Wrapper

I was looking at a Mazda 5 and the epa figures were almost identical for the
manual and automatic. I think they were 1 mpg different City and Highway.


"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:43cc1ad4$0$11176$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com...[color=blue]
> <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137443972.568967.303340@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > The new transmission
>> > has 20 percent fewer parts and reduced weight.[/color]
>>
>> (!) Sounds like people may want to pick up a 2006 with the now-proven
>> transmission before getting a 2007 with a cheap knock-down tranny.
>>[/color]
>
> Fewer parts sounds like a good starting point to me. I'd take this risk,
> if
> I were in the market for a V6 Camry (but I don't need that much power and
> I
> like my fuel economy). I'd rather take a chance on this transmission than
> a
> first-year transmission from Ford. I wonder how those CVTs are holding
> up?
>
> Still, 6-speeds has got to be reaching the limit for marginal return; it
> can't be very much more efficient or useful than a 5-speed. I wonder if
> it
> shifts faster? That might make a difference in performance.
>[color=green]
>> The 07 looks more Frankenstein-ish of styles from other makes (such as
>> the G35 mix others posted) than innovative. But it's less bland to say
>> the least.
>>[/color]
>
> I've only seen photos but I thought it looked good. I'm not a big fan of
> the looks of the current Camry. This one looks, somehow, similar but
> better.
>
>[/color]