NEW TOYOTA CAMRY 2005 has bad fuel economy

[bigr...@yahoo.com]

Hi,

I just purchased a new Toyota camry LE four cylinder. It has about 600
miles on it. I had a 99 Camry which got immediately about 28 miles per
gallon in city and about 38 miles or more on highway. No breakin period
on the 99 camry was necessary to get this high fuel economy. The new
camry gets about 20 miles per gallon with air conditioning on in city.

They tell me the new camry has 7 horsepower more and a Alexis five
speed automatic transmission.

Could these so called improvements cause this bad fuel economy?

Otherwise I have no complaints about the car except for the increased
size, which in my opinion was not necessary.

Kindly reply by posting only.

Roger

[Art]

Do you have the sticker for the old car? I was wondering how EPA figures
compared. That would be the first question.

<bigr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122304440....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[C. E. White]

Consumer Reports tested a 2005 4 cylinder and got the following fuel
mileage:

CU's overall mileage, mpg - 24
CU's city/highway, mpg - 16/34
CU's 150-mile trip, mpg - 28

The EPA Estimates for the 2005 are 24 City / 34 Highway.
For a 1999 the EPA Estimates were 23 City / 32 Highway (with the manual
transmission)

It seems to me that your mileage for your 1999 was unrealistically high and
that the mileage for your 2005 is about what it should be. How careful are
you when you check your mileage? If you are basing this on single tankful
calculation there is a very good chance your calculations are off my several
miles per gallon. Single tankful calculations are notoriously inaccurate.

I would not panic about the 2005 until you have 5000 miles on the engine.
You should also verify that your tires are properly inflated. If might be
worth checking the accuracy of the odometer as well. Have you made any
changes in where you buy your fuel? At least for the vehicles I have owned,
the CR fuel economy is generally lower than what I achieve. CR said their
city mileage for a 2005 4 cylinder Camry was 16 mpg, so 20 mpg is not
unreasonable. I am guessing that you did not record your 1999 mileage
religiously and that you are comparing a normal single tankful number for
the 2005 with a best you can remember single tankful number for the 1999.

Ed

[bigr...@yahoo.com]

Ed,

I based my calculations on Imperial gallons for the 1999 camry and trip
Odometer.

The fuel consumption on the 2005 Camry Pamphlet shows 28/44

[bigr...@yahoo.com]

I have no records of old car and do not understand what you mean by
sticker.

Thanks for your interest.

[RVerDon]

>
> The fuel consumption on the 2005 Camry Pamphlet shows 28/44
>

I have a 2005 Camry 4 cylinder and the EPA mileage shown is 26/34. I have
3500 miles on it and haven't come close to these numbers yet. More like
22/26.

Don in Tracy, Calif.

[C. E. White]

<bigr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122322812.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I did not realize you were using Imperial Gallons. My numbers were all in US
gallons, so you have to up them by around 20% to match Imperial numbers.
Which market are you in?

Ed

[Art]

THe original price sticker that was on the old car when it was purchased new
would have had the EPA mileage figures for the old car.

<bigr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122324074.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[bigr...@yahoo.com]

I am in Montreal, QC, the former home of the former under financed and
supported Montreal Expos.

Roger

[Merritt Mullen]

In article <HqrFe.5101$6f....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> THe original price sticker that was on the old car when it was purchased new
> would have had the EPA mileage figures for the old car.

On a Canadian car?

Merritt

[Bob H]

<bigr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122304440....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Hi,
>
> I just purchased a new Toyota camry LE four cylinder. It has about 600

If you want better mileage, drive it on the highway.

[Fourmiler]

I just bought a 2005 Camry 4 cyl with a 5 speed standard. I went 550
km and took 50 liters of gas. That was about a 50/50 split highway and
city driving. Don’t know what that works out to though.

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Camry-TOYOTA-2005-bad-fuel-economy-ftopict130610.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=636216

[Fourmiler]

"Fourmiler" wrote:
> I just bought a 2005 Camry 4 cyl with a 5 speed standard. I
> went 550 km and took 50 liters of gas. That was about a 50/50
> split highway and city driving. Don't know what that works out
> to though.

Ok I am got 32 mpg on the first tank, but I am going to give it a
little while then try again.

[john...@hotmail.com]

Heard the same poor mileage problem from others. The new 2.4L 4 cyl
with variable valve timing and five speed should have yielded better
mileage.

I guess when the time comes to replacement I have to think twice about
the new Camry.

[Bassplayer12]

My Camry is a 93 (4 cyl) with 285,000 kms. I recently went to Chicoutimi, QC
(3 persons in the car + luggage) and when I returned home (Moncton NB), I
filled up after 732 kms. It took 50 liters of regular gas. It means a
consumption of 6.8L/100 kms, 34.6 US MPG or 41.5 Imp. MPG.
I use synthetic oil.
A brand new car's gas mileage is never good. After the normal break-in
period, your numbers should improve considerably.
Les Nationals (anciens Expos) risquent de jouer aux Québécois le même tour
que l'Avalanche (anciens Nordiques).
JP

<bigr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122387035.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[Someone HateSpam]

In article <1122322812.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
bigr...@yahoo.com wrote:

As has been said you need several tank fills for comparsion.
Also you need to do the first and final fill at the same pump.
Also your vehicle should have about 3,000 KMs on it before you measure
mileage.
Also the EPA highway mileage is done in a very unrealistic manner. The
CDN site gives how it is done. On a dynameter with calculations for
wind, hills, etc. The speed is no where's near a typical highway speed
of 100KMPH + (about 60MPH) but is from about 75KMPH to 95KMPH.
Air conditioning and load will also negatively affect the mileage.
By the way if you use L/100 no one will get confused by the 20% smaller
USA gallon. <:)

I keep track of mileage on cars I rent and have found Chryslers usually
meet the EPA figures, GMs are usually better and Fords are usually less
than the EPA.

We get approx. the EPA figures for our cars after improving the mileage
about 5% by adding Duralube. We record and calculate all our fuel
mileage.

I've looked at the current Camry and Avalon. I believe I noticed the
Avalon has a higher highway rating than the Camry. I wonder why?

--
Someone ?

[Merritt Mullen]

In article <someone_no_spam-7E...@news.telus.net>,
Someone HateSpam <someone...@moon.net> wrote:

> I've looked at the current Camry and Avalon. I believe I noticed the
> Avalon has a higher highway rating than the Camry. I wonder why?

Also, the 2005 Avalon with the 3.5 liter engine has better fuel economy
than the prior Avalon with the 3.0 liter engine. And that 3.0 is the same
as the Camry engine, I believe. I was told that it has something to do
with the valve timing tweaks (VVT-i).

Merritt

[bigr...@yahoo.com]

I will give the car more time. Should the car NOT eventually live up to
the glossy Toyota Camry pamphlet re MPG specifications, I shall cease
buying Toyota products and maybe switch to Mazda, depending on consumer
reports, when I am ready to buy.