Howdy, Stranger!

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

Toyota Camry 2006 and earlier



  • I am still annoyed about getting sulfur smell inside while driving my 02 camry. I am now looking into government regulations on this matter.

    Aside: I recently switched to 92 octane on the 4cyl 02 auto, with noticeable improvement in performance.

    I am now trying 94 octane from Sunoco.
  • Someone posted: "At least in the Accord you'll have more power to get out of the way. "

    In response to a Camry or Accord power comparison, I find this to be a futile comparison. As a 02 camry owner, yes, the torque and power can be felt in the 2000-4000rpm range and is quite pleasing.

    But neither camry 4cyl or accord have the kind of low end torque to "get out of the way" if a torque-laden GM pushrod is up against you.
    I find this to be the ultimate and unfortunate misconception, that even I fell victim to, thinking that the quoted peak hp number or torque number will do justice to the driveability of the vehicle.

    I must admit that even my 02 camry LE 4cyl at the low end just doesn't have the kind of torque that my 12 year old chevy v6 does, to really get it up to speed. I have torque curves for 02 camry v6 and 02 accord v6, and both don't have substantial low end torque (i.e; within 30lbft of the peak torque), like you would see in a GM v6 engine.

    Yes the camry is fast, but with passengers and everyday driving, I find comparable GM cars are out-accelerating the camry due to the torque advantage.

    However, the camry excels in many other respects, too numerous to mention. Another point, the camry 4cyl front end is soooo light, the low end torque is definitely too much for it, i.e; my front wheels will spin easily, but the car just doesn't have enough weight to catch up. This, in turn, adversely affects the launch of the vehicle when you try to jack-rabbit.
  • I should correct myself, v6 camry I found was definitely more powerful than the 4, but not like a GM pushrod at the low end. I have not driven a v6 accord, but from the torque curve, I do not think it would satisfy my desire for high low end torque. Comparable GM cars are out-accelerating my LE 4cyl camry due to the low end torque advantage without the need for "pedal to the metal" type driving. Am looking forward to the 03 v6 accord and camry's rebuttal. I am not a GM fan, I find the interiors are ugly.
  • jimxojimxo Posts: 423
    Motor Trend (Sept 02) reports the automatic will hit the 1/4 mile in 14.98 @ 94.95 MPH. Camry is now third in the performance behind Accord and Altima.
  • Until 2002 Camrys made do with 136HP vs. 150HP in the Accord. Current 4 cylinders make 157HP vs. the 2003 Accord's 160HP. The HP numbers may seem similar but you have to take gearing, weight, etc into account. Now if you opt for a V6 there is no comparison. 240HP vs 192HP. 6.6 seconds vs 8.0 seconds.

    GM V6's do have alot of torque but generally aren't any faster than a well-made Japanese V6. Torque isn't everything. You also must take into account that with Honda's VTEC, or iVtec as they call it now, helps broaden the torque/HP range so it's putting out almost it's peak numbers throughout the rev range.

    Please tell me "numerous" areas the Camry excels in that are not subjective.
  • nhepker1nhepker1 Posts: 13
    How many Camry or Accord owners know (or care) how fast their car can cover a quarter mile? From what I've seen, the Accord has always had better performance than the Camry but I haven't exactly seen Accords drag racing at the stoplights either. These are supposed to be family cars, not sports sedans. I suppose if someone wants to drag race the BMW in the other lane while they have their children in the backseat, that's up to them. Maybe if I wait another 15 years, a redesigned Corolla to replace my 99 could have 250 hp. Sweet!
  • One reason that the Accord and Camry both have succeeded in selling 400,000 units a year for so long is because they appeal to two very different but very large niche markets. The Camry appeals to a consumer who wants a more quiet, sedated sedan while the Accord consumer prefers the sportier ride and feel of the Accord but they still want reliability and quality that you find in the Camry. If all I did was sit in stop-and-go traffic all day then the Camry would be the best bet but if I ever hit the highway or want to take the back roads home then the Accord would be the better choice.
  • coolguyky7coolguyky7 Posts: 932
    Examine the Accord and Camry 0-60 numbers given above:

    Yes, the Accord may look much faster but not really when you consider mathematics and reality. 6.6 is only 82.5% of 8, thus the Accord is only 17.5% faster number wise. Not too impressive for the 48 more horses. Now consider reality: time a 1.4 seconds. Pretty insignificant isn't it? At least it is to me.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    Rented one 2 weeks ago, all I can say is "AWESOME"!

    The Sandman :-)
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Here's the rationale people don't understand

    The transmission is made for smoothness, not accleration.

    Each shift takes longer to do (thus also worse for the transmission, but you don't see the transmission failures like the Acura TL transmission thread), thus the longer the shift, the smoother the shift, and most importantly the slower its acceleration.

    If you reference the Car & Driver comparison of the Solara SLE versus Acura 3.0L CL, you'll read the same thing.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    What post are you referencing? I don't recall anyone speaking of long shifts... although perhaps I missed something. Overall, I am very impressed with the transmission in our 02 Camry-shifts promptly and executes flawlessly, especially in passing situations. Given the debate over the 5 sp unit in the ES300, I'm glad we still have the 4 sp, which matches very well to the efficient and sprightly 2.4L.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    People who argue the Camry is a slow car....I said here's is not always the engine.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I guess I just didnt realize anyone was arguing that the (current) Camry is slow. And IMO, the 1997-2001 4 cyl IS slow, and it IS the engine.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    If you look at the regards to the V6...Honda upped the power on the V6. Will Toyota do that same? Probably yes.

    But still, even if Toyota matched or exceeded the Accord and Altima V6 power, it still would be a slower car, blame that on the buttery smooth transmission when it's running WOT.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    but as a side note, if you look at data from the 2002 models, in Car and Driver's Dec 2001 issue, the V6s are neck and neck, with the Camry edging out the Accord in several measures... obviously that will change with the advent of the superAccord V6. MY point being- they shifts can't be THAT slow....
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    The Avalon transmission is even slower.

    Yeah the transmission is that slow. In 0-60 times, the Accord V6 averages in the high 7's. THe Camry (with the automatic) averages in the low 8's, despite similar power to weight ratios.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    But I think it has more to do with the transmission's gearing than the actual amount of time it takes the transmission to shift. Documentation on gearing differences is easily seen in the comparo I mentioned in my last post. Show me stats that illustrate transmission shift times.
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Just drive them both if you have the opportunity. You'll notice the difference especially at WOT.

    C&D comments on it in the 3.0L CL-Solara SLE comparo.
  • canccanc Posts: 715
    In which issue is that?
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    September 1999

    You can also access the article on C&D's website.
  • canccanc Posts: 715
    Many thanks for the info.
  • I am thinking about buying an extended warranty (Toyota platinum) for my 2000 Camry LE V6. I have just over 30K miles on it, so I would need to decide in the next couple of months. Anyone have any ideas on how much such a warranty would cost?

    I have read that it is good to shop around to different dealerships. I have called 2 so far. One quoted me a ridiculous amount of $1600 for the platinum warranty (6 years/100K miles). They are notoriously known for their high prices though they give excellent service (I get my car serviced there regularly). Another dealer (where I originally bought my car) quoted $1000 for the same plan, except for 7 years/100K miles (I don't know what's up with the difference in years, sounds fishy to me). The second offer sounds fairly reasonable to me, plus she offered me a no interest/no tax 12 month payment plan with 10% down. Is this a good deal? Or can I do better and should keep shopping around?

    Thanks in advance for your help.
  • 6.6 vs. 8.0 seconds or so is enough to put the Accord ahead by a few car lengths. That's like saying the Accord goes to 60 in 6.6 seconds while a BMW M5 does it in 5.0 seconds. Which one would you pick for the race?

    The Camry is a VERY nice car but it's never had the sportiness of the Accord going all the way back to the 90-93 generation of Accords. The Camry floats along while the Accord feels more connected to the road. Kind of the difference between a Benz (camry) and a BMW (Accord).
  • bklynguybklynguy Posts: 275
    You're right about the Camry ( and ES300 ) being more like a entry-level Mercedes and the Accord more like a entry-level BMW. But it seems like the gap between the Accord & Camry when it comes to comfort ( ride & how quiet it is in the cabin ) is closing with the 03 Accord. Both cars are really smart choices in their price range.( $20-30K )

    We will always find something to complain about but you really can't go wrong with either car ( unless you get a lemon which is rare )
  • pda97pda97 Posts: 91
    Don't worry Camry fans, Toyota will put a new 3.3L V6 into the RX300 for '03. Hence, the name changes to RX330. Its output is somewhere around that magical number of 240 hp "depending on the model" according to Toyota. In '04, the ES300 will get this bigger engine. I suspect it won't be too long before this engine finds its way into the Camry. Toyota can't help but join this "power war" with Honda and Nissan.
  • I didn't buy my Camry because of the power, I bought it for the value. I'm sure a lot of other Camry owners feel this way as well.
  • rutger3rutger3 Posts: 361
    I will be replacing tires on my 99 LE.Currently have Pirelli P400,nice tire but only got 38k from them. Any thoughts on the Michelin X-One (or X-Radial plus at BJ's warehouse), or the BF Goodrich Touring T/A SR4? Any other suggestions. I do 70%highway,about 30k miles per year.
  • canccanc Posts: 715
    Value? What does the Camry have over its competitors in terms of value? A Buick Century, in my opinion, would have more value, since it costs less than a Camry.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Value doesnt simply mean a lower purchase price. Value to me means offering a combination of characteristics for not a great deal of money. In terms of the Camry (and not the Century, can you please never compare the two again?), IMO, you get a good purchase price, repsonsive and refined powertrain, excellent fuel economy, high build quality, room, well controlled ride and predictable handling and braking (though not sporty in our LE), and the promise of long term reliability. I love our Camry, its an outstanding car for the money but, once the price comes down, I think the soon to be introduced Accord will be the best value 4cyl mainstreamer in this class. I will never find it's rear end attractive though.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    I couldn't have said it better myself. The back end of the Accord is really butt ugly, looks like that old Fiat from a long time ago. Probaly have to sneak up on it , lol! The interior is way cool though, especially the dash. Can't wait to test drive one.

    The Sandman :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.