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
To reiterate - - - based on the information provided on this website, 32 mpg is the tops, absolute maximum mpg which can actually be achieved on any 2002 or later camry, and even that is unique. It was the one, sole instance in which someone got 600+ miles on the camry at 18.2+ refill (thought is was you, dudlyer, but maybe not - I didn't check, but perhaps you will).
I do know, from my experience with my own camry, renting 8 other camrys, and talking to 10+ people with camrys where I work, that this car is incapable of achieving 30 mpg in "real world" driving, where the volume of gas is accurately measured. I'm not talking about driving 75 or 80 mph either. I mean, for me, no more than 65 mph, constant speed, no unusuals in driving conditions or driving or weight load or weather, or wind. The top end for typical mpg on this car is 28 mpg. Not more. 25-26 mpg is the low end. Even lower (<25 for the 2008-2009). It is not my belief. It is my experience and knowledge.
I have not, as recently queried, driven as low as 55 mph - I did do a test at 61 mph and got something slightly above 29 mph if memory serves, but not 30. My tires are, by coincidence - also set at 40# cold.
I have not tried synthetic of that specification.
I have, recently, pumped the tires up to 40# cold.
On topic, I just turned 493.4 miles on 18.456 gallons (plus fumes) in MIXED DRIVING (25% city, by miles).
26.733853 mpg.
I don't buy one person getting over 30 mpg. There have been many people here that have reported well over 30 mpg many times. I think there is only 1 person that gets below 30 mpg in a 4 cyl Camry on pure highway.
30 mpg is bottom of the barrel for highway mpg for any Camry of any year with any transmission. Now if you call 80, 5 mile trips on the highway "highway driving" then you will not get good numbers. Fill up, drive 400+ miles on the highway and fill up again and 30 mpg will be a distant bad memory.
Now for a Sienna 30 mpg is tough to achieve (but doable), but in a 4-cyl Camry it is a piece of cake.
I strongly suggest those that can't get 30 mpg buy a scangauge II. The cost of $169 is way less then productivity lost by complaining about mpg. This tool will teach you how to drive efficienty and will show you were mileage is lost. For example it takes an extremely small amount of city driving to bring down mpg on a trip. The scangauge will pay for itselft shortly.
This constant denial of the high mpg that most can attain is pointless. Those with low mpg (if there are more than 1) need to pinpoint the problem, and short of having somebody there to see what the issues are a Scangauge is the solution.
I will wholeheartedly agree on one point. The manual transmission is more efficient than the AT despite what they EPA may say.
If one goes 493 miles with 25% city that means about 370 miles are highway and 123 are city. Real world city mpg of 18 mpg (may be much lower in real congested areas) would result in 6.8 gallons used for city driving, that leaves 11.65 gallons for highway driving. 370 miles divided by 11.65 gives 31.7 mpg, so it looks like 30 mpg is certainly attainable.
The actual highway numbers are probably better as any stops/starts in that 370 miles would bring the number down. Also averaging less than 18 mpg for the city portion would bring up the highway portion. Was this 493 miles in one day? If not the highway portion would again be considerably higher as the engine wastes energy getting up to operating temp.
Congrats on getting over 30 mpg - who knew!
Post #636 quantifies the difference between two Camrys with the same motor, one manual, one auto. WAY WAY more is defined as approx 1.5mpg by the best information available on this forum.
To reiterate - - - based on the information provided on this website, 32 mpg is the tops, absolute maximum mpg which can actually be achieved on any 2002 or later camry, and even that is unique
Post #636 also quantifies nearly 7000 miles of driving an automatic, 2005 Camry which AVERAGED some 33 mpg during that time.
The following is a partial list of posters to this forum who have achieved a UNIQUE result greater than 32 mpg, nearly all of them with an automatic.
Westside, leob1, lunarmist, geezer55, 210delray, phd, gardner5236, solara6, lpage1, njerald, fatrap,tuffy, etc etc.
