system, so you will have to convert those values.
Finally, If I am correct, the oil out of the factory is specially formulated for break-in, so I would personally not recommend switching it out until the 3750 mile mark.
I am looking for a used Camry and after reading hundreds of posts on this forum I am wondering what would make a better choice for me - the current or the previous generation of Camry. Their styles both look fine to me - no preferences there. My question is about the long-term driveability and dependability. If someone had experience with the previous generation Camry and now owns the most recent generation or drove both extensively, please voice your opinion on what would be a better used car buy as far as long-trip driving comfort and maintenance/repair costs/dependability are concerned. I own an old Honda Civic and so my expectations in this area are kind of high. Please help.
Thanks alpha01 ! What do you mean "break-in" in the last paragraph ? And for the 1st part about the gas, which one will good for engineer and good for money: regular(87) or premium(91) ? Thanks again !
Both Camry's are excellent and if they are well maintained, should provide many years of pleasant driving. My neighbour has a 2001 Camry XLE 4 cylinder. He loves it and it has given him no problems. I have a 2003 Camry XLE 4 cylinder and find it to be outstanding for the price, with no problems at all. Both cars are similar in appearance. The '03 version has a slightly larger engine with a chain drive (as opposed to a belt) which does not require changing. The trunk is larger. The most important thing to me would be the condition and mileage on the car you choose. If you can find one of the "creampuff" variety, then either car should perform well for you. I am 6' and 200 lbs. I really like the Camry seats(leather) and find the car to be quiet and very smooth. The JBL sound system makes Tina Turner come alive! Do I like it? You betchum! Good luck Alex.
is significantly slower, borderline lethargic, with the 4 cylinder engine. The 2001 is also slightly smaller inside, and less fuel efficient. If you have the cash, I think it would be worth your while to get the 2003- you'll have the newer, improved design as compared to the underpowered 2001, and you have a better chance of not having the first year bugs of the 2002.
Well, I don't know if I would go as far as to say the 2001 Camry 4 is underpowered. I recall picking one up at the Denver airport a couple years ago, loading all the family's stuff into it for a week-long vacation, and driving it up to 14,000 feet at Pike's Peak.
The car seemed to have so much pickup that I popped the hood to see if it was the V-6 (It wasn't).
I do agree, though, that the 2003 is a stronger and probably better car.
has had many leased an owned Camrys since 1987. Among them was a 97 Camry LE 4 held for 36,000 miles and a 2000 Camry LE 4 held for 39,000 miles. Over those 75,000 miles, the cars had adequate performance but no better. Compared to most other offerings in the price range, they were underpowered. Not unsafe, but not quick. Passing was ok, off line the cars were dogs.
The 4th gen 4 cyc camry (98 LE) does not have too impressive highway stability, the tire is only 195/70R14 (even new corolla LE has something similar 195/65R15), when a truck drive by, it literally drags you towards it, also the steering and suspension is a bit too light and soft, but it may seem comfy to some people! As far as the reliability, it is great, everything is still working, no failure (i think it should be as good on 2001s)! Just test drive both and choice the one you prefer more! I never drive a 2002+, but i think it should be a better on highway stability, fuel-economy, comfort, etc
We no longer have either the 97 or the 2000. The bump in hp for the 2000 model year was 3, to 136 hp, and a bump in torque to 150 foot lbs. That difference is too small to be felt through the seat of the pants.
sigh... another reading mistake... 138hp is the solara... 97-99 has 133 hp 00-01 has 136 hp 02-04 has 157 hp 05-06 has 157/160 hp, does not make much of a difference! i read from toyota.ca from spec page they states 160hp, from e-brochure states 157hp, from toyota.com, they agreed with each other that both are 160hp...
My name is Alex and I drive a 1998 Toyota Camry LE. I have the 2.2L 4-cylinder engine. My options on the car are:
- ABS - 14" Alloy Wheels - Fog Lamps - Rear Spoiler - Gold Package - Wood Dash Trim - An aftermarket CD player I put in (Pioneer) - Black Paint
At the time, this car MSRP for almost $24,000.
