Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Really? Wow...they make them, us folks who like them buy them, and if I could EVER slow down when traveling ( the main use of the car ) I have dreams of 40mpg. Maybe when gas prices spike and the government changes the nationwide speed limit back to 55 mph?
I bought my 3rd Camry for very specific reasons related to long distance trips. Quiet, reliable, 35+ highway mileage, tons of room versus the smaller subcompacts, I certainly didn't want a hybrid if only because it isn't necessary for good highway mileage and the premium isn't worth the barely noticeable increase in highway mileage.
When you get a chance, would you let me know what your RPM's are at some given speed while you are cruising in high gear.
And have you had either of the TSB's for performance/hesitation?
Even my Sienna with a V-6, 1,200 lbs more weight to carry and much worse aerodynamics can occasionally crack 30 mpg.
30 mpg for a Camry is a no brainer.
As I mentioned before I wound up with an Accord because all the stick shift Camrys had sunroofs (no headroom) - and yes they were available.
I consider the two to be about the same mpg wise (identical EPA highway numbers, same size engines, same weight etc). I have recorded every tank in my Accord and over 17,000 miles average about 33.5 mpg. I do a running average of my last 10 tanks, and that number has been over 35 mpg on occasion. If I dont use the A/C and keep to 65 mph, then 40 mpg is no problem.
I have a scangauge that I use to backup my hand calcs (the scangauge is more accurate it turns out). The worst mpg ever on the scangauge for at least 50 miles on the highway was 31 mpg going 80 mph into a 40 mph headwind. I cannot imagine a situation where I would get under 30 mpg. Conversely the best mpg over at least 50 miles was 49 mpg going 65 with a nice stiff tailwind.
I know it is not a Camry, but internel combustion engines as similar as these two should run very close to each other efficiency wise.
I've also received 31 to 34MPG on several rental 2007 Camry SE 4-cylinder automatics on highway drives for business trips. Unless, there is a significant difference between the 2004 design and 2007, except DBW, and some engine/transmission tweaks, something is wrong with your car.
Oh well, in the past, cause I get 45+ out of my Civic Hybrid. Not sure why EVERYONE is not buying ahybrid. I like power in a car, but I like good gas mileage better. I love drivng the Civic Hybrid. It is like driving a stick shift. It drifts back on hills and kind of chuggs along when it starts out. It is a nice, roomy little car that I love to zip around in. Rmeinds me of my '91 mitsubishi gallant.
When you get a chance, would you let me know what your RPM's are at some given speed while you are cruising in high gear.
And have you had either of the TSB's for performance/hesitation? "
I think 3000rpm nets me 80-81mph indicated. Maybe 2600 gets me 70mph or so? And no, my car hasn't been back to the dealership since I bought it, no TSB's, no flashing for new software, nothing.
I have a hybrid as well as my camry. 2007 Ford Escape AWD. It beats the Camry around town ( 30mpg to 26mpg ), and is like a goat in the snow here in Denver. But it can't do what the Camry does, which is quietly cruise all day at 80mph while getting 35mpg.
I probably won't get another hybrid any time soon, the price premium is still too steep, you have to drive differently to take full advantage of the efficiency gains it offers, and its temperature dependant.
I was able to get 50mpg from my 86 Honda Civic 4 speed as well as the original Honda Civic CRX HF.
I find it irritating that the same manufacturer which gave me 50mpg capacity 20 years ago now can't do the same thing without charging a huge premium and pretending its somehow an "improvement".
I agree with Troy, it is a great car. I just recently had the new TSB done, and it does smooth the acceleration. It only took about half an hour. This is the only issue I had, and it was very minor. If I wasn't an avid reader of this forum, I would not have taken the car back to the dealer, because the hesitation was very minor (probably because I have a stick).
And 3,000 rpm is about 80 I think. I will have to pay more attention and report back for sure.
And 3,000 rpm is about 80 I think. I will have to pay more attention and report back for sure.
