By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Why wait? I could go to Europe and brag about it right now.
Hopefully my grandkids won't be buying gas....they'll have vehicles running on something cheaper and environmentally friendly.
Anyone see the recent PZEV Camry commercial?
Drive a 2005 Camry PZEV 4 cylinder (5speed automatic, 151 hp and 161 lb. ft torque), and you'll emit fewer pollutants in 50,000 miles than if you were to paint a 100 square foot room. (may be wrong on the square footage, but its something very small)
Incredible, and its all the INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE.
~alpha
My question is : For my needs will Camry's VSC+TractionControl cover most cases, or does the VSC+AllWheelDrive combination add a lot more to the plate?
Thanks for any advice...
Matt
Your driving conditions are the best determinant of your driving needs.
But heres an article that might pull you toward the advantages of VSC:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr102804.htm
But that doesnt really solve your problem since both the CRV and Camry you want will have stability control.
~alpha
I've heard some pretty stupid comments on this board, but that's right up there with the best of them.
Unless you've driven every Camry how would you know? Cars are different, driving conditions are different, drivers are different. For you to make such a statement is beyond ridiculous.
Since April I've driven my XLE V6 11,044 and I have purchased 395 gallons of gas (mid-grade, btw). That's a 7 month average of 27.95 mpg. City driving has resulted in some tanks only getting 21mpg (never lower than that) and some tanks have averaged 33mpg on strictly highway miles. I have filled up 32 times in this period, so you can see I usually don't let my tank get below one-quarter full.
33mpg may be baloney on your car, but you should be careful when you try to make your experience the best achieved. Or get a better calculator. Your statements are simply inaccurate.
Looks like things are looking good for Toyota. They could surpass GM in 2006 for the number 1 spot.
FOUND SOME FROM A 97, BUT DO NOT KNOW FOR
SURE IF THEY WILL FIT???? ANYBODY KNOW THE
ANSWER???? BUYING ONLINE AND CANNOT TRY THEM
ON FOR SIZE. HEARD THERE WAS SOME CHANGES AFTER
96 ON THE CAMRY, BUT CAN'T VARIFY IT...
THANKS FOR ANY HELP.......
My dealer did something similar. First, they told me that it needed a few thousand miles on it. Then, they said to bring it in for a test drive of 40-50 miles, and mileage check with precise refueling. But when I brought it in, they said the "computer says you are getting 33 mpg on the freeway".
The 19 mpg is normal for mostly city driving in this car. Mid to low 20s for mixed. My other camry is a 92 manual shift. It gets high 26-27 mpg mixed, and 30-35 mpg freeway. I've put 270,000 miles on it, so far. Last tank it got 35 mpg, but the clutch is kinda worn.
So to shed light on the mystery, the EPA estimates for automatics are certainly 20-25% lower than actual, the manuals 15% higher on the top end.
I drove a couple 2004 and 2005 rentals 300-400 miles to check and see no significant difference in freeway mileage over my own 2004 4-speed auto, so don't bet on the 5-speed automatic either.
drove my car and similar-equipped rentals, on table-top flat ground, no a/c, no wind, no weather, at constant 60 mph for 380-420 miles. Checked exact fuel consumption in the tank. there are no 30 mpgs in the automatics. maybe a few underfilled tanks, but not actual, and you'll see that on the long term average (one poster disputed me, but averaged 28 in what looks to majority freeway and midgrade gas).
go ahead and post the citation for the consumer reports article; I'd be interested in reading it and perhaps contacting them.
The camry is very comfortable, but it does underperform on gas mileage.
that sticker mileage is pure crap. my other car, a 92 camry, with 270,000 miles and a pretty worn clutch, averages 27 in the city, and 30 in the freeway. BTW, I wouldn't be too disappointed with the 21 mpg, since the rating, I believe, is 23 mpg city for the 5-speed-auto. Although I'm suspicious that the manuals in the current camries also perform much better than their respective automatics relative to the EPA rating, I haven't tested it. The manuals are not available for rent, and don't know anyone who has one in the 04-05 model.
very suspicious of toyota on this issue; especially when the dealer offered to verify the EPA figures (actually, it was toyota's own figures first) with a test drive and they didn't follow thru - gave me some mumbo-jumbo about "reading the computer" (see my earlier post on this).
And folks, let's do be careful that we don't turn this conversation into personal attacks.
As I stated, since April I've driven my XLE V6 11,044 miles and I have purchased 395 gallons of mid-grade gas. That's a 7 month average of 27.95 mpg. I'd say the highway vs. city driving percentages would be 60-40.
As the host so correctly states, I don't want to turn this into a personal attack on anyone. But it is a little frustrating to see someone make a blanket statement about ALL Camrys based upon his/her one experience.
My MPG is what it is. If it was 21mpg average, I'd certainly be disappointed, but I'd report that. For business reasons I keep and track all fuel purchase receipts. So to date, my 27.95 mpg average after the first 11,000 miles is not bad for the V6.
I do not remember the City/Highway loop splits that they got, but I will post them when I have a chance.
In mixed overall, they achieved 24 MPG with that engine/transmission combination, which should be noted- that is exactly the same that was achieved by the Accord 4 cylinder 5M that they tested in 2003.
But again, CR has tested neither the new 4 cylinder/5 speed setup OR either of the two newer V6s.
I will reiterate that in mixed driving (really just about a 50/50 mix) we are averaging about 28 MPG with 54,000 miles on our 2002 LE 4/4A.
~alpha
I run the tank down at least as far as when the light comes on, fill it up, record the mileage difference, and divide that by the gallons of fuel purchased. this is done continuously for every tank full.
On some tankfulls, I also have checked the level using such measures as propping the fill cap door open, and using a sort of cardboard "dipstick", to make sure I have actually filled it to the full level, and did not go way under (which would indicate I had used more gas than in the computation - and an overestimate of MPG on that tankful), or overtopped (which would result in an underestimate in the tankful). This is how I figured out that the light comes on at just about 16 gallons used. Anyhow, the exact gas use doesn't affect the long term average - just a slightly more accurate depiction of variation between tankfuls.
My last tankful recorded 21 mpg on 40% highway and 60% city driving (I indicate percentages as the miles driven, if that is of interest).
I'd be particularly interested mileage from anyone in California, as one other suspicion is that the PZEV equipment, and resultant reduction in torque and horsepower, may be a factor.
To be honest, I've heard those occasional 30+ stories as well; but when I investigated further, I found the drivers didn't actually do the continuous recording of fuel purchase and odometer reading to get an accurate MPG. The conversation goes something like this:
"yeah, I sometimes get 35 mpg on my camry"
"really, so how far do you drive it between fillups?"
"well, I don't record every one, but I've gotten over 400 miles before the light went on!"
"and how much gas did you add?"
"just about 14 gallons, that's about 30 mpg!"
And the true mileage wasn't. They used 16 gallons to go their 400 miles, which gives 25 mpg. They would have discovered this upon several consecutive fillups, but most people don't keep such continuous records. The ones that do, that I've spoken to, get the 19-22 city, and 26-28 highway. And there's sufficient report of similar mileage in this website to give me pause of actual mileages in the 33+ range.
It matters not when the pump shuts off. It only matters how many gallons are measured. I wouldn't even have to fill past half full as long as the pump tells me how many gallons have been purchased.
Over time, if I drive 50,000 miles and buy 2000 gallons of gas, then I'm getting 25 miles per gallon.
Unless the pumps are not accurate.
You can't net a 28mpg average without some tanks being significantly more than that.
My advice to someone looking for a new car...DO NOT BUY A TOYOTA...especially NOT A CAMRY!
Any confirmed thoughts on whether or not california emissions affects mileage (toyota says it shouldn't affect it "that much").
to sum up "they don't make em like they used to"
In the past....they made these huge sedans with great mileage and ultra-low maintenance. My 1992 is an example. I had zero problems of any kind. Just oil and gas - right on the EPA estimate. 12 years of technology and they produce a car that yields 6-8 mpg less than the sticker. is your squeak....near the clock? Did the dealer even say "most people can't hear it " as if "it" was a characteristic of the car?
Oh, and the rattling noise is likely an extra clip that fell behind the dash during assembly. What a pain in the behind to get out (requires removal of entire dash to start), but it can be done if the dealer wants to. Or maybe its the wire to your malfunctioning alarm light?
Just purchased an 05 Camry Standard(5 spd auto). So far I really don't have an complaints. Wonderful vehicle. No it's not the 'funnest' car on the market, but when it comes to getting here and there comfortably and in style, the Camry is hard to beat.
Based on post here in this forum and my own observations, the low fuel light comes on with approximately 2.5 gallons left in the tank. I felt reassured when pumping a full tank yielded about 15.9 gallons pumped. Again, due to pump variance, this is all approximate. The driving conditions were about 65% city and 35% highway. I'm usually light on the throttle, but certain situations did require some extra lead foot action. My highway driving was at above average speeds...I'd say in the 80-90 MPH range. City driving was purposeful. Always tried to time the lights to minimize stop and go situations. When waiting at long stop lights, I would often shift into neutral(Deep down I'm a manual kind of guy).
I got around 26.5 MPG this session. Mind you, my car is BRAND NEW. I'm satisfied with this number. On a long highway trip, I'm certain this NEW car could get at least 30 MPG, if not better. However in real world driving situations (I live in a Los Angeles suburb), 25-29 MPG mix is pretty darn good.
Let's not forget the Camry has one of the 'larger' four cylinders on the market. It's not a weak motor, by any means. I like the Toyota's compromise.
happy motoring,
~alpha
As much as I'd like to add to the forum, it's gonna be hard to do so with this car. I just can't find anything to hate, and most of the folks here already know about the good stuff. The sound system took some getting used to. A bit boomy in the base department, and the tone controls seem to have minimal effect on sound. But even the sound system has 'grown' on me. I understand the speaker assortment was upgraded for 05, so I'm pleased I waited.
Haven't noticed any rattles and creeks some others have mentioned. Nor have I had any transmission issues. This 5 spd is silky smooth, while being fairly quick to act when acceleration is needed. My car is new, so there's plenty of time for things to go wrong. I'm hoping for the best.
This is my third Toyota. Every single Toyota I've owned has been top notch. I doubt this will be my last one.
It's probably not a good idea to drive a brand new car at 80-90 mph. Gotta break that baby in first.
Heavy foot, high revving styles of driving are what should be avoided on a new vehicle. Cruise speed has nothing to do with engine break in.
~alpha
PS- thanks for the kind words slim. I was raised on Camrys, and really appreciate how well the vehicle serves the masses, despite how people knock it as unsporty. Its an incredibly smooth vehicle. My mom (who now drives an awesome 2005 Legacy recently commented on the Camry's smoothness of operation, not just ride) But if people were really interested in sports cars, the Prelude would still be around, the real MR2 and Celica wouldnt have died/be dying, etc. Just my .02. Im actually a big fan of the Accord as well, but I listen in that forum more often than post because the Accord folks are a bit much- I feel that they dont accept even a class leading car can have its issues/weaknesses.
My 1989 4 Cyl Camry got 33 MPG under similar driving (and still does according to the current owner.)
That said, the 2004 (and the 2005) is an amazingly better car... which is what I would expect after 15 years. It has nicer lines, better handling, I like this version of silver/gray, the ride is smoother (even the SE), and it is much, much quieter ... I don't have the reported rattles, yet, altho a noise crops up sometimes that later goes away.
I continue to recommend the Camry.
But if someone knows some non-mathemagical way to get 35 MPG, then I'm all ears.
-hank2
I'm on my 3rd Toyota with my 2nd still with me. I moved from a Corolla to a Camry and then bought a Sienna.
Corolla was at about 250,000KM before I sold it. The 1995 Camry is at 71,429 miles and although I recently had some major things replaced (from wear & tear, mind you), it's still only oil & gas. I just came back from a trip from NY. Many times I had to jack rabbit accelerate (I was late too...). With a full load, the little 2.2L 125HP I4 got us there quickly but it did rise past 4000RPM (I think that's a bad thing).
The Sienna is running nice and strong But it still has yet to past it's break-in period. I've owned it for 1.5 months now and it has 526 miles on it.
Toyota has done a magnificant, IMO.
Regarding gas milege. My Sienna gets rather horrible milege in the city. At about 15MPG, I get gas pains. Which is why I use it more for highway. Now mind you, the car is 4100+ lbs.
The Camry, with it's fuel sipping engine is pretty good. For 95% city, I get 21MPG. Now that's good. With highway it can get higher. I do have to admit, maybe I got use to the feeling of the Sienna but now I feel the Camry is instable at high speeds. Many times today I felt unsafe. Maybe it's not good switching lanes so quickly at such high speeds.
Very interesting. As posted earlier, I regularly drive my 05 Camry at 80-90mph. The car feels completely under control. I'm hardly a passive driver, as lane changes are the norm. Have never gotten the impression the car was going to 'get away' from me. In fact, I'm sure I could safely maintain a higher speed. At my mothers request, I won't be doing that
It's tough to believe a 4100lb van could feel more stable than a 3200lb Camry.
Anyways, I felt the car bouncing around after I switched. Maybe the suspension is to blame but since I had to switch lanes all the time and the road was somewhat curvy, I bounced around a lot. But the guys at the dealer said the shocks were perfectly fine.
So yes, maybe the 10 model years apart thing does have something to do with it.
Saying the current Camry suffers in highway stability based on your experience with a 10 year old Camry... is far from valid.
~alpha
AutoGuy - I drove 60 MPH up to the first 1000 miles, but I accelerated gently and used the brakes gently becuase I wanted to do a breakin period. Also, everything I read says to drive at various speeds, so that the fule injection computer can learn to adjust to your driving style.
On the other hand, my 2004 Camry 4 Cyl glides smoothly up to 90 MPH, just as easily as 50 MPH. I rarely go over 65 MPH, so I was surprised at the stability and power ... and pleased that I was not observed by radar.
- Hank2