I now have 117,000 miles on it and here is what I have done to the car:
Initially, this car was my mom's. Her and I traded in July. I got it with 102,000 miles on it.
** NOTHING IN FIRST 90,000 MILES **
91,000 - New timing belt and new water pump 105,000 - New front brake pads 106,000 - Transmission drain/fill 109,000 - New battery 110,000 - New dual-electrode spark plugs, wires 112,000 - New serpentine belts (there are 2)
The only things this car needs is a new PCV valve, a fuel filter replaced (both for tune-up purposes), and new rotors and rear brakes (I am still on the originals!)
Also, this car has endured 10,000 miles of PIZZA DELIVERIES! I work as a pizza delivery guy, so a lot of accelerating, braking, stopping, starting. This car takes it all in stride!
So my point here is that the Camry is a great car that will LAST. My only dislike with the car is that it does drag/scrape when you come out of a downhill road onto a level road and when I have a full load of passengers over humps/bumps.
As far as power, I feel it could have better highway power, but around town is excellent. I get 28MPG delivering and 31MPG on the highway going 70+ MPH on cruise. The stability is okay, not the best - but I blame this on the 14" wheels.
I have driven the 2005 Camry LE V6 and WOW! The V6 is FAST (to me) and the car is quieter and smoother. However, I do like the comfort of my '98 better as the position seems better to me and I am 6'1.
So if you need power, go for any V6 Camry from '97 to now. The Gen 4 V6 has a stiffer suspension and bigger wheels for better handling/stability.
Also make sure that the '97-'01 Camry has its timing belt changed at 60,000 miles. That was the mistake my mom made by not changing it in time and it cost her belt and water pump.
I forgot to mention that the Gen 4 Camry is VERY solid.
When my dad put the car in the ditch almost 5 years ago, it went over a rock. In the process, all it did was bust the passenger side fog lamp and dent the lower bumper cover (which is plastic). It also damaged the right lower control arm. As a result, the alignment was all off, but I put a $75 used one on (came from a '97 rear-ender with 60K). So, basically, this car had a bent control arm for 80,000 miles - of course the tires didn't wear right.
Also, I was going down a road in the daytime at about 55MPH. All of a sudden a deer ran out in front of me, I didn't have time to stop. I hit it at about 45MPH. It was a doe. All it did was the dent the hood at the edge! It did NOT total the car. It did NOT bust out lights. It did NOT damage anything internally. I later found out the bumper ratings on the Gen 4 are GOOD, the Gen 5 are ACCEPTABLE. The metal in the hood is thick too.
Both cars, however, have EXCELLENT crash test results, but the Gen 4 has beefier bumpers.
These cars are strong and I just wanted to point that out.
I see a lot of Gen5's with bumpers that are caved in on the corners. Seems like if you hit it at the right spot it just kind of gives way and you wind up with an oval shaped indent.
Get rid of painted bumpers and just bring back those nice black rubber ones. If everyone had that it would be a lot easier.
Comments
I own a 1995 Camry LE and a 2004 Sienna XLE Limited. I was traveling in the Camry at 75mph and I switched lanes frequently and I bounced everywhere making me feel unsafe. My Sienna felt more stable but I have not gotten to those speeds do to Break-in. Maybe not a fair comparison but I was just saying.
Never did I say I was comparing my old Camry to the new Camry. In fact, I have a strong feeling the new Camry is way better than mine.
In fact, I am planning to eventually buy my 4th Toyota. A Camry SE V6 or XLE V6, Avalon XLS or Limited, or even the ES330.
But today I put in 9.5 gal after going 288 miles since the last fillup. That's just over 30 mpg, mostly highway. I realize this isn't anywhere close to controlled testing conditions, but considering the car has less than 2000 miles on it and the mpg should increase, I'm more than satisfied.
(BTW, I then drove 166 miles home and the needle was exactly on 3/4 full when I arrived. If that was accurate that would mean over 35 mpg, all highway. But I'm sure it's not. You can't trust the fuel gauge.)
As several have already mentioned on this thread, more accurate MPG is achieved through several tankfuls and continuous recording of mileage. None of these have achieved 30 MPG on the camry.