You know what? I got to thinking, I was recently down at sea level, and I noticed in 5th gear while trying to accelerate a "hunting" type feeling, rather than smooth acceleration. It only happened <+2000' MSL though, I acquired it as I went down in elevation, and I lost it as I climbed above that elevation. I wonder if this is the "surging" people are referring to? I dismissed it as fuel map wonkiness, and I can't duplicate it here at altitude, so I'll probably not worry about it for now.
Oh, and I checked this afternoon before changing the oil, 2000 rpm in 5th gear is 52mph indicated, 3000rpm is 80mph, pretty much a linear relationship between those two points for anyone interested in speed/rpm for this particular car in 5th. ( 2.8 mph per 100 rpm above 2000 )
It looks like there are still ZERO people who have driven 600 miles on one tank.
And, what we're left with here are a couple lurkers with manual transmission camry's, one manual transmission honda, and a sienna. But wait, you say....don't those count? No, a sienna doesn't count, and neither does a MT honda, and neither does a MT camry. As someone reminded me long ago when I suggested that the high mileages were associated with MT's, 98% of the camrys are AT.
And, contrary to 210delray's remark that I don't believe in manual transmission camry's, I never said that. In fact, I own one (another car) - with 281,000 miles. The last two tankfuls of that car yielded 29 and 35 mpg. But that's a different car. A 1992. And there's not stickshifts to rent, so I have no way of knowing for sure whether a modern stick is inherently more efficient than an automatic.
But I suspect as much - and if you will research my posts - I have for a long time. And I was criticized for even suggesting that the high mileage figures were associated with manual transmissions.
As far as dudlyer's comments about 30 mpg in a camry being a "no brainer"; I don't see the brains in the comment. They don't get "real world mpg"'s of 30 mpg. You're right, it's a no brainer. It never happened.
There's one post in there about 10 consecutive tankfuls. Well, I checked that post (#426, or thereabouts) and even that wasn't really the case; at least 2 "tankfuls in the single digits -under 6 gallons(suggesting underfill), and no odometer readings. And, some missing mileage in there about son driving in LA. All that and the mileage was just over 30 mpg. Or so he said (no receipts, no nothing to verify). I'm not in the least convinced. I laughed at the remark about that person possibly "overfilling" his gas tank. Like - where would that gas go? Do you think the neck of the filler line to the gas tank holds 2 extra gallons of gas? (It doesn't) There's no secret reservoir that overfilled gas goes into. If you overfill it, the gas will go onto the ground (not recommended).
There was still one other recent post about an AT "regularly" getting 34 mpg. What the heck is "regular"? The "regular" highest mileage? Or the average (I suspect not). Or is it what the poster thinks he gets. Or measures occasionally. Or doesn't measure at all and is throwing out there off the top of his/her head? Unless you keep continuous, accurate records, you do not know what your mpg is.
Mileage on the camry, whether it be 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, all in the automatic transmission - get ~26-28 mpg in freeway driving. Not more. Not 29, and not 30 mpg, and not 35 mpg. Not in the "real world" which this subforum is supposed to be about.
35 x 18 = 630 miles. Let's see anyone do that in an automatic (which I was told represents 98% of the population), or, better yet, anyone average 600 miles on 5 consecutive tanks.
Go ahead. Make my day.
The fuel tank capacity of a 4-cyl 2007 Camry is 18.5 gallons. There is NO WAY you can drive the car and use up 18 gallons. A minimum of 1.5-2 gallons must remain in the tank or the car will stall. The fuel pump located at the bottom of the tank will not be able to pump fuel if it's not submerged in it.
Hence, assuming a maximum possible fuel usage of 17 gallons, 17 x 35 = 595 mile range. I doubt anyone would want to risk burning their fuel pump out just to prove a point, but the mid 500's reported here are very good representations of the Camry's ability to easily get 30+ MPG on the highway.
Face it, phd, your particular car is not capable of exceeding 30 MPG. This could be due to manufacturing variations, a mis-calibrated sensor that is off by a volt, specific roads you drive on, your driving habits, or any of numerous other factors. My guess is your car is running too rich of a mixture. Maybe testing the oxygen sensors would be a logical place to start the diagnosis.
The dealer will not diagnose the problem because the check engine light is not on, indicating no fault. The only other way to truly diagnose this issue is to test EACH and EVERY engine management sensor on the vehicle, and no dealer will do that.
