Mpg - Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums


» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums > Toyota Passenger and Sports Car Forums > Camry and Solara Forum > 1st & 2nd Generation (1983–1986 & 1987-1991)

1st & 2nd Generation (1983–1986 & 1987-1991) Toyota Camry Discussion for years: 1983-1986 & 1987-1991. Topics of discussion range from fuel economy, safety, modifications, performance all involving America's favorite family car, the Toyota Camry.

ToyotaNation.com is the premier Toyota Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2008, 12:49 PM   #1 (permalink)
JUST RE ENGINEER IT
 
fredk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Eureka UT.
Posts: 2,956
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View fredk's Photo Gallery
Lightbulb Mpg

Finally, the truth about gas mileage
Fuel-economy ratings haven't always lined up with drivers' actual results. Now, new estimates for 2008 car models will reflect real-world miles per gallon.


The car industry has kept a dirty little secret for years: The widely publicized Environmental Protection Agency fuel-economy ratings overstate the miles per gallon you're likely to get.

Those of us who calculate our mileage at every fill-up already knew the truth. The general public began to notice when the redesigned Toyota Prius hit showrooms several years ago. Although the EPA said the Prius got an astronomical 60 mpg in the city and 51 mpg on the highway, Prius drivers -- and the news media -- registered miles per gallon in the 40s.

Toyota and other car makers acknowledge that the EPA numbers often overstate fuel economy, but the testing process and window-sticker ratings are controlled by reams of regulations. Now, new tests for 2008 models will more closely reflect real-world fuel efficiency. Look for the revised numbers on the window stickers of 2008 vehicles. For now, check out Kiplinger's new tool that gives estimates of what fuel economy would be for hundreds of 2007 models under the new tests.

Driving like Grandma
Mileage tests were developed when we more or less channeled our grandmothers' driving. For years, cars have been run in a lab on a treadmill with the air conditioners turned off, with conservative speeds and without any fast starts.

In 1985, after an EPA study found that drivers were achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by the tests, the agency concocted a formula on paper to lower the official figures. But the formula didn't bring the numbers down far enough, and in 2002, the environmental group Bluewater Network, a division of Friends of the Earth, petitioned the EPA to update its procedures.



The new standards will get closer to reality by factoring in higher speeds, stop-and-go driving, more-aggressive acceleration, use of air conditioning and driving in colder weather. Mileage will still vary, but the tests will reduce estimated city mpg by 12%, on average, and highway mpg by 8%, according to the EPA. Hybrids' fuel economy is likely to get a haircut of up to 30% for city driving and 20% for highway.

Fuel-economy confusion
Car makers generally approve of the new tests because they have heard enough grumbling from buyers. "It isn't good for anybody" when customers don't get the fuel economy shown on the window sticker, says Edward Cohen of Honda North America. But given the lower mpg estimates, car makers have a tricky marketing problem to reassure buyers that the 2008 models aren't less efficient. You can expect to see advertising that addresses the differences.

One of the first car makers to face that challenge is Mitsubishi, which introduced its redesigned Lancer sedan in March. The 2006 Lancer (Mitsubishi skipped the 2007 model) gets EPA-rated fuel economy of 27 mpg in cities and 35 mpg on highways. The numbers for the 2008 model will fall to 22 and 29 mpg, respectively. On lists of top fuel misers, the new Lancer will be a no-show, at least until the other 2008 vehicles debut. One fix, at least for the Lancer, will be listing miles per gallon under both the new and the old testing procedures, says Moe Durand, the product public-relations manager for Mitsubishi.