For the record I would note that once we have more than 1, they are no longer unique.
I do know, from my experience with my own camry, renting 8 other camrys, and talking to 10+ people with camrys where I work, that this car is incapable of achieving 30 mpg in "real world" driving
Would you like to disavow your highway mileage datapoint of 33 mpg contained in Post #26?
Being dispassionate in my search for the truth on Camrys, consider me an equal opportunity defender of the data.
The following are some of the posters who have reported <30mpg on the highway. PhD is not included on this list because he has claimed a 33 mpg datapoint in Post #26.
andrelaplume, imacil, motownusa, quill, dmtucker, toyotatoys, lalit, glanwin, etc etc Some are undoubtedly 6 cylinders, but they nearly average 30mpg anyway so I felt it reasonable to include everyone with <30 mpg.
There is no reason to argue over this. It is clear, that different vehicle/driver/location characteristics matter (in some way), and yield different MPG for their owners. For all we know, it could be a sensor out of tolerance, an AC compressor creating drag on the engine, a vehicle w/brake pads dragging, an ECM software settings that got whacked up, or probably any number of problems.
Your mileage is what it is. You check and do the obvious things, and then you live with the results. It's a hunk of metal, if you don't like it...get rid of it and get something else you'll be happier with.
I can easily appreciated how frustrating it would be, if one cared about the mpg they got and couldn't figure out why their vehicle wasn't there. I've thought about phd's situation, and although I could easily understand how one particular vehicle didn't get rated mileage....can't explain why a group of ten or however many friends he has nobody gets some arbitrary number (unless it's "in the gas", or altitude). I think if I had 10 folks who all got a particular number, I'd think the same thing.
I personally don't care what my mpg is, I didn't buy it for the cost of fuel, I bought it for the safety and reliability for a new driver. I have my share of gas hog vehicles, and mpg is an interesting number....but not something I would use to make a purchase decision on. I am lucky that financially I don't have to worry about the cost of fuel in this stage of life.
So let's be civil about this, report the data as it is, refrain from making claims about whether somebody can or can't achieve some number...and move on. I have no axe to grind with Toyota, nor any allegiance (my first ever Toyota in 40 years of buying, driving, and maintaining our vehicles). Troy's work on collecting and reporting on the data was great. Anybody visiting the site can get a summary of many users worth of data, and understand the range of mileage that they might get.
As with the stock market.....prior performance is no guarantee of the future.
So lets move on, life is too short to quibble about variances in MPG.
Group hug.........well, go hug your kids/spouse/significant other.
Total gallons used 84.1 for an overall average mpg of 28.82. The all-highway tanks were tightly grouped at 29.54 (384 miles), 29.53 (543 miles with a 6 gal partial fill at $4.40/gal!!!), and 29.62 (426 miles). The 426 mile tank still showed almost 1/4 full and took 14.4 gallons which is about right considering the 18.5 gallon capacity.
Needless to say, I am ecstatic with this mileage. This is 1.3 mpg better than a very similar trip 2 years ago when the car only had about 12K miles on it. I attribute most of the improvement to slightly slower speeds (I used to set the cruise at 74-75) and maybe a little to a more broken in engine.
Your numbers sit right on the mean for a V6 Camry on the highway.
just a few points:
a) when the gage shows 1/4 full, there is about 3-3.5 gallons left, not 4.625 (18.5/4)
b) three tankfuls still is not much for a moving average, especially when there is such a huge error in refill on all camrys. It's hard to tell if the highway tanks were contiguous, or "picked out" among other city tanks. There may be even more error. You could have got 29.x, but since there are so few tanks (3) and its not clear that these are contiguous, there's no way to tell.
c) 1.3 mpg betterment is well within the range of error for three tankfuls. I wouldn't make too much of this.
d) I know that there is a belief, perhaps from the lower EPA estimate, that a V6 is less efficient than a V4, but that's not supported by what is posted on this website, including your post.
Conversely, Manual Transmissions are far more efficient (in terms of real world mileage), than are Automatic Transmissions. The MT's just aren't that common, or popular, in the USA.
e) congradulations on your fantastic fuel efficiency.
I think the data from this site shows the 4 cylinder to be more efficient.
Toyota does not make a V4.
If one goes 493 miles with 25% city that means about 370 miles are highway and 123 are city. Real world city mpg of 18 mpg (may be much lower in real congested areas) would result in 6.8 gallons used for city driving, that leaves 11.65 gallons for highway driving. 370 miles divided by 11.65 gives 31.7 mpg, so it looks like 30 mpg is certainly attainable.
The actual highway numbers are probably better as any stops/starts in that 370 miles would bring the number down. Also averaging less than 18 mpg for the city portion would bring up the highway portion. Was this 493 miles in one day? If not the highway portion would again be considerably higher as the engine wastes energy getting up to operating temp.
Congrats on getting over 30 mpg - who knew! "
Well - I think this is about me - and no - real world driving is not generally 500 miles a day (or what is that? 177,000 miles a year?) real world mixed driving is a few day trips, and some citiy driving. I don't make too much of it. I was reporting a single tank, and you know those issues with a single tank; who the heck knows where it was when you filled it up, or topped it off? If you assume 18 mpg city, its one thing, if not, its another, and, to be honest, I don't have a means to get the exact proportion of city miles at least in terms of how "pure" they were. But the freeway trips were few (like 2 or 3), so I assume the rest is some kind of "city". Based on what I know, I would assume that, in this case, the city driving was better than 18 mpg, and that explains the higher mixed mileage - if one wants to make anything about a single tank at all. The other independent line of evidence is that you could put the car on cruise control and drive it to the end of the earth at 65 mph, and you will get no more than about 28 mpg, and that's only with a few pit stops. It can vary quite a bit up and down around that 28 mpg (if you even get there), due to the fuel refill scenario I've pointed out....but once you get to 1,500-2,000 miles, those "amazing" 33's and 34's (or 40+'s, if you fill up every 250 miles), get weeded out in the running average.
I would guess there are much more than 3 gallons left 1/4 tank. Maybe about 3 left when the light comes on.
I think the data from this site shows the 4 cylinder to be more efficient.
Toyota does not make a V4. "
Reading or trying to authenticate mileage off a gas gage is not advisable. There is, in my experience, about 3-3.5 gallons at the 1/4 mark, about 6.5 gallons left at the 1/2 mark, and about 10.5 gallons left at the 3/4 mark. When full, there is (no surprise) 18.5 gallons +/- a few hundredths, but not anything like 19 gallons. The check gas light comes on shortly after it goes below the 1/4, at which point there seems to be pretty close to 2.5 gallons in the tank. Why the movement varies is unclear, but the impression that is given is that you get great mileage in the first 1/4 - 1/2 of the tank but you really don't. I suppose it's great positive reinforcement for those people who underfill on their 1/2 tank trips, and say they got 200 miles on a 1/4 tank (and they did, it took them 8 gallons to do it), but it's not very accurate, especially when the pump shuts off 3 gallons short of full.
I wouldn't be surprised if the V6 auto turned out to be more efficient than a 4cyl. I don't think the reports show its less at all. It does surprise me indeed.
FWIW back in 1999 when CR ran their highway test at 55 mph still they got 42 mpg with a 4-cyl Camry. They now run the test at 65 mph.
The target keeps moving. We are talking about pure highway mileage, not an everyday commute/routine. No two people define city driving the same so it is not that relevant to compare. Highway mileage can be compared if the pertinent factors are listed. That is why we are mostly discussing highway mileage here. So how many trips are in a tank of gas - that is a relevent question. A tank of gas can be all highway, but if it is 100 4 mile trips your mileage will be terrible as the engine will never be warm, and cold engines do not run efficiently.