I know Kiawah warned me against it, but I'm amazed by your inability to read what's actually posted rather than what you want to believe. Here are the 10 fill ups for the cross-country trip, again, with the odometer and trip odometer readings (everyone else who's bored can just skip this). And my son didn't keep records when he was in L.A. BEFORE this trip with my wife, my son, and me.
Start fill up in LA (Mobil): 29,041 miles (by me)
29,419/378.9 miles 14.20 gallons 26.7 mpg Shell, Bishop, CA (includes city driving in LA while I was in the car)
29,735/315.7 10.82 29.2 Shell, Ely, NV
30,139/403.4 12.46 32.4 Sinclair, east UT
30,568/429.1 14.15 30.3 Phil 66, east CO
31,044/476.4 15.27 31.2 Brothers, west KS
31,453/409.0 14.35 28.5 Shell, Kansas City, MO
32,001/547.2 15.42 35.5 Shell, Spencer, IN
32,131/130.1 5.10 25.5 BP, Indianapolis [This was a TOP OFF, because the per gallon price was cheap and it was near my MIL's place, where we stopped for Christmas]
32,616/484.8 15.60 31.1 Kroger, Elkins, WV
32,808/192.7 6.95 27.7 Exxon, central VA [This was a TOP OFF, after I got home, so the mileage wouldn't be "contaminated" by local driving.]
Total 3767 miles, 124.32 gallons, overall mpg = 30.3
And you know, samiam was right in that you probably can't fully drain the 18.5 gallon tank -- that's the full capacity but not the usable capacity. Still, my son when in L.A. had more courage than me in being able to put 17.30 gallons in the tank (I found the receipt later).
Okay, smart guy, on my next trip I'm going to use this '04 Camry (that gets better mpg than the '05) and see if I can make the magic 600-mile mark. If I've gone 544 and 547 miles, I think I've got a good chance!
Don't you realize you could drive 680 miles, and he'd tell you impossible.... must have had a tail wind, gas tank expanded, you calculated wrong.
I think I can make it to 90 -- 3 of my 4 grandparents went beyond that!
1. Fill the tank only until the pump shuts off.
2. Start the car and reset one of the trip odometers to zero.
3. Drive until you get to a 1/4 tank or the low fuel warning light comes on, whatever is your preference.
4. Go back to the same pump at the same fuel station, and fill the tank only until the pump shuts off. Take the receipt, noting the # of gallons on it.
5. Get in the car, record the # of miles from the trip odometer.
6. Take the # of miles from that trip odometer / # of gallons. This is your MPG.
7. Repeat steps one through 6 several times. Note: If you have any unusual circumstances between one of your fill-ups (traffic jam, etc.) keep a memo of this.
This is the correct way to calculate MPG, according to 99% of the people in the world, including automotive engineers and accountants
For example, if I drove 300 miles and fill up with 8.75 gallons of gas, then drive another 300 miles, and fill up with 8.9 gallons of gas, this is a 34 mpg average over the total 600 miles driven.
Please enlighten us, maybe we are all missing something??
Thanks!
In your example, miles = 600 (300+300), and gallons = 17.65 (8.9+8.75), so average mpg = 600/17.65 = 33.994
In your hypothetical example here, coincidentally both of the mile samples were 300, so averaging avgs (only in this example), you'd get the same answer.
If however one tankful was 400 miles and you got 30 mpg (13.33 gal), and the 2nd tankful was 200 miles and you got 40 mpg (5gal)........if you averaged avgs and said your mpg was 35mpg....that would be incorrect. The correct answer would be 600 miles / 18.33 gal = 32.73 mpg
Then one day, we "really" fill up the tank, don't report this very low mileage, and then go back to underfilling. It's a stretch, I know, but how do you explain his constant nitpicking and selective quoting of our posts?
On top of this, we're supposed to produce receipts on the internet, as if he's done the same! And as if these receipts include the gas station's recording of your car's odometer reading.
I'd like to know what his secret is for preserving some of those thermal image receipts. Some of mine (not for gas, I don't keep those) have faded to the point of becoming nearly invisible, and this after only 2-3 years in a file folder.
