Sign In Join 



2010 Toyota Camry

664 messages,  Last post on Dec 08, 2009 at 7:57 PM

You are in the Toyota Camry Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Toyota Camry, Sedan


Messages Page 6 of 67
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
67
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#48 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [saidiadude] by seatoyotasales
Aug 02, 2008 (8:19 pm)
Reply

Replying to: saidiadude (Aug 01, 2008 8:02 am)

Well if I remember what the training items said for us salespeople, the 2010 Camry will have a 2.5 4 cyl engine that puts out 180 HP, current one on the 09 model has 158 hp
#49 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [seatoyotasales] by praz
Aug 02, 2008 (11:08 pm)
Reply

Replying to: seatoyotasales (Aug 02, 2008 8:19 pm)

My 2 cents, I think 2010 will have 2.7L as the Venza.
#50 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [saidiadude] by wwest
Aug 03, 2008 (10:02 am)
Reply

Replying to: saidiadude (Aug 01, 2008 8:02 am)

It isn't just the number of gears but also the ratio of/and between gears that must be considered. For instance with the 4 speed only the top gear is likley to be an OD ratio and maybe the lockup clutch engages only in OD.
 
The newer 5 speed more likely uses the lockup clutch in 2 or even three of the higher gear ratios and with a 4 cylinder only the top gear is likley to be a true OD.
 
Obviously the 4 cylinder cannot remain in OD and/or with the lockup clutch engaged as much as would a 6 cylinder with a 5 speed. Let's acknowledge that the 5 speed in the 6 cylinder will not likely be as "low" geared overall as would be the 4 cylinder.
 
The bottom line is that with a 4 cylinder the top gear, OD, ratio in the 5 speed might very well be the same ratio as the top gear in the 4 speed. That would mean no real hwy FE advantage for the 5 speed.
 
Not such a simple equation as one might at first think.
#51 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [saidiadude] by wwest
Aug 03, 2008 (10:09 am)
Reply

Replying to: saidiadude (Aug 01, 2008 8:02 am)

"Why not CVT..??"
 
CVT's cannot yet handle "higher" levels of HP/Torque.
#52 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [wwest] by saidiadude
Aug 03, 2008 (10:34 am)
Reply

Replying to: wwest (Aug 03, 2008 10:02 am)

> The bottom line is that with a 4 cylinder the top gear, OD,
> ratio in the 5 speed might very well be the same ratio as the
> top gear in the 4 speed. That would mean no real hwy FE
> advantage for the 5 speed.
>
> Not such a simple equation as one might at first think.
 
Excellent points wwest. That's why I stated "all else being equal". Obviously there are many variables to consider. Also, the top gear does not necessarily have to be the same ratio in your 4spd vs 5spd example. In the example I mentioned (2 '98 Corollas), I believe that the final gears in the 2 transmissions have different ratios as the 3 speed revs a lot higher at 65mp than the 4 speed does. Point taken though.
 
Back on topic: seatoyotasales thanks for the updates on the engine sizes. It's too bad that Toyota has chosen to go with the larger engine. MPG would have been a better choice for the consumer. I understand that Toyo has to compete with Honda, etc, but they should also balance the one upmanship with consumer needs. I rather see new technologies applied to the existing 4 cyl engine as it provides more than enough power for the average consumer. BTW, our family has owned several 4 cyl and 6 cyl Camrys (mostly 6 cyl) but this generation of Camrys (and very high gas prices) have convinced most of the family members that the 4 cyl is the better choice for our needs. For everyday use like commuting, it provides more Torque and HP than we need. MPG is the next major area of improvement for all automakers now.
#53 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [seatoyotasales] by mcdawgg
Aug 03, 2008 (5:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: seatoyotasales (Aug 02, 2008 8:19 pm)

What about transmissions - I heard a rumor of a 6 speed manual.
#54 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [saidiadude] by wwest
Aug 03, 2008 (8:27 pm)
Reply

Replying to: saidiadude (Aug 03, 2008 10:34 am)

The most common way to improve FE during cruising is to lower the engine frictional component. That typically means finding a way to operate the engine at a lower RPM, LOWER frictional component, but still produce enough torque to move the vehicle along briskly at typical road speeds/conditions.
 
But.
 
Improvments at the low RPM range almost always result in my HP/torque at higher RPM and vica versa.
 
DFI being a good, current, example.
#55 of 664
2012 hmm? by cubssoxs
Aug 03, 2008 (10:23 pm)
Reply

Replying to: wwest (Aug 03, 2008 8:27 pm)

I know everyone here is talking about changes they want on the 2010 Camry but remember this is just a refresh look at the minor changes done on model gens between 94-95, 99-00, and 04-05 they are not really major changes. I am intending on buying a 09 Camry SE (4cylinder) and really do not want to wait another year for a refreshed Camry. Although I will be curious what Toyota does for the next generation 2012 camry probably due to come out probably spring 2011.
#56 of 664
Re: 40 MPG [210delray] by phd86
Aug 04, 2008 (6:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: 210delray (Aug 01, 2008 4:58 am)

"Yes, my running average from 29K to its current 53K miles on the '04 Camry (continuous records) is 28.0 mpg. The average from new up to 15K miles was 27.3 mpg. The gap represents the period my son had the car in Los Angeles and didn't keep records. Worst believable mpg on that car is around 23 mpg, and best is 38 mpg. I'm aware of not completely filling the tank and discounting fills where only small amounts (say 6 gallons or less) are added to "top up".
  
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 remember both of those - it was from that latter post that I concluded that your unequalled range with low refill error constituted the upper actual limit of fuel efficiency for the automatic. Alls I wanted to say is that lots of gears do not necessarily translate into better efficiency - although it might sell more cars to those who chose to believe it.
#57 of 664
Okay by pat HOST
Aug 05, 2008 (6:49 am)
Reply

Replying to: phd86 (Aug 04, 2008 6:04 pm)

We already have a Real World MPG discussion for the Camry, as I know all of you know. This is not the place to continue to beat that conversation into the ground.
 
Back to the future Camry, please.

Messages Page 6 of 67
1
...
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
67
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement