Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
On another note, does anyone have initial information on the changes for the 2003 Camry? I am shopping for a car and was curious if there were any changes (i.e. ABS standard or side airbags standard) to keep up with cars like the Accord or improve their side crash test ratings. I was really dissapointed that you could only get the side curtain airbags in the EX-V6 which costs $25K plus. Really dissapointing. It may seem weird that I am insisting on the curtain air bags, but I think they are a necessity with all these hhhuuuuuggggeeee SUVs around. I am not attacking SUVs, I just want to keep safe while driving around SUVs.
Well, any input is greatly appreciated!!! : )
It is bad that Honda is requiring the EX V-6 to get side curtains. On the Camry, you can get it for any trim (well, I'm not sure how readily available it may be in all trims). On the Passat, side curtains are standard regardless of which trim you buy.
That all said, having side curtains is only one part of the safety equation. E.g. as I've stated as my own opinion in previous messages, conventional thoracic side airbags are as important if not more so in most conventional side impacts, and good side crash performance is important too.
But yes, NHTSA (and IIHS too) have some maddening gaps in their testing that sometimes seem to defy logic.
I had seen your previous message about the statement read to you over the phone. But, has Toyota ever released this statement publicly? Was the expectation of crash results available before the vehicle was even tested, let alone before it was released? The difference is that Honda openly discusses, before launch, what they expect the vehicle to score. They tell the press, it's in the brochures, sometimes on the website, etc. No room for them to hide if the result turns out differently, which tells me that 1) their internal design, computer simulation, and internal testing is really good; and 2) that there really is not as much variability in crash testing as some may suggest.
Hopefully NHTSA will test a side airbag-equipped Camry pretty soon, but who knows.
Of course, since they also increased front seat legroom by an inch, you can always position the front seat an inch forward and then the measurements will be exactly the same as the 2002.
However, Honda not offering side curtains in anything but an EX V-6 deserves criticism. Why should one be forced to go to that trim? The Honda will get 4 or 5 stars in the NHTSA side impact tests (I think they are claiming the non-airbagged versions will get 4 stars). That's obviously good. But that 4/5 stars will be much less meaningful if you get t-boned by an Expedition, and you don't have side curtains.
~alpha
And while I'm on the subject, what generation Camry is it for? (And what does the package include?)
~alpha
Also, I am not sure how you view a side crash from say a Ford Expedition into a Honda Accord. The Expedition bumper will definitely impact the Accord above there the normal side airbags protect. In other words, the impact can easily scramble your brain, even if you do survive. I am not saying that we should not have SUVs on the road (I personally think that they can be very useful), but I want to even the playing field with all of these luxury (never go off-roading) SUVs. Again, I am not saying that SUVs should not exist, but I juts want to be safe. Is it wrong for a person to want a safe reliable car without paying a lot over $25K? I would even be happy if the forced me to get the EX 4cyl, but I do not need the V6 power.
Regarding your statement: "At least in the Accord you'll have more power to get out of the way." No doubt that is certainly the case in the V6 models, but in the volume selling 4cylinders, its highly debateable. Lets just look at the stats for a second.
HP
Accord: 160hp@5500 RPM
Camry: 157hp@5600 RPM
Advantage: Accord, with 3 hp at a slightly more usable 5500 RPM.
Torque
Accord: 161 LB-FT@4500 RPM
Camry: 162 LB-FT@4000 RPM
Advantage: Camry, with an extra lb at a more accesible 4000 RPM.
The two cars weigh similar to each other, and both, I expect... to have outstanding trannys.
I don't think you'd be able to feel much of a difference, btwn the two, and in reality, I doubt that if you were facing an impending collision, a couple of tenths in either car's favor probably wouldnt make a difference.
IMO
~alpha
Let me know if you need help finding it.
Do any of you know how to find out if the NHTSA is going to test the Camry with the side airbags any time soon? Thanks again.
NHTSA Crash Test Home Page:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/ncap/
The last time I emailed them I got a response within a few days. If you do ask them, please let us know what happens. I'm sure people here would be interested.
I'm looking to buy a mid-sized family sedan for about $25k next year (earliest, May -- candidates include the Passat, Camry, '03 Accord), so the information here is quite interesting but not the final decision points. Obviously that kind of money won't buy one of the safety-top-tier sedans (e.g. as mentioned previously, Volvo or MB) but I'm looking for as good a balance as possible.
Leaving comparison discussions out of this model-specific forum, I'll say that the Camry does quite well. The currently available NHTSA side impact scores are really the only blemish. If Toyota can address this or if the side-airbagged-Camry comes in at, say, 5/5 stars, it'd be great. The vehicle does great in the IIHS offset frontal crash test, you can get it with side curtain airbags, and its available with a version of electronic stability control (VSC). Only other things it could use for safety (though these would blow the price point out of its bracket so these are more speculative points and not detrimental ones), are AWD, xenon headlamps, and whiplash protection.
I am also looking to purchase a vehicle in the next several months, but my budget is a little lower at ~$20K. We'll see how things turn out. I am definitely trying my best not to sacrifice safety for costs. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but I'll keep the TH members updated if I hear back from NHTSA.
I'm curious to know what others have gotten with their Camrys, and if there's much difference in mileage between the 4 and 6 cylinder models. Thanks for your input!
Nearly all my driving is in stop-and-go urban traffic, stoplights every few blocks, never get above 30 and rarely that. From tank to tank, over the last 3 tanks, according to the trip computer (which I reset each time I fill up, but which I think is slightly optimistic) we're getting about 18.5 MPG. Not great, but much better than the last car I drove (Crown Victoria) which did about 8 MPG in urban driving.
We're talking about old-town, narrow-street (Boston) urban driving here, not suburban or grand highway: my average speed, according to the trip computer, is about 11-12 MPH from tank to tank. Anyone doing WORSE than I am?
For the record, I would NEVER even consider buying a camry over an Accord (not even the 2002 vs 2002 model) because I am just 'used' to Accord's taut but controlled ride & heavier steering which gets better & better with increasing speed.
I think, the new accord is seriously out-classing the Camry as far as te driving dynamics go & the VALUE quotient is EX V6 is just too good to pass.
For the Camry and MPG-
Our 2000 4cyl/auto is no more than adequate in terms of acceleration (and anemic with a load and A/c), and often requires higher revs to reach speed. Overall, in a mix of city and highway, we get about 24 or 25 MPG.
Our 2002 4cyl auto is much MUCH quicker, and therefore, doesnt need to rev its guts out. In a similar mix of city/hwy, we've been getting 27-29 MPG consistently, usually toward the higher range. Outstanding.
~alpha
The Suspension, wheels, and supercharger (v6) for 1997-2001 Camrys.
http://www.trdusa.com
"We apologize for any inconvenience that this time delay may have caused, but ALL dates are tentative. Earlier in the year many vehicles were slated to be tested and the availability of those vehicles were limited to selected market regions, therefore causing tremendous delays. Crash test facilities and NCAP will continue to work diligently on providing information on a broad range of vehicles. So please continue to be patient, many vehicles will be posted soon."
They even posted a link to the insurance crash test site, saying that I would find more information there. It seems like a cookie cutter response on their behalf. Oh well, I guess we just have to wait. I hope our tax dollars aren't going to waste!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Sandman :-)
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.
~alpha
~alpha
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.
~alpha
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.
~alpha
C&D comments on it in the 3.0L CL-Solara SLE comparo.
You can also access the article on C&D's website.