Yes, I am well aware of that, being an accountant!!
On a side note about those receipts, since I do my own oil changes, I actually photograph those thermal image receipts for my oil purchases, in case they become unreadable. I use OEM filters, so I do not have problems with those receipts.
If you were to be able to get 30-40 mpg you would be seeing people reporting 550-700 mile ranges on a tank of gas, not as an average, not even as a single tank of gas. Nobody has. Not me. Not you. Not anyone. Ever.
Would 30 mpg be possible as a top end? Maybe, rarely. But is it possible as an average "real world mpg" for freeway driving. No. What do you think you are dealing with? It's a fuel-based machine.
Would 35 mpg be possible as a top end? Absolutely not. Not as an average, and not as an outlier under ideal conditions. This would mean you could drive ~648 miles, or 100 miles beyond the maximum of the range that anyone has ever posted on this forum. You would be out of gas well before you got this far, there would be no gas in the tank. Would 35 mpg be possible as an average freeway efficiency? That's beyond silly...anyone who says that is just plain lying.
Here's yet another recent post about how anybody can say anything:
"The fuel tank capacity of a 4-cyl 2007 Camry is 18.5 gallons. There is NO WAY you can drive the car and use up 18 gallons. A minimum of 1.5-2 gallons must remain in the tank or the car will stall. The fuel pump located at the bottom of the tank will not be able to pump fuel if it's not submerged in it."
Really. Cars stalling out with under 1.5-2 gallons. I can't use 18 gallons (or, according to you, 17 gallons). Is that so? Yes, there is a way. I do it all the time; every time, recently. That's right, high 17+ to low 18+. Did 18+ two tanks ago; did high 17 after that. I've used up a bunch of gas, but I never stalled, and never ran out. Not once. Not in 44,000+ miles.
Please state how you determined a 1.5-2 gallon minimum gas volume is necessary to operate this car's fuel pump without stalling. I can't seem to find reference of it anywhere, so kindly provide the citation (page number in the Toyota shop manual, owner's manual, other Toyota reference) pertaining to gas pump malfunction/stalling at tank volumes of 1.5-2 gallon minimum.
Let me ask you something: so when the low fuel light comes on and the gauge reads empty or below, you merrily keep driving along until you essentially drain the tank fully? Why? Are you contending that's the ONLY way to get accurate mpg readings?
Where are your records and receipts anyway, since we're supposed to take you at your word (unlike the rest of us).
What about those of us who try to fill the tank the same way each time without resorting to running on fumes and the anxiety that causes?
Somebody is driving 80-90 mph and not admitting it.
I do agree that 30 mpg is an outlier - on the low end. If you only get 30 mpg on the highway with a 4-cyl Camry something is wrong.
Look at Consumer Reports tests of the Camry. Real life highway mileage well into the 30's for every version of the Camry ther have ever tested since the 80's.
So... back to your corners, please.
Phd, just for your info, the trip up was 509 miles consuming 14.3 gallons for a 35.6 mpg trip. Returning was 505 miles consuming 14.5 gallons for a 34.8 mpg trip. Both were non-stop trips at a cruise of 72 for the majority of the drive. I had some good rain for a couple hours coming back.
Despite the fact that this is 'impossible' for this to occur, this is ALWAYS the situation with my 4 cyl AT Camry. I have never had worse than 32 mpg on an equivalent highway trip and that ONE instance was fighting a 20mph head wind for 2 hours. Otherwise it is 35-37 mpg nearly 100% of the time.
My longest trip recently was a trip to Ocala FL. 540 miles using 15.0 gallons for a 36.0 mpg trip.
In a couple weeks I may take a trip to PA, again. This time I will not fill up until I feel I am running excessively low on fuel. In this case you will likely experience a Camry with a 600+ mile run...but still getting ~36 mpg.
So believe what you want. Stay long and wrong for as long as you want. I will continue to enjoy the benefits of a high MPG Camry.
Regards!
Drem
Folks - I think we have found PHD's problem!!!! He runs his tank dry and sucks up all the dirt and crud on the bottom right into the engine and fuel system. This in turn totally screws up his emission system causing his car to run rich, thus resulting in such poor MPG.
