Toyota Camry 2006 and earlier

rbrooks3 · August 2002

Just so I am sure. The clogged a/c drain caused water to be on the floor in the passenger side rear? That's where my friend has water on the floor.

frankie7 · August 2002

are coming shortly on 2002's. Recommend you temporarily delay purchase to save some big bucks. LOL.

dragonfire · August 2002

Thanks for the feedback you two. I am really interested in the safety aspects of the Camry and I hope that the NHTSA finish the frontal crash tests soon (or at least post them on their site). Do you two think that they will test the Camry with the side airbags? The reason I ask is because it's not listed on the web site as a model that they may test. They are definitely taking a long time this year to perform the tests. Maybe the recession is hitting them also? Who knows... it's the government after all.

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!!! : )

dbronzo · August 2002

Correct. Rear pass side and also rear driver side. This happened over about a 10day period. When it was unplugged about another gallon came out. Unbelievable.

wmquan · August 2002

For my own personal buying priorities, side curtain airbags in a lower-riding vehicle are a must-have. I'm even begining to lean toward requiring them on higher-riding SUV's too (though most of the protection there are for relatively lower-percentage wrapping-around-a-pole).

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.

bartalk2 · August 2002

Be careful. I tried to change the brake light on my '91 Camry, and it cost me $100 to repair the damage I'd done putting it in incorrectly. Can't remember now what happened, put it in the wrong way, fuses blew, everything got screwed up, it took my mechanic over an hour to trouble shoot the thing and put things right. Have your mechanic change the bulb.

wmquan · August 2002

I suspect NHTSA buys batches of vehicles and works on the batches as a general group. If a vehicle is available close to whatever their cut-off is, it can have its test results released months before the next batch has their results released. Thus, 3 or 4 weeks can easily translate into 4 months. Look at EuroNCAP, which went from November of last year to June of this year without releasing any results!

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.

armtdm · August 2002

Has been a while on mine but I beleive it is via the trunk after getting the carpeting etc. out of the way. Owner's Manual may also help in this regard.

talon95 · August 2002

Honda is claiming an additional inch of knee room in the back, which leads me to believe that the shape of the seat has been changed to position your legs a bit higher. That will probably offset the inch less of legroom. We won't be able to tell until they hit the showrooms, but I don't think you'll see much of a difference from the 2002's.

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.

anonymousposts · August 2002

So there is criticism for the Accord only offering side curtain airbags in the EX V6 model? Didn't the Camry just score 2 stars in a side impact test? I'll take structural solidity over side curtain airbags anyday. Until the tests come out for the Accord I would reserve judgement. I Kia Rio could have side curtain airbgas ... would that make it safer than the Accord?

dragonfire · August 2002

I agree that structural rigidity is very important and this is why I was very dissapointed in the performance of the Camry's two star side crash test rating. But, I do not believe that these tests truly represent what happens in the real world (especially with all the SUVs around). From my understanding, the barriers that are used for the crash tests are set at a height that would represent lower riding cars. But they do not represent the growing number of large high-riding SUVs in the US market. If the tests were to use higher barriers, I think that the curtain airbags would be a savior for life threatening head injuries. Call me paranoid, but I rather be safe than sorry. I also remember that there was a news story on TV regarding this issue. Safety is definitely getting better, but I would like to see the safety features offered for lower priced vehicles. Any thoughts?

wmquan · August 2002

I'm with rice_dragon. I do feel the side impact tests are important, measuring what would happen if a vehicle the general size of a Corolla was to t-bone you. And yes, I dislike the Camry's non-airbagged score (and would not buy one myself, because of this). But 1) the airbagged Camry may do significantly better -- we just don't know yet; and 2) you can at least get all the side airbags in a Camry, including the side curtains.

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.

alpha01 · August 2002

..that for whatever reason, if/when NHTSA re-tests the NON Airbag Camry, it will achieve a score of at least 3 or 4 stars. This is based on the overall solidity of the structure-alleged to have increased over the previous gen, and the strength of the safety cage in the IIHS test- I think its reasonable to assume that if there is a deficiency, it has to do with the doors and re-inforcing of sills and positioning of the side impact beams. I do not understand how/why the rear would receive a 5 star rating, and Toyota could completely mis-engineer the safety desing of the front door, so I expect to see an improvement.
~alpha

cjileong · August 2002

What is this TRD package for the Camry you speak of? I'm just curious...