__________________
fredk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-08-2008, 03:08 PM   #2 (permalink)
One with the force
 
Doctor J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,303
Gameroom cash: $260390
Thanks: 12
Thanked 68 Times in 63 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View Doctor J's Photo Gallery
The Road Test fuel economy: 2007 Honda Fit 1.5 l
(3000mi, 5W20 oil, A/T 175/65R14 tires) sticker EPA 29 city actual city at route 14 mi via Katella ave from Orange to Hawaiian Gardens at 3 pm and back at 5.30 am via Ball road yields 28 mpg
Doctor J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2008, 04:08 PM   #3 (permalink)
New TN User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View Dulluthkid_19's Photo Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor J View Post
The Road Test fuel economy: 2007 Honda Fit 1.5 l
(3000mi, 5W20 oil, A/T 175/65R14 tires) sticker EPA 29 city actual city at route 14 mi via Katella ave from Orange to Hawaiian Gardens at 3 pm and back at 5.30 am via Ball road yields 28 mpg
Is this an example of the new method to measuring real-world fuel economy to show us how accurate it may be? I am confused a bit by this post.
__________________
AKA car_boy_16 so I can remember that I have two names on here because I have a memory of a 92-year-old.
Dulluthkid_19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2008, 07:58 PM   #4 (permalink)
3s-gte in a Camry?!?
 
white90dx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,098
Gameroom cash: $305775
Thanks: 1
Thanked 140 Times in 140 Posts
iTrader Score: 5 reviews
View white90dx's Photo Gallery
I personally find the change interesting. I have always gotten the rated mileage or better on the vehicles I've driven...

My WRX:
Rated 20city/27highway
Actual 20-25 on most fillups, 26-29mpg on road trips (including mountains)
(most of my friends with WRX's get 16-20mpg)

My original 5-speed 4-cylinder Camry:
Rated 26city/34highway
Actual 26-30 on most fillups, 34-40mpg on road trips
(many on here struggle to get 30mpg auto or manual)

My auto Alltrac Camry:
Rated 21city/24highway
Actual 24-26mpg on most fillups including a few long trips
(hoping to stay around 20mpg after moving the 3s-gte over to it...)

Heck, my 280hp 3s-gte 5-speed Camry gets 24mpg most of the time, even when I go drag racing every other week... I drive about 70-75mph on the freeway and am generally easy on the car from a stop. I'm not sure why I would otherwise get such good gas mileage.

-Charlie
__________________
2003 Impreza WRX Wagon 5spd - 2.2L stroker + other goodies
1989 Camry Alltrac LE 3S-GTE 5spd - SV25/ST205 hybrid
1990 Camry 3S-GTE 5spd - parted out / junked
1990 Camry DX 3S-FE 5spd - The original white90dx; gone but not forgotten
white90dx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2008, 08:01 PM   #5 (permalink)
New TN User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 29
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View yi5hedr3's Photo Gallery
It's getting better, but still not realistic. Try again EPA fellers!!!
yi5hedr3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2008, 09:04 PM   #6 (permalink)
Bullitprooph
 
TBayToyotaBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Thunder Bay, Canada
Posts: 1,490
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View TBayToyotaBoy's Photo Gallery
It's nice to hear that the EPA is moving in the right direction, but I am unsurprised to hear of their inaccurate historical ratings. The organization has done some good in its time, but it's largely ineffectual (as are the Canadian federal and provincial enviro ministries). Let's hope the trend towards sanity continues...
__________________
1990 5spd V6 Camry (Still kicking at 393,000km) 1991 Celica GTS -- Pappa needs a 3SGTE...and AWD for all this friggin' snow
Honda my A$$, you just can't kill a Yota...
TBayToyotaBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008, 12:09 PM   #7 (permalink)
One with the force
 
Doctor J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,303
Gameroom cash: $260390
Thanks: 12
Thanked 68 Times in 63 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View Doctor J's Photo Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dulluthkid_19 View Post
Is this an example of the new method to measuring real-world fuel economy to show us how accurate it may be? I am confused a bit by this post.
No, this is my own result
Doctor J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 05:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Official TN Member
 
jlspec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 220
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View jlspec's Photo Gallery
I find the new numbers kinda low. My alltrac rated in 1990 is 19/22 MPG, My own driving is 20/22, and up too 25 on long trips. So that rating is pretty spot on. My co-workers Prius does 52/55 MPG.
__________________

1990 Celica Turbo All-Trac
jlspec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:15 PM   #9 (permalink)
Official TN Member
 
Tom 2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lake Stevens, WA
Posts: 947
Gameroom cash: $200700
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Garage
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View Tom 2000's Photo Gallery
There are a lot of variables that affect fuel economy.