Oh, and from any Toyota (or any other manufacturer's) owner's manual: "DO NOT DRIVE THE CAR FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AFTER THE LOW FUEL INDICATOR LIGHT IS ON. REFUEL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE".
As I said before, I've never put more than 16+ gallons in either Camry, but my son did one fill up showing 17.30 gallons!
Quote: "Folks - I think we have found PHD's problem!!!! He runs his tank dry and sucks up all the dirt and crud on the bottom right into the engine and fuel system. This in turn totally screws up his emission system causing his car to run rich, thus resulting in such poor MPG.
Oh, and from any Toyota (or any other manufacturer's) owner's manual: "DO NOT DRIVE THE CAR FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AFTER THE LOW FUEL INDICATOR LIGHT IS ON. REFUEL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE". " Unquote.
Hello! McFly! what do you think there is between a fuel tank and an injection system. That shiny metal thing. Yeah. Its called a "fuel filter". If you have any proof of any kind, in any reference or study, that running a car low on gas causes a hint of damage or adverse change in fuel economy, then post it. You must have some study that proves that doing so makes a car "run rich". Well, where is it? If you can't respond, I'll post that in the category of more misleading webchat. Not that anyone believed you in the first place; I sure didn't.
And, oh, does this latest theory mean you have you given up on your previous theory that it is impossible to run a car below 1.5-2 gallons?
And oh again, your citation to the owner's manual (i.e., "DO NOT DRIVE THE CAR FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AFTER THE LOW FUEL INDICATOR LIGHT IS ON...". )
....is simply not what the owner's manual says....
It's not there. At all. I have it in front of me.
It says the following (in entirety, page 115, 2004 owner's manual, toyota camry):
"The light comes on when the fuel level in the tank becomes nearly empty. Fill up the tank as soon as possible.
On inclines or curves, due to the movement of fuel in the tank, the low fuel level warning light may come on earlier than usual"
As I said just a few posts ago, the purpose of this discussion is for everyone to report the mileage they are seeing. Feel free to believe what's posted or not, but we need to stop going after each other.
Sorry PhD but you are wrong. I also owned a 2005 LE with auto, 33mpg at high speed, 35-36 mpg at low speeds, driving between Denver and Ocean City. The 33 mpg was on a sprint through Wyoming, and I just couldn't keep it under 90.
I also owned a 94 LE with auto and V6. 3 adults, 1 kid, back east speeds and it was good for 31-32 mpg.
So as a point of fact, EVERY Camry I've ever owned has done better than 30mpg on the highway, stick or auto.
Why does this bother you so much?
That's a bit of a stretch unless you're driving 55mph. At normal highway speeds (70 +/- 5mph), I have never gotten better than 28.5 on a single tank on my 2005 3.3 liter. I averaged 27.5 mpg on a 2500 mile trip using premium and mid-grade. On regular, I rarely break 26 mpg.
I do agree that low 30s is easily attainable with a 4 cyl.
I just did it for 4600 miles. So not only is it possible, its EXPECTED. I'm betting I can do better if I kept the speed down to say 60-65mph as well.
I would also mention that this mileage was for the entire trip, in other words, fill up at pump, drive 4600 miles keeping track of every gallon, come back to same pump, fill up tank, divide TOTAL mileage by TOTAL gallons. No issues with outliers, error per tank doesn't matter, rather than a max error of 2gal/18gal on a misfill ( 11% ) you have at most 2gal/130gal ( 1.5% ). All your fillup issues simply go away.
As I stated previously, this is Camry #3, the other 2 were auto's, and the 2005 was nearly as good as my 07. Better looking too. So, in this crazy world, 100% of the Camrys I have owned do THE IMPOSSSIBLE!!!! Its great to be exceptional.. :shades:
You got that right. I tried a half tank at 90+ once just to see what would happen in my 05, 32-33mpg. ( 2 adults, 2 kids, 3 days vacation gear, no A/C )
To be perfectly honest, the stick doesn't seem to return that much noticablely better mileage on the highway than the 05 auto. Both 2AZ-FE motors. I get a fair amount better around town ( 26/manual versus 24/auto ) but so far I can't claim that the stick has been a guarenteed extra 1-2-3 highway mpg.
