By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
When the car was started up in the morning, there was a puff of blue smoke emitted from the tailpipe as the residual oil was burned off.
The valve stem seals were replaced under the powertrain warranty at 57K miles. When I changed the spark plugs myself at the normal 60K mile interval, there were no signs of oil fouling on the plugs.
I recently discovered some interesting information about my 2007 Camry in relation to fuel mileage. Because of the location, I normally purchase my fuel from an "EnRite" gas station. Just accross the street, there is a "Getty" gas station. The price for the 87 octane is the same, so the cost is not an issue. It is just easier to pull into the "EnRite" station than to cross traffic for the "Getty" station. On "EnRite Fuel," the best that I have been able to get on the highway was 27 to 28 mpg. Yet, went I am away from New Jersey an on the open road, I have gotten as high as 34mpg on steady highway driving. On one morning, the "EnRite" station was "backed up", so I crossed the road, and pulled into the "Getty" station. I put in about 15 gallons of fuel, and headed for the highway. After driving for about thiry minutes, I looked at the reading for "miles per gallon" on the dash display, and it read 30mpg. The only thing different was the fuel. I was driving in the same manner with the AC "on". I didn't believe what I was seeing, so when I needed fuel again, I purchased the fuel from "EnRite", and the mileage went back to 27 to 28 on the same road trip! I again switched back to "Getty," and the mileage went back to 30mpg+. My conclusion to this little experiment is change your brand of fuel to see if it makes a difference in your mileage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best regards to all! ------- Dwayne :shades:
PS:
I will be taking my vehicle in for its 15,000 mile service in the next few days. This will be its 6th oil and filter change. (I change the oil and filter every 2,500 miles, because I DO NOT believe that Toyota has solved the "sludge issue" with their engines. The "new engine" in the 2007 Camry has not been out in use long enough to develop a track record, so as such, I am taking some extra care with this vehicle! Should this engine develop "sludge," I would like to see the factory representative tell me that I did not change the oil and filter often enough for my style of driving, when the recommended interval is 5,000 miles, and I have the dealer perform it at every 2,500 miles.) While I am at the dealer, I am going to ask if there is any information about mileage and different brands of gasoline. My next experiment is going to be going from 87 octane "Getty" fuel to 89 octane "Getty" fuel using the same daily trip.-- QUESTION: --- Will additional octane change the miles per gallon,(one way or another??????????)
1. Going to 89 from 87 won't make a measurable difference in mpg.
2. If you're using only the computer to indicate mpg (especially if you're using "instantaneous mpg"), this isn't accurate enough. You've got to fill the tank several times with one brand of gas, measure mpg in the old-fashioned way (miles driven divided by gallons consumed), then do the same with the second brand of gas. Obviously, your driving technique has to be the same for the comparison to be valid.
3. It still blows my mind you're wasting time, money, and oil by changing at 2500-mile intervals. I hope you're not using synthetic oil!
A. You're racking up miles very quickly, so this amounts to oil changes every three weeks?!?
B. Sludge is so over -- have you seen anyone complain about it on these boards in 2007 models? Besides the ones who had sludge seemed to drive completely opposite of your style -- low miles over long periods, mostly stop-and-go city driving. And they stretched the oil-change intervals (which then were 7500 miles or 6 months for "normal" driving).
C. You said you're getting rid of the car in 3 years, so there's no way the engine is going to self-destruct in such a short time, regardless of it approaching 100K miles or more.
more likely, as you continue to drive, you'll increase fuel economy due to break-in probably up through 2500 or 3500 miles. you'll also get more used to applying the kind of gas pedal input to get your car going smoothly.
you can't judge your ultimate MPG this eary, nor using combined highway / city mileage.
i'm glad the TSB greatly improves the driveability of your vehicle. hopefully it will be long lasting... a few posters were complaining their issues returned after a few thousand miles.
You "missed the point of my posting"! The "instantaeous computer mpg display" brought my attention to the difference in economy between the two brands of fuel! Obviously, there is something different between the two brands of fuel, because if I use "Getty 87" I get a higher mpg figure on the display. I will follow through on the "old way of computing fuel economy," but for now, I am just playing with this idea. It would be great, if each one of us would list the fuel econnomy, and the brand of fuel that we are using on this site. Just maybe, there is something to the "brand of fuel" and the miles per gallon issue!!!!!!!!!! In terms of octane, I am going to explore this issue a little futher. One tank of 89 is not going to be a "big financial issue". It is just an experiment on my part, so I am going to try it during the next few weeks. I might try one tank of 89 EnRite and one tank of 89 Getty.