Our 1988 Camry rated 26/34 got 30 MPG. It was 50/50 city/freeway driving, so it was pretty much right on.


Our 2000 Camry rated 23/30 got 27 MPG for a long time. When my wife's commute got shorter and was mostly in town driving, it dropped to about 25.5-26 MPG.

If I take the 2000 Camry on road trips (down I-5 to California), I can still get over 30 MPG

If I take it to Vancouver, B.C., Canada, mileage gets killed waiting at the border .
__________________
Tom

2004 Prius Touring Edition
2003 Corolla Luxel
2000 Camry LE - Lunar Mist Metallic
Tom 2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2008, 02:59 PM   #10 (permalink)
6 TOYOTA's in stock
 
TVISMR2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 165
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View TVISMR2's Photo Gallery
Grandma driving FTW
__________________
1992 TOYOTA MR2 - 180k miles * 2003 TOYOTA MR2 Spyder - 87k miles * 2006 SUZUKI SV650s
2002 TOYOTA Highlander 4wd Limited V6 - 25k miles * 1985 TOYOTA CAMRY DX - 130k miles *
1987 HONDA Elite 250
Hers ~ 1988 TOYOTA MR2 Supercharged - 87k miles * 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA - 125k miles
TVISMR2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 10:34 PM   #11 (permalink)
New TN User
 
fairladyZX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calipornia
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View fairladyZX's Photo Gallery
i get 30mpg all the time on fwy cruising at 75mph. prolly around 25mpg during mixed drivings. my 87 wagon got 160K miles so far. not bad at all, i guess i don't need no hybrid after all since i'm not willing to shell out $30k for a loaded one
fairladyZX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 09:40 AM   #12 (permalink)
One with the force
 
Doctor J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,303
Gameroom cash: $260390
Thanks: 12
Thanked 68 Times in 63 Posts
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View Doctor J's Photo Gallery
to fairladyZX:
Is it stick or auto?
When I replaced the gutted cat on my 87 wagon, the short distance city driving mileage went down to 18 mpg!
At first I blamed the engine condition,for that but one of my customers whose car is in the great condition, has the same mileage. Interesting that my 5 speed 79 Supra have had constant 18 mpg, regardles of engine temp, travel distance or the cargo/ passenger load.
I have read that the engines with max torque at low rpm end ( 136 lb-ft) at 2400 rpm for 79 Supra, for example, are having more stable mileage regardles of load condition.

Last edited by Doctor J; 04-15-2008 at 09:41 AM.
Doctor J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 11:51 AM   #13 (permalink)
New TN User
 
fairladyZX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calipornia
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
iTrader Score: 0 reviews
View fairladyZX's Photo Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor J View Post
to fairladyZX:
Is it stick or auto?
When I replaced the gutted cat on my 87 wagon, the short distance city driving mileage went down to 18 mpg!
At first I blamed the engine condition,for that but one of my customers whose car is in the great condition, has the same mileage. Interesting that my 5 speed 79 Supra have had constant 18 mpg, regardles of engine temp, travel distance or the cargo/ passenger load.
I have read that the engines with max torque at low rpm end ( 136 lb-ft) at 2400 rpm for 79 Supra, for example, are having more stable mileage regardles of load condition.
hey Doctor J,

my is an auto. i hope my wagon doesn't go down on mpg during city driving anytime soon. i will test it out again and keep u guys posted.
fairladyZX is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums > Toyota Passenger and Sports Car Forums > Camry and Solara Forum > 1st & 2nd Generation (1983–1986 & 1987-1991)

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.