BTW the water temp is a poor indicator of engine temp - it shows water temp, which heats up much to quickly. Oil temp is a better indicator.
I actually think your recent tank is quite good considering it is a bunch of day trips with some city driving. Get that thing out on the highway and see what it can do for mpg. You will be suprised.
Did you get the scangauge yet?
I believe the gas gage is optimistic (i.e., more than 1/4 of the actual tank volume at 1/4 gage reading) rather than pessimistic. Otherwise, people would run out of gas a lot more often than they do. My low fuel light doesn't come on until I'm below 1/8 tank on the gage but I do agree that there are about 2.5 gal left at this point.
On the rare occasions I have filled up at the 1/2 mark, I have never gotten much more than 10 gallons in.
I'm very happy with my mileage, whether real or imagined
When the light came on in both my 2005 auto and my current 2007 manual, it takes approximately 15.5 gallons to fill the tank.
So there is certainly more than 3.0 gallons in the tank when the gauge is showing 1/4 full.
Could we just report our actual MPG with relevant details and skip the arguing, please?!!
61 4 cylinder Camry highway datapoints reported in this forum, with an average mileage of 31.7mpg.
32 total 6 cylinder Camry datapoints in the forum with an average of 29.3 mpg.
The 4 cylinders are, on average, 2.4mpg better than the V6's.
Current differences according to the EPA sticker is about a 3mpg difference, advantage to the 4 cylinder.
Camry forum rules! :shades:
If you take the reports in which there are actual multiple consecutive tanks, and consider the authenticating information in the post, such as odometer readings and/or fuel volumes, you will find no significant difference between 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engines. Imacmil is an example of an owner whose 6 cylinder vehicle clearly and authentically matches the efficiency of a 4 cylinder camry (i.e., 26-28 mpg, generally).
The quality of the information provided varies across posts, and, from extensive review of the posts - it is clear that most of the high mpg's (i.e., above 28 mpg), and nearly all of the extremely high mpg's (i.e., above 32 mpg) are the result of individual tanks. One exception to this is Troy, which I attribute to the fact that he has a manual transmission.
Interesting. Here is my comment. Of course we have "data", because it doesn't live up to some arbitrary standard does not disqualify it. It might be "noisier" than we would like, but it is OUR data.
I would also venture that bias is not unidirectional, and if such bias is equally weighted, the mean answer DOES NOT CHANGE. The standard deviation does, but not the mean. So, given a random sampling here on the mileage forums, it would be reasonable to assume we have random bias, some optimistic, some pessimistic. This does not change the mean answer.
I would also note that after reviewing all EPA sticker mileage for Camrys going back to the 1994 body style, the differences noted on this forum between 6 and 4 cylinders for the highway component are similar, and the numbers themselves strike amazingly close to the EPA's overall highway answer for these 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders engines.
I would consider this a test of our basic answer, within the bounds of what we have to work with of course.
Best MPG I've seen at 65 MPH cruise. I attribute it to the nearly 9000 ft. density altitude- and resultant significant reduction in air drag.
I can remember this well from riding a motorcycle in high elevations- there was much less wind drag on my chest compared to sea level.
Have you calibrated your scangauge, to both distance traveled (via gps) and fuel consuption (multiple fillups)?
Have you calibrated your scangauge, to both distance traveled (via gps) and fuel consuption (multiple fillups)?
>>
Yes on both counts. I still won't offer the scangauge reading as completely factual - but the takeaway point from this is clear: The fuel economy of my car improves in 65 MPH cruise in hot thin-air conditions. With any and all inaccuracies in testing, I can say with confidence the fuel mileage @ 65 MPH, level ground, 5000' elevation, 90 degree temps, on my car is much closer to 40 MPG than to 30 MPG.