With regards to the 2,500 oil and filter changes at the Toyota Dealership I have chosen to take this action because of the following reason:
1.) This new engine in the Camry does NOT have a track record, so we as consumers, DO NOT KNOW if it is a "sludge producer"!
2.) The track record of Toyota has not been good for the consumer in the past over this issue. They did their very best to try to "back out of responsibility" wherever possible on this issue. It was only after the issue hit the "net," and the company was getting bad press, that they decided to take some positive action!
3.) If after this "outstanding oil and filter service at the dealership," my V6 engine develops "sludge," I would like to see Toyota try to "back out of their warranty responsibilities." There is no way that they could prove "owner neglect" on this vehicle!
At this point in time, I like the ride, the design and the comfort of the 2007 XLE V6 Camry, and,(I do not have any problems with this vehicle), ----- BUT----- I do not like the lack of concern, sensitivity and professionalism on the part of Toyota to the transmission issue that some Camry owners are experiencing on their new vehicles. I am seriously thinking of trading my Camry in January 2008!
Best regards. :shades:
Oh, and the overall indicated fuel economy for each leg of the trip was 40, 41, and 38+, respectively. But computing the mileage the old-fashioned way, I got 31.7, 33.2, and 33.0 mpg, typical for this car (about 3 mpg lower than my '04 Camry).
If you're trading in January '08, I'd stop the 2500-mile oil changes immediately. Why bother? The engine's not going to sludge in the five months remaining. You seem hell bent on proving a nonissue. :confuse:
Maybe in a lab under carefully controlled conditions, you'd see a difference with 10% ethanol vs. "pure gas," but not on the road with so many other variables in play.
As an example, here are the calculated mpg values for my '04 Camry 4-cylinder since the first of the year. The car is used pretty much the same way: 3-4 days a week for commuting on mostly highways, plus weekend duty for short trips into town and somewhat longer trips into neighboring counties. There were NO long trips taken with this car during the period.
I used only 4 brands of gas, all 87 octane: Hess, Exxon, Sheetz, and East Coast, the last labeled as containing no ethanol (and in bold font below).
1/14/07 29.0
2/2/07 28.2
2/18/07 26.9
2/25/07 25.6
3/3/07 30.2
3/29/07 30.0
4/22/07 29.1
5/12/07 28.1
5/31/07 28.4
6/9/07 26.5
7/1/07 27.5
7/11/07 24.4
7/29/07 27.7
8/12/07 26.0
9/1/07 27.1
As you can see, there is quite a bit of variance, but the only pattern discernible is somewhat better mileage during the spring when ambient temperature was warm but not hot, and no a/c was being used. Winter mpg didn't suffer much either, but the car is garaged overnight, and the temperature doesn't go below 40 degrees. The worst mileage occurred during our brutally hot summer, when I had to use the a/c pretty much all the time (even on some humid mornings).
A word of caution. Bear in mind you are hearing just one side of the story in these forums.
Stories from the unfortunate customers who got a new Carmy with problems but the dealership was reluctant to help.
How come we do not see or hardly see the other side of the story? The answer is simple. Those complaining customers are telling the truth. If the customers had lied about it, surely Toyota would have confronted them with their side of the story. However, we have not seen even a single case in which a Toyota dealership proves the customer lie in the complaint in this forum.
A word of caution. It is better to be the one who take heed when you hear one side of the story while the other side fails to give a proper response than to be the one who fails to take heed and has to regret about it.
Wasn't my intention to accuse or infer, just a reminder that the other side of the equation isn't known, and it would be unwise to make decisions without taking that into consideration.
Generally speaking, it's true that satisfied owners aren't so inclined to express their news and views, and thus aren't heard from nearly as often as those with complaints.
Evidently there are a great many of those satisfied owners out there, as evidenced by sales stats.
This forum is a complaint forum, and by definition, one sided.
Therefor,we should keep that in mind when making decisions or passing judgements.
I knew that a tapes conversation was not admissible in a court of law- but I also know that when confronted with their own words they will back down and admit when they have screwed you over. So- when I called them after doing my research I taped that conversation (they heard the beep every 3 minutes) and then when I brought it in and they claimed that there was no fix for the invisable hesitation but they would do this experimental upgrade because I was "begging for help". Well- I taped that as well.
Yes- there are always 3 sides to a story - mine, theirs and the truth so that is why I taped it. So I could also listen and then back off if I was in the wrong.
ALSO- as for them telling their side on this forum. You bet your behind they are on here. They hire people just to troll the internet and find mentions of their name and their products. They have employees that gather all the data and other employees hired to respond and do damage control. I know- I was one of them for a utility.