And while I'm on the subject, what generation Camry is it for? (And what does the package include?)

anonymousposts · August 2002

If I'm not mistaken didn't the 01-02 Accords do very well in crash tests with only side airbags? I know the Civic achieves 5 stars with only side airbags as does my 2002 SI. Anyways, if your only concern is safety then you should be looking at a Volvo or Mercedes. You can get a decent pre-owned version for the cost of a loaded Camry/Accord especially considering a loaded Camry XLE V6 is nearing the $30,000 mark.

alpha01 · August 2002

Generations: 83-86, 87-91, 92-96, 97-01, 02-06. This is the fifth generation Camry.
~alpha

dragonfire · August 2002

Don't take it wrong. I like the Accord for it's reliability and safety. I just wish that they did not make me buy a $25K car to get side curtain airbags. We are not questioning the structural rigidity and design of the accord. It's just a matter of options. In terms of safety, I was very pleased to see that the accord would have standard ABS, and I would like the Camry to have it standard also (my opinion only), but at least they have it as an optional feature. In my case, I like the Accord and Camry for their reliability, gas mileage, and such; but I do not want to compromise safety. I think that is all we are trying to say. We would like it as an option on the lower models.

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.

anonymousposts · August 2002

I do not think Honda has compromised safety. I don't honestly think that side curtain airbags would make that much of a difference vs. a solid structure w/ regular side airbags if an Expedition slams into the side of the car. If you think that any car without side curtain airbags is not safe then you are seriously limiting your options when it comes time to buy a car. There aren't very many cars at all in the $15,000 - $22,000 range that offer side curtain airbags. How about this ... just don't pull out in front of anybody and make sure you look both ways before crossing an intersection. At least in the Accord you'll have more power to get out of the way.

alpha01 · August 2002

You're really arrogant. Side Curtains are very effective at protecting the head and restraining motion, their biggest advantage. Nobody is bashing the Accord, so just stop ranting on us. I am Camry owner, and also a fan of the Accord. The simple fact is that Honda has greatly improved an already competent vehicle, but in the eyes of many, one of their few mistakes is not offering a Curtain restraint system on all models. (A move that one can parallel to Honda not offering ABS on LX Civics).

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

pat · August 2002

Um, folks the Accord vs Camry discussion is over on the Comparisons Board.

Let me know if you need help finding it.

dragonfire · August 2002

Thanks for the support. I was in no way bashing the Accord or trying to compare the two vehicles. I just wanted to get more information about the side crash performance on the Camry. I do personally worry about getting side swiped by a drunk driver at an intersection and I seem to hear about this type of tragedy too often. I hope that the Camry will perform better with the side airbags and I also hope the the initial results were and anomaly. Well to move on....

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.

wmquan · August 2002

I think the best advice I can give to you is to contact the NHTSA directly and ask. Their web site doesn't say the side-airbagged Camry will be tested soon, as you know. The link to send them email is on the bottom of the Crash Test home page (I'm hesitant to post an email address directly onto here).

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.

dragonfire · August 2002

Thanks for the link. I didn't know that the link was at the bottom of the screen. I did email them and if I get and information, I will be sure to post the information for all of us.

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.

guevinj · August 2002

I have a 1998 Camry LE 4 cylinder. The best mileage I have ever attained was nearly 35 mpg on one 170-mile highway trip at a steady 65 mph. Most of the time, I get between 30-32 mpg on the highway. The worst was about 16 mpg on a very cold/snowy week last winter, in mostly city driving.

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!

sam_beaver · August 2002

I got something like 38 MPG (XLE 4 cylinder) over a nice stretch of highway doing 65-70. But that was JUST for the highway part. And I don't do much of that.

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?

sobers · August 2002

I rented Camry LE 4 cyl a few days before the 2 star rating was reported & was suprised how 'lightweight' the doors felt while opening or closing. I also talked to my wife about it that our 2000 Accord SE doors feel more substantial (with better closing thump too.) & whether it relates to the safety. After reading about 2 star after a few days I started thinking if there was any way I could judge that by just the weight of the door but just a thought.

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.

parnola · August 2002

I've got a '99 LE V6 5-speed and I'm getting about 24 mpg in mixed driving. Best I've gotten is right at 30 mpg on a 500-mile interstate trip cruising at 72mph.

alpha01 · August 2002

Cause the way a door "thumps" is certainly an indicator as to its crash performance. Accords and Civics of the 80s had very solid "thumping" doors as well, but I'd bet you be no better off in a side impact in those cars than in a tin can. And, if the doors are so un-solid, why is it that the rear passenger got 5 stars. Clearly, Toyota must build the rear doors to a higher standard, and they probably "thump" with more solidity than the front ones anyway. Riiiight.

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

8u6hfd · August 2002

The body kit was for the 1997-1999 Camry.

The Suspension, wheels, and supercharger (v6) for 1997-2001 Camrys.

http://www.trdusa.com

dragonfire · August 2002

Here is the response from the NHTSA regarding whether or not they were expecting to test the Camry equipped with side airbags. Pretty cryptic if you ask me:

"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!

castleowner · August 2002

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

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

I am now trying 94 octane from Sunoco.

castleowner · August 2002

Someone posted: "At least in the Accord you'll have more power to get out of the way. "

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

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

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

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

However, the camry excels in many other respects, too numerous to mention. Another point, the camry 4cyl front end is soooo light, the low end torque is definitely too much for it, i.e; my front wheels will spin easily, but the car just doesn't have enough weight to catch up. This, in turn, adversely affects the launch of the vehicle when you try to jack-rabbit.