I would go further, and say that if you CAN'T get low-30's with a Camry 4cylinder ( OEM, well maintained, <80mph cruising ), something is wrong with it.
I was annoyed by the bright night-time radio display, which made me wonder how many people complained (after they bought the car), and whether Toyota had offered any sort of fix for it. I'm not sure what was up with this; perhaps an artefact of the attempt to brighten up the display for sunny day driving (or with sunglasses, which the 2004-2006 displays were nearly impossible to read). All in all, one would have thought they would have had a consumer test drive of the redesigned car at night, before mass-producing it with this display. In any case, this is one thing that consumers should consider before the purchase. It's a show-stopper for me.
Overall, not a very safe nor economical mpg vehicle. Although Boston doesn't have to wait till next year anymore, Toyota does.
This is really unfortunate. Any chance of something mechanical being wrong with it? Dirt in the wheel bearings, clogged intake, blown O2 sensor? Aftermarket air filter? Any chance your average travel speed is like 110mph? I realize that sounds silly, but a number of us are having pretty decent luck with the things, snaring 32-35mpg without even really trying hard.
For goodness sake, my around town, purely commuting tank was 26 mpg. To date, in 9000 miles, its the only data point I have for around town, I bought the car for trips, not commuting.
If I got 26 mpg on the highway I'd be pretty steamed at Toyota as well.
No chance at all of that. It was an older rental from the dealer. ~at least 8,000 miles on it. Average speed was right on 65 mph. No wind.
I've tested enough of these cars to know what to expect. For those who follow my posts, I think all the cars get pretty much the same; what varies is how accurately and consistently different people track their mileage.
It should be interesting, at least to me, to see what I come up with on the 2008.
To reiterate - you don't have to believe me, or anyone else - take the car out as a rental for a nice long trip before you buy it for fuel economy. If it flunks your standards, it will be alot cheaper to return and not buy than trade it in on a hybrid.
"No. I've tested enough of these cars to know what to expect. For those who follow my posts, I think all the cars get pretty much the same; what varies is how accurately and consistently different people track their mileage."
I have no beef with the basic concept that some people really don't know how to calculate mileage, and you'll have to take my word for this, but I ain't them.
Back in the old days, I would use a pulloff on the TransCanadian highway to change the oil on my truck just because the odo had rolled over another 3000 miles. When it was -20F outside. And while I'm not quite that anal anymore, I am rather particular about my fuel mileage. To me, a 26 mpg Camry is broken.
To reiterate - you don't have to believe me, or anyone else - take the car out as a rental for a nice long trip before you buy it for fuel economy. If it flunks your standards, it will be alot cheaper to return and not buy than trade it in on a hybrid.
You know, in some million mles of driving the only machine I've ever been disappointed in was the wife's 2001 Mazda MPV. On that thing, I got EXACTLY what the EPA sticker said. I can usually whoop the EPA by at least a few %, sometimes as much as 10%. But not that van.
But 26mpg on a Camry on the highway? Man, I would be steamed. Both of my 4.6L V8 Mustang GT's would do 28-29mpg on the highway, if I couldn't beat that with most any Camry I'd be writing letters, start an internet forum to complain, throwing rocks through dealers windows, the whole enchilada.
457 miles, 16.9 gallons = 27.0 mpg. 85% + freeway. This is the same pump, 04 Camry AT. I don't do hardly any commute driving, as I live 3 miles from work, and have two cars that I alternate. The rest is constant speed (65 mph, maximum use of cruise control) interstate or two lane highway with minimal traffic lights or stop lights. I did not have plenty of fuel left, but the low fuel indicator had been on for a little while, the gas price went up 13 cents since my last fillup, so I filled up. I am satisfied with my calculation, although it is only a single fill up calculation and subject to variation due to differences in fill level upon fill-up.
My commutes are 38 miles round trip, and I seldom have any trips under 4 miles. If I did, it would drop my MPG due to start-up inefficiencies.
Ugh.