Well, any company should be smart enough to monitor what's being said on popular internet forums, so I've no doubt Toyota is watching this one. As for responding, Toyota has had one or more employees posting as "tmsusa" (Toyota Motor Sales, USA) on both the oil sludge issue in the past and on the 2007 Camry V6 transmission snap ring issue last year. Whether the company posts under a proxy, I'll leave that one up to the conspiracy theorists.
As for your tape recording, it would mean nothing to me unless I had a chance to test drive your car myself.
210delray,
i guess just as it meant nothing to the technicians that hadn't even driven her vehicle to claim there was no hesitation, and not even admit to the TSB's existance.
that position isn't very genuine IMHO.
she recorded evidence of being treated unprofessionally and being stonewalled. she was commenting on the fact that both sides of the story are available in an objective manner.
but you reply that the conversation wouldn't matter unless you had the opportunity to drive the vehicle. why doesn't the conversation matter regardless of your ability to get behind the wheel of her vehicle? why not at face value assume she has a problem and she's been given the run-around?
it sounds though like you'd be willing to sleuth her car if she could bring it to your location.
OTOH, anyone can say they have a tape showing this or that, but they know full well we on this board just have to take them at their word, at least without ceding a lot of privacy.
And yeah, I'd love to "sleuth" anyone's Camry with this hesitation problem. I'd like a better understanding of it, because my '04 and '05 Camrys (the latter with ostensibly the same drivetrain) don't have the problem. I know, I know, ostensibly, software or "firmware" changes were made for 2007, but it's still fundamentally the same drivetrain for the 4-cylinder models.
Would you know if some of the forum hosts...(not implying those with Edmunds)...who I believe are generally non paid volunteers...fall into that category?
Let's just stick to the topic of Camry problems and solutions and take the conspiracy theories somewhere else.
I just had the 15,000 mile service performed on my Camry that was purchased in January 2007. I am preparing for a road trip, so I requested that the following service be performed on this vehicle: ---- Oil & Filter Change, Replaced the cabin air filter, Replaced the engine air filter, Performed a complete brake inspection, Cleaned and adjusted the rear brakes, Rotated the tires & adjusted air pressure, Installed "BG Oil Additive / MOA" (recommended by the dealer), Installed new wiper blades, Inspected steering and suspension components, Inspected all lights, Checked & topped off all fluid levels.
The Camry has no problems to date! It is a "great runnning vehicle," but I am concerned for those individuals who have a "problem vehicle". What is Toyota doing for these customers?????? ANSWER: -----"Nothing"!
Bobba:
You comment about the "Air Filter" is very interesting. Could it be that some Toyota engines are starving for air especially on acceleration? Isn't there something in the air intake called the "mass air flow sensor"? Could you have repositioned this somehow, when you changed the filter?????? This issue requires additional investigation. Did the new filter look like the old filter in terms of filter material?
Best regards to all! Dwayne :shades: :confuse:
You let the dealer talk you into an oil additive? Most if not all manufacturers specifically warn against adding anything to engine oil. Also, why did the rear (disk) brakes need adjusting?
I had a problem with the parking brake application! ----With regards to the BG / MOA additive, it was explained to me that this product is added to prevent oil oxidation and thicking under severe stop & go high temperature operation. I let the dealer install this product, because it sounds like the "OLD SLUDGE ISSUE" from the past possibly coming back!!!! While I change my oil and filter often, (more than required), I DO NOT WANT either the dealer or Toyota to have a "leg to stand on" if this "new & improved engine" develops "sludge" in the furure! I keep detailed records on the service of this vehicle, so if something happens, the responsiblilty for the correction of the problem is with the dealer and Toyota. I am "out of the loop"! It is their oil, filter, additive and engine. I did my part, I took the vehicle to the dealer for "the factory authorized service"!
Best regards. ---------Dwayne :shades:
After all, who knows more about the car, the engineers who designed it vs. the dealers who are always trying to squeeze another nickle out of the hapless customer?
My 2007 V6 Camry was made in Japan, and it does not have any problems with the "shift flare"!
Best regards: ----- Dwayne :shades:
Lets look at the "sludge issue" of Toyota! ----- This issue was related to the 3.0 V6 engine from 1996 to 2001. The 2007 Toyota Camry now has a 3.5 V6. The "track record" of the 3.5 engine has yet to be determined! So, I want to protect the engine from the possibility of forming sludge. Should the 3.5 develop sludge, I am in the "drivers seat"! Toyota cannot say that I did not maintain the vehicle. The Toyota dealer recommended this additive, so It's not my problem. Let Toyota Corporate deal with the dealer. It is not my problem. That is why I use a Toyota dealer for my service. ------ Best Regards. -----Dwayne :shades:
Toyota did admit to the problem by accident back in Sept.07 when they sent an email to a person on this forum. I copied it from the forum. It has their return address also. The original may be found back in Sept.07 I would think that their admittance to the problem would help you in your arbitration.
The following is an E-Mail from Toyota Customer Experience.
"The poor response you described typically surfaces either when the accelerator is depressed fully to the floor or when depressed in an aggressive manner. The newer version of the Camry has transitioned from a manual throttle linkage to an electronic throttle control system. The electronic throttle control monitors the everyday driving habits of the operator and then tailors itself to make the most efficient gearshifts. On rare occasions when the operator fully depresses the pedal or depresses the pedal in an aggressive manner, the system may experience a delay in determining how to make the optimal gearshift.
At this time Toyota has no plans to make changes to the shift characteristics of the transmission. To minimize this condition, we recommend trying a firm yet gradual application of the accelerator.
Your feedback is appreciated; it is through communications such as yours that we become aware of our customers' expectations and reactions. It also provides us with valuable insight when planning and developing future products and services to increase our customers' satisfaction.
Your email has been documented at our National Headquarters under file #XXXXXXXXX. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Toyota Customer Experience "
"Return-Path:
Authentication-Results: mta304.mail.scd.yahoo.com from=toyota.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 216.136.168.93 (EHLO mailsc01.rightnowtech.com) (216.136.168.93) by mta304.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:59:22 -0700
Received: from access-sc5.rightnowtech.com (websc07.int.rightnowtech.com [192.168.100.153]) by mailsc01.rightnowtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F5A21CCA8 for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from websc07.int.rightnowtech.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by access-sc5.rightnowtech.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1F19D010C for <>; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_X69TVA40000000000000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: "
But that will NOT solve anyone's problem.
In order to improve FE, save space, and at the same time seriously reduce the HEAT load within the transaxle dramatically Toyota reduced the pump FIXED capacity of the transaxle's gear type ATF pump.
It appears, my guess is, that this all started with the initial RX production. And I still tend to think this issue is more prevalent with FWD and F/AWD Toyota/Lexus vehicles.
Here's the foundation for my thinking.
During the design phase of the RX series it was known that the "Camry" transaxle would need to be "beefed up" for use in the heavier RX, not to mention the AWD aspects.
A sideways 3.0L V6, a BEEFY transaxle/torque converter, front AND center diff'ls AND a PTO.
Tall order, huh..??
One of the compromises made, or such is my belief today, was to reduce the pumping capacity, PHYSICAL SIZE, of the gear type ATF pump.
So, until Toyota adopts the Ford approach, a variable capacity/displacement ATF pump, there will be no permanent fix for these transaxle shift delay/hesitation/flare problems. An alternative might be to add an accumulator to hold pressurized ATF fluid in reserve but that would likely take more space than a variable displacement ATF pump
And now we've moved on, "forward" to 5 and 6 speed transaxles....even less room.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/complain/complaintsearch.cfm
go there and research complaints on the 2007 toyota camry. try powertrain and the other 5 categories starting with powertrain. you can print the results of each search. you'll find supporting evidence there.
You can always call them at: 1-888-327-4236
Here are some government statistic figures that seem to be taken from the sweet dreams of American automakers but from the nightmare of Toyota executives.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-Office of Defects Investigation, as on September 8, 2007 the Total Numbers of Defect Related Complaints of certain latest models are as following:
Ford 2007 Fusion--------7
Chrysler 2007 Sebring--7
Chevrolet 2007 Malibu--9
Honda 2007 Accord------21
Nissan 2007 Altima-------28
Toyota 2007 Camry------239
Of course Toyota could point out that since they have sold more 2007 Camry than Ford and other auto manufacturers sold their latest models, the figures can be misleading. Well, then we can take the numbers of the vehicles sold into consideration, see what we will come up with.
Since the sales figures of the 2007 models are not available yet, I would use the sales figures in 2006 to find out the approximate rate of complaints of the big three.
Make/Model and number sold in 2006
Ford Fusion 142,502
Honda Accord 369,293
Toyota Camry 448,445
The sales ratio is
Ford Fusion: Honda Accord: Toyota Camry=1: 2.59: 3.15
Approx. ratio of defect complaints of 2007 model
Ford Fusion 7/1= 7
Honda Accord 21/2.59= 8.1
Toyota Camry 239/3.15= 75.9
Approximate ratio of defect complaint for the big three of their 2007mode for the same number of cars sold:
Ford Fusion: Honda Accord: Toyota Camry=7: 8.1: 75.9
It is interesting to find out the ratio of defect complaint of the big three for the 2006 models for the same number of cars sold as well to see how things have changed.
Total No. of defect complaints of 2006 model
Ford Fusion 21
Honda Accord 67
Toyota Camry 64
Ratio of defect complaints of 2006 models for the same number of cars sold:
Ford Fusion: Honda Accord: Toyota Camry
=21/1: 67/2.59: 64/3.15
= 21: 25.9: 20.3
Ratios of defect complaints of the big three for the same number of cars sold :
Ford Fusion: Honda Accord: Toyota Camry
21: 25.9: 20.3 (2006 model)
7: 8.1: 75.9 (2007 model)
We can see not only that both Ford and Honda have smaller numbers of defect complaints of the 2007 model so far than the 2006 model , their rates of defect complaints have also decreased comparing to the year 2006 and to that of the 2007 Camry. On the other hand, both the number and the rate of defect complaints against Toyota 2007 Camry has increased appallingly.
It is worth citing that Ford 2007 Fusion has both the lowest number and the lowest rate of defect complaints for the same number of car sold. Moreover, Ford 2007 Fusion has only 1 power train complaint comparing to that of 87 Toyota has for the 2007 Camry. When we compare them with the equal number of Fusion and Camry sold, the ratio is 1: 87/3.15= 1: 27.6. That means a Toyota 2007 Camry is more than 27 times to have power train problems than the Ford 2007 Fusion.
Ford has done a good job in improving the 2007 Fusion, but Toyota has messed up the 2007 Camry with their poorly tested DBW.
Now we have the figures, lets see if the Toyota people still insist there is no big problem with the 2007 Camry and refuse to offer help to the customers screaming for help.
Google for:
"sierra research" ASL "neutral idle"
For documents supporting my theory.
ASL: Agressive Shift Logic.
During the design phase for the RX the engineers had to find ways to BEEF-UP the Camry transaxle that was slated to be used in the RX. With a sideways 3.0L V6, there wasn't much room left for a beefed up lockup clutch, torque converter, transaxle, center and front diff'ls, and the rear PTO with viscous clutch.
So what, which, components could be downsized in order to make room for other beefier components.
Obviously someone hit upon the idea of reducing the displacement of the gear type ATF oil pump. Not only would this downsizing safe valuable space, it would yield other premiums.
The upside was improved FE and lower heat generation.
The downside was marginal ATF pressure/flow at the lower end of the engine performance envelope, especially at idle. So it was decided, since the downsized ATF pump would not supply enough pressure/flow at, or nearly at, engine idle RPM to support downshifting, an upshift would be programmed into the transaxle firmware instead.
After all, what would most stick shift drivers do in these instances, say coasting down to come to a full stop for a traffic light or stop sign? They might downshift, but most likely they would keep the clutch disengaged until they needed to GO.
So, the Toyota engineers couldn't disengage the "clutch", nor could they put the transmission into neutral. But what they could do was upshift the transaxle into a high enough gear that the lack of ATF pressure/flow would be meaningless.
So, my MY2000 AWD RX300 arrived with a feeling of being bumped from behind lightly due to the new upshift procedure as I coasted, 10-0 MPH, down, throttle fully closed, to a full stop. And as I coasted down from 40-30MPH I got a slingshot feeling as the transaxle upshifted and "released" any engine braking effects I had in the previous, lower, gear ratio.
So does my 2001 AWD RX300.
But there was a serious, REALLY serious, downside to the lower capacity ATF oil pump that those engineers apparently overlooked.
None of the RX drivers were told that SHOULD NOT attempt to quickly accelerate immediately after one of these upshifts.
So the '99, and possibly the '00, RX300 are having an unusually high level of premature transaxle failures.
Since the ATF in my 2001 AWD RX300 was burned at only 40,000 miles I'm guessing that the ATF pump capacity was raised back up to something near the original but without sufficient additional ATF cooling capacity to accomodate the additional ATF HEAT LOAD that resulted.
When the RX330 was introduced it came with DBW and now the drivers didn't have to be advised what not to do, the DBW enforced a delay in "GO".
So, the early RX was introduced with a quite significant improvement in FE due to the downsized ATF pump. So a solution had to be found so the lower volume ATF pump could be kept in place and that solution, ultimately, was DBW.