I'm not sure who dudleyr is talking about; I didn't say the "data" here are irrelevant, I said that the information here is not "data". It is relevant to talk about, because what is reported here is subject to biases due to incomplete refill which are enlarged when gas volumes are low, discontinuous measurements, selective reporting (i.e., only higher calculated mpg's), lack of ability to authenticate, and various other sources of bias towards reporting of high mpg's..
The other thing that seems to be talked about, alot, is the feeling that a camry a) routinely achieves 30 mpg; and b) a camry is capable of achieving extraordinary efficiencies of 35+ mpg.
I respectully submit that: (a) does not happen - on a routine basis; and that (b) has never, ever happened, anywhere, by any 2002-2008 camry in existence (with an automatic transmission).
26-28 mpg is what a camry gets, and that's it.
When the light came on in both my 2005 auto and my current 2007 manual, it takes approximately 15.5 gallons to fill the tank.
So there is certainly more than 3.0 gallons in the tank when the gauge is showing 1/4 full."
The operative word being "approximately": You probably didn't completely top off the tank. I get 16 gallons in when the light first comes on, and have done this dozens of times in my car, and several times, in other camrys. It is 2.5 gallons left when the light first comes on, almost right on the money.
Talking about data quality and bias is a completely reasonable topic. For some reason, you focus on issues which you have decided only give artificially HIGH results. What about all the reasons included in this data which give artificially LOW results? Remember, bias exists in both directions, and a random distribution of bias means you still end up at the same answer.
Lets start with the basics, dirty air filters, low tire pressures, a hole in someone's gas tank, people who drive their automatic with 2 feet, dragging emergency brakes or poorly functioing regular brake system, improperly functioning transmission ( common in more modern Camrys ) general warranty issues which go unfixed and affect efficiency, wheel bearings, CV boot issues, etc etc.
So there are as many reasons, some might venture MORE, for why a normal Camry reported mileage should be LESS than it is...and I'm sure we have some of those issues reported here, demonstrated by people who took their car in and demanded it be "fixed" by the dealer when it doesn't give them the results they expect.
And my 2005 2AZ-FE auto tranny Camry regularly returned 33 mpg, check out post #636 for the odometer readings, mileage, gallons, wind, weather and load. Not exceptional at all, and verified by the data here in the forum, as well as the EPA.
The operative word being "approximately": You probably didn't completely top off the tank. I get 16 gallons in when the light first comes on, and have done this dozens of times in my car, and several times, in other camrys. It is 2.5 gallons left when the light first comes on, almost right on the money.
Why do you assume something is wrong? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.
Your numbers and mine sounds like it is perfectly within reason for 2 different Camrys. And of COURSE when the gauge is on 1/4 of a tank I have more than 3 gallons, I know this because my light comes on well below the 1/4 of a tank mark, and it takes some driving, some more driving, and then some more driving to get it there, and I certainly wasn't using air as fuel during the time and miles it took to get from the 1/4 tank mark to the light coming on.
I respectully submit that: (a) does not happen - on a routine basis; and that (b) has never, ever happened, anywhere, by any 2002-2008 camry in existence (with an automatic transmission). "
We really need an icon with a car rolling its eyes.
So people that get 35+ mpg are lying? At least the bar has been raised at one time it was "impossible" for any Camry to get 30 mpg on the highway.
I wonder how many pure highway (not even 5 miles of city) tanks it takes a person to reach a conclusion about everybody elses Camrys? :confuse:
phd86 - How is the scangauge install going? Let us know how it helps.
Later caaz
The other thing that seems to be talked about, alot, is the feeling that a camry a) routinely achieves 30 mpg; and b) a camry is capable of achieving extraordinary efficiencies of 35+ mpg.