castleowner · August 2002

I should correct myself, v6 camry I found was definitely more powerful than the 4, but not like a GM pushrod at the low end. I have not driven a v6 accord, but from the torque curve, I do not think it would satisfy my desire for high low end torque. Comparable GM cars are out-accelerating my LE 4cyl camry due to the low end torque advantage without the need for "pedal to the metal" type driving. Am looking forward to the 03 v6 accord and camry's rebuttal. I am not a GM fan, I find the interiors are ugly.

jimxo · August 2002

Motor Trend (Sept 02) reports the automatic will hit the 1/4 mile in 14.98 @ 94.95 MPH. Camry is now third in the performance behind Accord and Altima.

anonymousposts · August 2002

Until 2002 Camrys made do with 136HP vs. 150HP in the Accord. Current 4 cylinders make 157HP vs. the 2003 Accord's 160HP. The HP numbers may seem similar but you have to take gearing, weight, etc into account. Now if you opt for a V6 there is no comparison. 240HP vs 192HP. 6.6 seconds vs 8.0 seconds.

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

Please tell me "numerous" areas the Camry excels in that are not subjective.

nhepker1 · August 2002

How many Camry or Accord owners know (or care) how fast their car can cover a quarter mile? From what I've seen, the Accord has always had better performance than the Camry but I haven't exactly seen Accords drag racing at the stoplights either. These are supposed to be family cars, not sports sedans. I suppose if someone wants to drag race the BMW in the other lane while they have their children in the backseat, that's up to them. Maybe if I wait another 15 years, a redesigned Corolla to replace my 99 could have 250 hp. Sweet!

anonymousposts · August 2002

One reason that the Accord and Camry both have succeeded in selling 400,000 units a year for so long is because they appeal to two very different but very large niche markets. The Camry appeals to a consumer who wants a more quiet, sedated sedan while the Accord consumer prefers the sportier ride and feel of the Accord but they still want reliability and quality that you find in the Camry. If all I did was sit in stop-and-go traffic all day then the Camry would be the best bet but if I ever hit the highway or want to take the back roads home then the Accord would be the better choice.

coolguyky7 · August 2002

Examine the Accord and Camry 0-60 numbers given above:

Yes, the Accord may look much faster but not really when you consider mathematics and reality. 6.6 is only 82.5% of 8, thus the Accord is only 17.5% faster number wise. Not too impressive for the 48 more horses. Now consider reality: time a 1.4 seconds. Pretty insignificant isn't it? At least it is to me.

sandman46 · August 2002

Rented one 2 weeks ago, all I can say is "AWESOME"!

The Sandman :-)

8u6hfd · August 2002

Here's the rationale people don't understand

The transmission is made for smoothness, not accleration.

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

If you reference the Car & Driver comparison of the Solara SLE versus Acura 3.0L CL, you'll read the same thing.

alpha01 · August 2002

What post are you referencing? I don't recall anyone speaking of long shifts... although perhaps I missed something. Overall, I am very impressed with the transmission in our 02 Camry-shifts promptly and executes flawlessly, especially in passing situations. Given the debate over the 5 sp unit in the ES300, I'm glad we still have the 4 sp, which matches very well to the efficient and sprightly 2.4L.
~alpha

8u6hfd · August 2002

People who argue the Camry is a slow car....I said here's why...it is not always the engine.

alpha01 · August 2002

I guess I just didnt realize anyone was arguing that the (current) Camry is slow. And IMO, the 1997-2001 4 cyl IS slow, and it IS the engine.
~alpha

8u6hfd · August 2002

If you look at the posts...in regards to the V6...Honda upped the power on the V6. Will Toyota do that same? Probably yes.

But still, even if Toyota matched or exceeded the Accord and Altima V6 power, it still would be a slower car, blame that on the buttery smooth transmission when it's running WOT.

alpha01 · August 2002

but as a side note, if you look at data from the 2002 models, in Car and Driver's Dec 2001 issue, the V6s are neck and neck, with the Camry edging out the Accord in several measures... obviously that will change with the advent of the superAccord V6. MY point being- they shifts can't be THAT slow....
~alpha

8u6hfd · August 2002

The Avalon transmission is even slower.

Yeah the transmission is that slow. In 0-60 times, the Accord V6 averages in the high 7's. THe Camry (with the automatic) averages in the low 8's, despite similar power to weight ratios.

alpha01 · August 2002

But I think it has more to do with the transmission's gearing than the actual amount of time it takes the transmission to shift. Documentation on gearing differences is easily seen in the comparo I mentioned in my last post. Show me stats that illustrate transmission shift times.
~alpha

8u6hfd · August 2002

Just drive them both if you have the opportunity. You'll notice the difference especially at WOT.

C&D comments on it in the 3.0L CL-Solara SLE comparo.

canc · August 2002

In which issue is that?

8u6hfd · August 2002

September 1999

You can also access the article on C&D's website.

Toyota Camry 2006 and earlier

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles