Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Toyota Camry 2010 Toyota Camry
542 messages, Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM
You are in the Toyota Camry Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: seatoyotasales (Jul 22, 2008 7:23 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: gks1 (Jul 16, 2008 9:25 am) I wouldn't hold my breath - unless they reduce the size to that of auntie's corolla; camrys need to get to 30 mpg before they get to 40 mpg, which they haven't yet. This rumbling that extra gears in an automatic transmission translate into better mileage is worrisome, especially since, in my experience, their 4 speeds do significantly better than any of their 5 speed transmissions that have been standard since 2005. Be wary. There are all sorts of claims of 2003+ camrys getting 30+mpg and just because you read it here doesn't mean you will get it. Don't buy a car based on what people claim on the internet. Go drive it 1,000 miles and see for yourself....the results will be educational to say the least.
|
|
|
Replying to: phd86 (Jul 30, 2008 10:47 pm) So the more gear ratios you have, within reason, the closer you can get to the FE of a CVT. DFI is already in use in many of today's engines, allowing FE to be improved via lean burn mixtures AND higher compression engines, ~12:1 typically.
|
|
|
Replying to: wwest (Jul 31, 2008 7:33 am) It's not going to happen with a conventional gasoline engine, especially with people still clamoring for "more power". |
|
|
Replying to: seatoyotasales (Jun 29, 2008 3:09 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: phd86 (Jul 30, 2008 10:47 pm) This is hogwash, low 30s on the highway at posted 65-70 mph speed limits is no sweat for my 2005 4-cylinder with the 5-speed auto, and my 2004 with the same engine but the older 4-speed auto is capable of mid to upper 30s. I know you've argued with me and everyone else about the validity of such claims, but I stand by my measurements (calculated by miles driven divided by gallons to fill; the trip computer on the '05 is wildly optimistic). Put up your e-mail address in your profile and I'll send my spreadsheets. OTOH, 40 mpg is a stretch I'd think unless you go a constant 50-55 on a level road. I highly doubt the 2010 will have any significant engine changes. For the other poster regarding the V6, aren't 263 horses more than enough?
|
|
|
Replying to: 210delray (Jul 31, 2008 7:04 pm) This is hogwash, low 30s on the highway at posted 65-70 mph speed limits is no sweat for my 2005 4-cylinder with the 5-speed auto, and my 2004 with the same engine but the older 4-speed auto is capable of mid to upper 30s. I know you've argued with me and everyone else about the validity of such claims, but I stand by my measurements (calculated by miles driven divided by gallons to fill; the trip computer on the '05 is wildly optimistic). Put up your e-mail address in your profile and I'll send my spreadsheets. OTOH, 40 mpg is a stretch" It sounds like you're agreeing with me (4 spd outperforms 5 spd, 40 mpg a stretch) at least in part. I'll keep this short....remind me, didn't you post theterm efficiency at something like 28 mpg on your 2004? That's still pretty good. I would say mine is something like 22-24 mpg (mixed).
|
|
|
Replying to: phd86 (Jul 31, 2008 10:56 pm) On the '05, I have complete records from new up to its current 32K miles. Worst believable is 20 mpg, best is 35 mpg. We've taken enough long-distance trips (including a 2400-mile round trip to Florida this past spring) to count on 32 mpg on the highway, using cruise and keeping to the speed limit. Also included in this trip was a 602-mile run on a single tank -- meeting your challenge -- where I refilled with 18.53 gallons, yielding (surprise!) 32+ mpg. I have the records; just put your e-mail up temporarily on your profile and you can check them out yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: phd86 (Jul 30, 2008 10:47 pm) For the record, we have quite a few Toyotas in our extended family. One is a '98 Corolla VE 3-speed auto, another is a '98 Corolla CE 4-speed auto. Both are similarly equipped and driven very conservatively and are shared by family members. Both are extremely well maintained and have just over 100K each. The 3-speed VE gets 32mpg mixed mileage while the 4-speed CE gets about 35mpg. Note that the cars are shared, so driving style is not a significant issue in this particular family. I've read your postings in the mileage forum. My mom's 2007 Camry LE 4cyl auto gets about 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. As such, I don't think 40+mpg is a stretch for the 2010 Camry with 6 speed auto transmission. I will definitely buy one if mpg increases significantly with the 6speed. Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, car makers in the U.S. try to keep the mpg constant while increase HP in new model years. I hope that changes in 2010. Toyota: We have enough power already! Please please please increase the MPG instead of power in the next models!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: saidiadude (Aug 01, 2008 8:02 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Toyota Camry 2010 Toyota Camry
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Camry
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