>
a) If the speed is between 40 and 75 mph, no net elevation gain, light winds, mild to warm temps, and few brake applications- it is trivially easy to get 30+ MPG on a late model 4 cylinder Camry.
b) Efficiencies in excess of 35 MPG are not extraordinary for a car this size/weight under optimal conditions (60 mph cruise, light wind, mild temps, few brake applications). In fact I'd expect similar configured fwd cars to achieve the same fuel economy. A four cylinder Accord would be the most directly comparable. There are reports of mid 30's fuel economy out of GM FWD V6 vehicles at steady low cruise speeds. The efficiency of the Camry is competitive and first rate, but not extraordinary.
Well -
a) unless you have a manual transmission, you aren't going 35 mpg in any automatic camry. If you do, like Troy's manual, you might.
b) 200 miles driving of trying to "hypermile" at 60 mph doesn't show anything due to gross errors in refill volume of such a short trip; and you wouldn't be able to get "well over 35 mpg" in that or any other situation. The claims here are made for people going 65-70 mph and getting 30, 35, or 40 in routine driving. Sure, you might come up with an "apparent" 30 or 35 in one tank, but that isn't the true mileage. I don't put any stock whatsoever in a 200 mile drive, so no thanks. Now, if you were to drive 5,000 consecutive miles (mostly freeway, not throwing out the lower mpg tank records)- and keep the records (odometer readings, every receipt of gas), and show 35 mpg, then that's another story. But claiming something on 200 miles is not a true test of "real world" mpg.
Lots of people drive 90% freeway - but none of them claim such long term high mileages as their average mpg. What people do claim is that every once in a while they calculate on single tankful that they get thirty this and that.
c) I'm not "doubting" - I am making a statement of fact, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, so does a camry get 26-28 on pure freeway. Perhaps a little more (or less, if you are so unlucky to have bought those 5 speed automatics), but not much. Maybe 32 on a pale minority of a few vehicles, and that's a rarity, attributed to some factor about those particular cars that has yet to be identified. But not 35, and not 40 mpg. Not on an automatic.
Much closer to trolling than a statement of fact.
Please read my posts. I know the Camry can get 40 mpg and 35 is a piece of cake. No need to convince me. :shades:
I'm not "doubting" - I am making a statement of fact, such as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, so does a camry get 26-28 on pure freeway.
Based on the information contained within this forum, you are doing no such thing, as all independantly available information has shown to date. Your statement doesn't even apply to 6 cylinder Camrys for that matter.
speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Strikes me as a little closer to the definition of whats been going on.
i guessed yopu missed the posting when i tested my wifes much heavier 06 Sienna v6 and got 33.6 mpg... trust me.. my camry does much better than that and i gave you 17 records to prove it.
P.S. Sorry Dudley, i re-read some of ur postings, its cool
Later
Caaz
Averaged 36 mpg on Hwy driving only, at about 65mph. Yes, I tried it both ways (fill the tank up to the max vs stop at the first click). Both yielded similar results over a 1000+ miles total trip. Light wind, 4 adults and luggage, Tires at max psi as per manual (sorry I forget the amount - 36psi?)
BTW, we haven't done the TSB to reprogram the engine/transmission yet (Jan '07 build).
Averaged 36 mpg on Hwy driving only, at about 65mph.
I shall add your numbers to the database. They sound pretty good.
I filled up on June 01, and Aug 05. I drove 270.4 city miles in that time. Fillup to 1st click was 9.7 gallons, fuel at the neck was 10.00.
27.0 mpg, no trip longer than 10 miles, most <5 miles. All warm summer weather ( I've noticed seasonal variation in the 2005 2AZ-FE auto before, but have not quantified seasonal variation yet in the 2007 ).
Karen
Not really. I just list every posters mileage, highway, city, year, name, in an Excel spreadsheet. I then dump all the information into Access to do filters on what I am interested in seeing, and then I dump that filtered information back into a statistical package to check and test the distributions for a particular subset.
Are you interested in anything in particular? I think I can make a big JPEG or PDF out of the spreadsheet and just post it to some webspace, and then link to that.
Let me experiment a little.
I'm looking for a set of replacement tires for our 2007 LE 4 cyl, and come to realize that my OEM tires are Michelin "Energy" MXV4S8's which are substantially more expensive than many other tires, even other Michelins. In looking at the Michelin website, they claim to 'go further on each tank of gas', as compared to other touring comparison tires. The local chain tire shops claim that it's a difference in the sidewalls as to how they are made which yields less rolling resistance, but doubt that any of them are really in the know. I'll probably just buy a set of Michelin Pilot Exalto's since the vehicle next month is going to be used primarily by my daughter in city driving. But I'm beginning to wonder if these 'energy' tires really DO make a difference in MPG, and that might be a contributing factor in why some posters have slightly less mpg experiences than others.
Perhaps I'll take the car from her and do a highway run in the future, and see what it did to my mileage.
How about a PDF?
Lifetime consumption would be:
72926 Miles - 2790.632 Gallons = works out to 26.132 mpg lifetime (added 23.8 gallons by the above method) This would be all driving - I'm pretty much a 'lead foot' - often driving 80 when on the highway. Tires generally in a decent range but not at the +2 PSI semi/overinflated range...oh, and I always use synthetic oil. My early documentation on the oil seems to show a 1-1.5mpg increase solely from that.
I've always generally filled my tank and then after it clicks, I tried to add a bit more - not for this forum but just to get a good feel for how the car was doing. I do have one extended trip between 11/22/2005 & 11/27/2005 where I'd driven right around 2000 miles (2022) and tried to max out the gas going in just to get the mileage.
11/22/2005 16704 16.187 $33.01
11/22/2005 17019 10.26 $20.51
11/23/2005 17334 10.51 $21.00
11/26/2005 17680 13.30 $25.01
11/26/2005 18155 14.95 $29.00
11/26/2005 18430 8.5 $16.00
11/27/2005 18726 9.0 $18.00
Looks like 30.39687 mpg including what was abysmal fuel efficiency going there. I believe that late in the year the fuel mixtures were different from the summer months AND the trip up to Kansas City from Florida was mostly uphill after I got past St Louis...and I generally did 80mph+ when feasible.
Recently did a trip of 822 miles - the datapoints were:
6/10/2008 68393 14.8 $59.00
6/11/2008 68833 12.18 $47.00
6/15/2008 69215 14.906 $59.00
822 miles - 27.086 gallons approximately 30.34788 mpg
For what's generally my city driving, here's my last 30 days or so:
6/30/2008 70570 10 $40.00
7/6/2008 70852 14.75 $59.00
7/12/2008 71244 14.11 $57.00
7/18/2008 71676 14.03 $56.00
7/25/2008 72034 14.94 $59.00
8/1/2008 72457 7.72 $30.00
8/3/2008 72529 9.8 $38.00
8/8/2008 72926 14.89 $56.00
All this is mostly on flat ground (Jacksonville, FL). Looks like I'm averaging 26.1 mpg.
Mike
Individual fillup's aren't as reliable as multiple consecutive fillups.
Incidentally, as I started above, I do have every fill-up logged. The lifetime average I posted is pretty much what it is with city/highway combined.
For the record, the final highway tank ( ran back and forth across the state at 70mph a weekend ago ) was 41 mpg. That included Eisenhow Tunnel and 12,000' of elevation climb TWICE.
I shall now move over to the TSX forums and see how they are doing. Undoubtedly with their lower profile tires, +40HP, auto trannys and pretensions of sportiness they are getting 10 or 12 mpg.
PS: I am still working on getting all of the Camry data into a JPEG, I know Excel can do it but I haven't figured out how yet.
If you want.....post the file somewhere I can download it, and I'll see if I can convert it for you. Can email me at kiawah@carspace.com with download instructions.
We used to be able to send attachments via the carspace email address, but I've had problems in the last month trying to do that...and don't know if a change was made by Edmunds restricting the mail attachments somehow.