Last post on Jun 07, 2013 at 8:13 PM
You are in the Toyota Camry
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Camry, Toyota Camry Solara, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Sedan
#829 of 1185 Re: - [dudleyr] -
Jul 19, 2008 (1:26 pm)
"""Reports of 40 mpg, or even 30 mpg with any recent AT camry don't jive with what I've experienced in my own car "
But they do jive with just about everybody else.""
The highest verifiable mileage on this website (i.e., not confounded by refill error) is 32 mpg by dudleyr himself - but it is not 35 or 40 mpg. Congradulations. Dudlyer demonstrated this twice, once he did this by running slightly over 600 miles with 18.2 gallons and once, he reported a series of tankfuls that averaged that. The rest of the postings which show high mpg (by high, in excess of 30 mpg) - are spot measurements. The top end of fuel efficiency is 32 mpg. Even this should not be expected.
As shown by the numerous other posts on this forum, not just me, the true range of highway driving efficiency on this car is 25-28 mpg, not 30-40 mpg. I know over a dozen people who have this car personally, and no one gets 30 mpg on it consistently (i.e., multiple tanks). This is not a complaint about the car - it is a fine car - but it is large; 25-28 mpg is perfectly within the realm of expectation.
Amongst the posts, however, are a number of spot measurements, based on single tanks, that are subject to huge errors (particularly when the gas refill volume is small, such as under 12 gallons), and are not repeatable over multiple tankfuls. When these questionable individual data are removed, the true range of mpg, of 25-28 mpg, is revealed.
There are also a few, frequent posters, like troy, who have a manual transmission, which get significantly better mileage. That is not an automatic transmission and data from his or other MT cars should not be blended with automatic transmission data. Troy may actually get a consistent 30+ mpg efficiency on his manual.
The range of true highway mpg efficiency on the toyota camry 2002-2006 is fairly tight, about 25-28 mpg. It is somewhat less in the 2007-2008. Perhaps tops out at 26 mpg. That's pure freeway. Finally, as leotsk's recent posts on his 1997 to 2000+ comparison have suggested, there may have been an equivalent drop in efficiency after the prior enlargement of the camry (in 2002). Again, perfectly understandable. Bigger car - uses more gas. Make it even bigger, as toyota did in 2007, and it will use even more than that.
#830 of 1185 eeek - 2009 camry
Jul 19, 2008 (1:40 pm)
From nikkim on the reviews:
"I purchased my 09 Camry when gas just so expensive for our 06 Tundra. Im happy with all but the sound of the slightly loud 4 cyl. engine. Once on the road is ok though, only when accelerating. Also we have dash rattling noises, not really bad, probably just need some foam padding in there. The biggest complaint I have is the fuel economy. It said 23-31 mpg. I am only getting about 26, and I drive very conservatively. Hopefully it will do better when the air is not on and summer is over. There is also a loud noise when I take off from a dead stop. Other drivers here on this site had the same problem. My car sounds like the problem is up front though. Am definitely going to take for a check up."
Hate to break it to Nikkim, but 26 is not bad for the 4 big camrys I tried. None of them (2007-2008) broke 26 mpg. And that dash rattling; jeepers - been there too. You would think they could be able to figure it out. I can't. They can't. The foam muffles it but it doesn't go away. It's small solice to hear what appears to be the common vernacular in mass produced autos: "they all do that" (still).
#831 of 1185 Re: - [dudleyr] - [phd86]
Jul 19, 2008 (2:02 pm)
The highest verifiable mileage on this website (i.e., not confounded by refill error) is 32 mpg by dudleyr himself - but it is not 35 or 40 mpg
Please review Post #636 where I traveled approx 5000 miles with an average of right around 35mpg for the entire trip. All consecutive tanks, roundtrip, same driver, back to the same gas pump.
As shown by the numerous other posts on this forum, not just me, the true range of highway driving efficiency on this car is 25-28 mpg, not 30-40 mpg
The distribution of results to date on this forum has been quantified, and the average answer is not 25-28 mpg.Lets not put words in the posters mouths, they have spoken and the answer quantified. Not liking it doesn't mean you get to make up numbers and then assign those results to those of us who participated.