C) on your 1/4 tank test, this is the least accurate...my gauge does that too (i.e., yields alot of miles in the first quarter of the guage reading)...and when I checked it had used ~6 gallons in the first quarter mark of the gauge, which gives an mpg of about 28 mpg (166/6) for your car.
D) I've heard that "mileage will go up" a couple times - but without a logical explanation of why that should occur. If someone can explain it, please post.
I base my rumor and innuendo of rising gas mileage on what I read about the computer that control the fuel injection on various newsgroups. I have never read anything official from Toyota.
The theory goes that as the computer adapts to your style of driving, it learns to adjust to fule requirements more efficiently, resulting in higher gas mileage.
It seems like there are milestones (pun intended) at 1000 miles, 5000 miles, and 7500 miles. There may be others.
I can not prove that these are facts, but I will defend to your death, my right and that of others, to spread these rumors ... or something to that effect.
If someone has official Toyota collateral, I will change my story to accommodate the facts.
- hank2
And in my experience, they were right.... my mileage *did* go up particularly after 7500 miles.
But.... Your Mileage May Vary!
<;^D
The mileage increasing over time is something I've heard anecdotally from quite a few Camry owners, but not from Toyota. It makes sense if you consider that there is a break-in period.
I don't remember that specifically. There was a discussion here for a very long time on mileage, maybe I referred you there? Or did you make it specific to one model?
In any case, the old one moved itself into the archives some time ago and it's probably pretty stale now. Feel free to start a new sedans mileage discussion here! Let's keep it to sedans in general, though - we can't support a separate mileage topic for each vehicle under discussion. Email me if you have any questions.
:-)
In my situation, the car's front end was oscillating from right to left, with the front struts traveling their entire ranges. The car was skidding and fishtailing for about 30 seconds until it regained stability and tracked straight. I felt it was almost rolling over!
Toyota dealers suggested the main cause was worn struts, coupled with FWD design, in which the front tires have to do both driving and steering!
I immediately installed 4 new Japanese gas struts. The car's instability was scary enough that I do not wish to repeat the same incident.
Steve
exactly my point. manual beats auto on this car by about 20%.
your manual tranny 01 has the same mpg sticker as the automatic 04-05s we've been discussing. altho there have been a few posts about reaching 30 mpg on an individual tankful or so, nobody claims getting the 32-33.
my manual 92 still meets or beats its 22/29 mpg sticker at 270,000 miles and counting.
Disappointing mileage for new 4cyl auto for sure. I paged back a few and read up a bit. One of the biggest reasons we buy the 4 is GREAT MILEAGE to go along with the reliability and refinement. A Mineral Green Opal 2005 LE sounds good, but in the back of my mind I figured with the 'advanced' automatics I could get mileage equal to my 2001 5sp. At 28-30 max, a whole bunch of 6cyl models from various makers look good. PS...Went to the Redwoods last week (from Seattle). Quite a bit of rubbernecking and stopping, and drove up the coast on the way back. First refill 35.4, second 32. Also, ran on dirt for the first time. Around 6mi total, no dust or giant holes. The trees were heart thumpin' awesome!
I don't really have a problem with the visibility either. If side view and rear view mirrors are properly adjusted, one need only see the blind area. I see the the blind area fine when turning my head.
There is no key holes on the rear doors either. No big deal.
Accidently tripping the remote keyfob has not been a problem and I never heard of anyone who uses the remote keyfobs preferring to use a key instead.
This is a non-issue. If there was true demand for more key holes, more key holes would be supplied.
The Sandman :-)
I called my service facility and they told me this was "normal" and that the car is attempting to downshift. No other brand of car I have ever driven does this. At first, I thought it was a quirk of the Sienna but, apparently, all newer Toyotas do it. I have no idea why.
Can someone shed some light on this. Thanks.
Flying Fox
Both the Honda and Mercedes software is actually pretty sophisticated; our C240 will also hold a lower gear on uphill stretches where you've been repeatedly accelerating and slowing down for corners - you don't have to do anything, it just gets 4th or 3rd [as appropriate, it's a 5 spd automatic] and holds it until it senses that you're back on the straight and level. This kind of thing is pretty universal among most imports I've driven over a certain price point [Audi, BMW, Acura, Lexus, etc.].
Flying Fox
Flying Fox
I drive a 98 camry, at 60 mph the rmp is 2300 (D and in 4th gear) and the instance i release the gas pedal, the rmp is slightly over 2000, if you shift it to neutral, the rmp will drop to about 750 rmp at 60 mph, without pressing gas or brake petal!
What I think many people say that there is hesitation (about 1 sec or less)in new toyota models like camry, highlander, sienna (5 speed auto), etc, is because the computer set it to neutral during braking and when the instant the driver need the sudden acceleration, it takes time (the 1 sec or less) to shifting back to 1 of the 5 gears. <-- Correct me if i am wrong about this concept!
And doing so at speed is a big risk to the longevity of the transmission, if you try to reengage a gear at highway speeds after putting it in neutral.
Having the car in neutral during braking puts an unnecessary extra strain on the braking system - it simply isn't done by any modern automatic.
pro and con to that of course, don't know if others share the same observation.
~alpha
I dont actually own a car from toyota that has 5 speed auto.
Here is my "uncertain" theory!
My theory was that the newer version toyota want to conserve fuel, they program the computer to shift to neutral whenever brake apply... i did an experiment from the 98 camry. The only way to drop the the revs to 800 rpm @ 60 mph is to shift it to neutral!
lower revs = lower fuel consumption!
do you understand my point, alpha?
What flyingfox said was "On a long downhill at road speed, i.e. 60MPH, if I apply the brakes to slow down, the engine revs about 800 RPM.".
This means that the engine revs INCREASE 800 RPM.
Flyingfox did not state that the revs go down to 800 RPM. Reread the posts. For the reasons mentioned by jrct9454, your assertion that the new automatic transmissions in Toyota shift into neutral is incorrect. And indeed, flyingfox is stating that revs increase, not drop down to 800RPM.
The hesitation that some people perceive is due to the drive by wire technology, the transmission's "think time, and the 2 or 3 gear kickdown from 5th to 3rd or 2nd for passing manuevers in certain situations.
~alpha
~alpha
1. What's the best time to change the 1st oil ? some people say 1000km, some people say following the manual( 6000km ). Which one is better ?
Who knows whether the original oil filled by manufacture is the same as the dealer's "Toyota Genuine Motor Oil" ? or is it a special oil for the new car for the first run ?
Is it worth to change to "Synthetic Motor Oil" for the 1st oil change?
2. Which gas (octane) should I use for my Camry V6 3.0L with 10.5:1 ? 87, 89 or 91 ?
Thanks a lot !!!
Your call.
Regardless of what the Owners manual, I am of the old school that best practice dictates oil changes every 3750 miles. (Changing your oil at that interval makes it easy to keep track of tire rotations every 7500 miles as well). Sorry, I'm a lazy American completely complacent with the English system, so you will have to convert those values.
Finally, If I am correct, the oil out of the factory is specially formulated for break-in, so I would personally not recommend switching it out until the 3750 mile mark.
~alpha
I am looking for a used Camry and after reading hundreds of posts on this forum I am wondering what would make a better choice for me - the current or the previous generation of Camry. Their styles both look fine to me - no preferences there. My question is about the long-term driveability and dependability. If someone had experience with the previous generation Camry and now owns the most recent generation or drove both extensively, please voice your opinion on what would be a better used car buy as far as long-trip driving comfort and maintenance/repair costs/dependability are concerned. I own an old Honda Civic and so my expectations in this area are kind of high. Please help.
Thanks,
Alex.
What do you mean "break-in" in the last paragraph ?
And for the 1st part about the gas, which one will good for engineer and good for money: regular(87) or premium(91) ?
Thanks again !
My neighbour has a 2001 Camry XLE 4 cylinder. He loves it and it has given him no problems.
I have a 2003 Camry XLE 4 cylinder and find it to be outstanding for the price, with no problems at all.
Both cars are similar in appearance. The '03 version has a slightly larger engine with a chain drive (as opposed to a belt) which does not require changing. The trunk is larger.
The most important thing to me would be the condition and mileage on the car you choose. If you can find one of the "creampuff" variety, then either car should perform well for you.
I am 6' and 200 lbs. I really like the Camry seats(leather) and find the car to be quiet and very smooth. The JBL sound system makes Tina Turner come alive!
Do I like it? You betchum! Good luck Alex.
Doug
~alpha
The car seemed to have so much pickup that I popped the hood to see if it was the V-6 (It wasn't).
I do agree, though, that the 2003 is a stronger and probably better car.
~alpha
Newer=better <- tech is improving!
great "harvest" on thanks-giving!
~alpha
97-99 has 133 hp
00-01 has 136 hp
02-04 has 157 hp
05-06 has 157/160 hp, does not make much of a difference!
i read from toyota.ca from spec page they states 160hp, from e-brochure states 157hp, from toyota.com, they agreed with each other that both are 160hp...
My name is Alex and I drive a 1998 Toyota Camry LE. I have the 2.2L 4-cylinder engine. My options on the car are:
- ABS
- 14" Alloy Wheels
- Fog Lamps
- Rear Spoiler
- Gold Package
- Wood Dash Trim
- An aftermarket CD player I put in (Pioneer)
- Black Paint
At the time, this car MSRP for almost $24,000.
I now have 117,000 miles on it and here is what I have done to the car:
Initially, this car was my mom's. Her and I traded in July. I got it with 102,000 miles on it.
** NOTHING IN FIRST 90,000 MILES **
91,000 - New timing belt and new water pump
105,000 - New front brake pads
106,000 - Transmission drain/fill
109,000 - New battery
110,000 - New dual-electrode spark plugs, wires
112,000 - New serpentine belts (there are 2)
The only things this car needs is a new PCV valve, a fuel filter replaced (both for tune-up purposes), and new rotors and rear brakes (I am still on the originals!)
Also, this car has endured 10,000 miles of PIZZA DELIVERIES! I work as a pizza delivery guy, so a lot of accelerating, braking, stopping, starting. This car takes it all in stride!
So my point here is that the Camry is a great car that will LAST. My only dislike with the car is that it does drag/scrape when you come out of a downhill road onto a level road and when I have a full load of passengers over humps/bumps.
As far as power, I feel it could have better highway power, but around town is excellent. I get 28MPG delivering and 31MPG on the highway going 70+ MPH on cruise. The stability is okay, not the best - but I blame this on the 14" wheels.
I have driven the 2005 Camry LE V6 and WOW! The V6 is FAST (to me) and the car is quieter and smoother. However, I do like the comfort of my '98 better as the position seems better to me and I am 6'1.
So if you need power, go for any V6 Camry from '97 to now. The Gen 4 V6 has a stiffer suspension and bigger wheels for better handling/stability.
Also make sure that the '97-'01 Camry has its timing belt changed at 60,000 miles. That was the mistake my mom made by not changing it in time and it cost her belt and water pump.
Well, good luck with your car buying decision!
- Alex
When my dad put the car in the ditch almost 5 years ago, it went over a rock. In the process, all it did was bust the passenger side fog lamp and dent the lower bumper cover (which is plastic). It also damaged the right lower control arm. As a result, the alignment was all off, but I put a $75 used one on (came from a '97 rear-ender with 60K). So, basically, this car had a bent control arm for 80,000 miles - of course the tires didn't wear right.
Also, I was going down a road in the daytime at about 55MPH. All of a sudden a deer ran out in front of me, I didn't have time to stop. I hit it at about 45MPH. It was a doe. All it did was the dent the hood at the edge! It did NOT total the car. It did NOT bust out lights. It did NOT damage anything internally. I later found out the bumper ratings on the Gen 4 are GOOD, the Gen 5 are ACCEPTABLE. The metal in the hood is thick too.
Both cars, however, have EXCELLENT crash test results, but the Gen 4 has beefier bumpers.
These cars are strong and I just wanted to point that out.
Thanks!
- Alex
Get rid of painted bumpers and just bring back those nice black rubber ones. If everyone had that it would be a lot easier.