25-28 mpg is perfectly within the realm of expectation.
It is. But it is below average for the results quantified in this forum.
There are also a few, frequent posters, like troy, who have a manual transmission, which get significantly better mileage. That is not an automatic transmission and data from his or other MT cars should not be blended with automatic transmission data.
Please review Post #636 to see the difference between the 2AZ-FE motor, one auto, one stick ( approx 1.5mpg ), to see the approximate difference based on transmission type. Feel free to provide your own data if you don't like the data presented.
The range of true highway mpg efficiency on the toyota camry 2002-2006 is fairly tight, about 25-28 mpg
What is "fairly tight" mean? Is that 1 standard deviation maybe? 2? What is the distribution? Where did you truncate the data? Please provide more information, and the data behind it because in this forum, "fairly tight" has already been quantified the correct way, and the average is NOT 25-28 mpg on 2002-2006 Camrys ( its actually better than the average for all Camrys because the 2007's bring down the average ).
Jul 20, 2008 (1:56 pm)
Actually that is far from the truth. I don't even own a Camry - almost bought, but the stick was too hard to find. The mileage I reported was for a Sienna - just to show how ludirous it was to state a Camry can't get 30 mpg.
I have stayed away from mentioning the mpg of my Accord because it is a little off topic, but her goes. 33.35 mpg lifetime in 37,000 miles. That includes SD winters. Now that summer is here the calculated average of my last 10 tanks is 36.9 mpg. This is not one long trip, but includes small town stop and go. Speed limit in my town is 35 mph.
I consistantly get over 40 mpg on pure highway and have had many tanks in the mid 40's. My best tank is 46+ as calculated and backed up by a calibrated scangauge ii. For pure highway I have been in the mid 50's many times - as indicated by the scangauge over at least 200 miles.
How you may ask? I drive slowly (sometimes as slow as 55) , use 0w-20 synthetic oil, 40 psi tires and I use my brakes sparingly.
With the same size engine and similar technology, the camry should be close, and many posters here seem to agree. As many have stated 30 mpg is on the extreme low side for highway mpg. City mpg is too hard to compare because of the number of variables.
One persons inability to achieve high mpg does not discount the ability of others.
#833 of 1185 Re: - [dudleyr] - [phd86] [troylikesbikes]
Jul 20, 2008 (2:06 pm)
Hey Troy, don't waste your (typing) breath. Some people are never going to believe that others get better mileage than they do. They will always claim too few tankfuls or some ludicrous 3 gal underfill as the culprit for reporting mileage they consider unattainable. It's a lost cause to keep supplying the same data. It's not going to be believed.
#834 of 1185 manuals way more efficient than auto's, and more
Jul 21, 2008 (1:13 pm)
Relative to the EPA estimate, manual shift of anything is WAY, WAY more efficient than an automatic. Camry, Accord, anything you like. This is both experience and widespread knowledge which, unfortunately, has not made it into the EPA estimates, or is disseminated by automakers. Rather, they purport to sell autos that make the same mpg as MT's, but what happens is that the auto's fall below the EPA est, and the MT's beat the EPA. I have reviewed post #636. The forum host does not permit contributors to question the authenticity of the information in other posts. Accordingly, I cannot respond in a fashion which would be consistent with the forum host's direction.
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.
Jul 21, 2008 (1:39 pm)
This is really getting old.
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.
Jul 21, 2008 (1:55 pm)
I was reluctant to do this because I have gone over it so many times in other forums, but here goes.
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!
#837 of 1185 Re: manuals way more efficient than auto's, and more [phd86]
Jul 21, 2008 (4:28 pm)
Relative to the EPA estimate, manual shift of anything is WAY, WAY more efficient than an automatic.
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?
Jul 21, 2008 (4:38 pm)
I think there is only 1 person that gets below 30 mpg in a 4 cyl Camry on pure highway.
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.