Toyota Road Trip

A friend and I may be taking a cross-country
trip this summer from Missouri to Arizona and
California, and of course back to Missouri.

This is another point for me to consider when
buying a Camry or Corolla. Is it harder on an
engine of the size used in the Corolla (1.8 liters)
to maintain 65 miles per hour over very long distances
than it would be on a 2.4 liter Camry engine (4 cylinder)?

Would the Corolla's engine be punished or take a
beating traveling 5 or 6 thousand miles over such a
short period of time, mostling at 65 mph?

Thanks.

Either engine is pretty much loafing at 65, especially with the
overdrive engaged. I wouldn't necessarily take a brand new car on such
a trip to prevent break-in problems, but a car with at least a thousand
miles or so should be fine.

"Built_Well" <bw@bbbb.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.10.15.41.42.414.3483@bbbb.com...[color=blue]
>A friend and I may be taking a cross-country
> trip this summer from Missouri to Arizona and
> California, and of course back to Missouri.
>
> This is another point for me to consider when
> buying a Camry or Corolla. Is it harder on an
> engine of the size used in the Corolla (1.8 liters)
> to maintain 65 miles per hour over very long distances
> than it would be on a 2.4 liter Camry engine (4 cylinder)?
>
> Would the Corolla's engine be punished or take a
> beating traveling 5 or 6 thousand miles over such a
> short period of time, mostling at 65 mph?
>
> Thanks.[/color]

I have 212,000 on my 1.8 93 Corolla and drive it about 90 miles every day.
It does up to 80 with no sweat, but I have the 3 speed overdrive
transmission, too.

Charles of Kankakee

There is no problem in maintaining 65mph in both.
Smaller engine in corolla is working with a smaller
and lighter car. There is a huge difference in the
comfort of the ride. Especially on long distance trips.
And this is very important.
I am surprised you think so long about the choice
between corolla and camry. For me the choice is simple:
CAMRY.

In article <pan.2005.12.10.15.41.42.414.3483@bbbb.com>, Built_Well
<bw@bbbb.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> A friend and I may be taking a cross-country
> trip this summer from Missouri to Arizona and
> California, and of course back to Missouri.
>
> This is another point for me to consider when
> buying a Camry or Corolla. Is it harder on an
> engine of the size used in the Corolla (1.8 liters)
> to maintain 65 miles per hour over very long distances
> than it would be on a 2.4 liter Camry engine (4 cylinder)?
>
> Would the Corolla's engine be punished or take a
> beating traveling 5 or 6 thousand miles over such a
> short period of time, mostling at 65 mph?[/color]

Do you mean you'll spell each other as drivers and just keep pounding
along day & night? If so, you'll wear out yourselves before you wear
out the Corolla.

Even on the southern route into California you'll be going through
mountainous country, but the cars and their engines are well matched
for normal loads. Will you have normal loads, or do you expect to load
it heavily? If the latter, consider the Camry just because you'll have
more of the load inside.

The A/C will be on most of the time. Perhaps a Corolla owner can
comment on how that affects the available power in the mountains.

Brent

"Built_Well" <bw@bbbb.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.10.15.41.42.414.3483@bbbb.com...[color=blue]
>A friend and I may be taking a cross-country
> trip this summer from Missouri to Arizona and
> California, and of course back to Missouri.
>
> This is another point for me to consider when
> buying a Camry or Corolla. Is it harder on an
> engine of the size used in the Corolla (1.8 liters)
> to maintain 65 miles per hour over very long distances
> than it would be on a 2.4 liter Camry engine (4 cylinder)?
>[/color]

In flat terrain, neither car will have a hard time maintaining 65 MPH, even
over long distances. The engine doesn't get tired like a horse.

In mountainous terrain, the Corolla may be a better performer than the Camry
with a 4 cylinder engine, but a Camry with a 6 cylinder engine would be a
better performer. Again, none of those cars would have a difficult time in
the mountains, especially with only 2 people in the car, it's more of a
matter of how hard the engine works.

[color=blue]
> Would the Corolla's engine be punished or take a
> beating traveling 5 or 6 thousand miles over such a
> short period of time, mostling at 65 mph?
>
> Thanks.[/color]

You would not be punishing either car's engine under those conditions. I
used to drive 1,000 miles a week and "broke in" 50 or 60 new cars, driving
1,000 highway miles right away, no problems.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

I live in mountainous country and from what I see every day I can assure you
a Corolla loaded with people and belongings does not have ANY available
power, when driven in mountainous country with the AC on, period. You will
be holding the throttle to the floor all day trying to maintain the speed
limit and will get poor fuel mileage when driven that way. Buy a V6 Camry,
if indeed they are your only choices.

Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER. You can RENT a Ford
Crown Vic with unlimited mileage for less than $20 day. The CV has plenty
of room for more people, more 'stuff,' plenty of power, is a much safer
vehicle, rides much better and will get 25 MPG at 65 MPH. Why do you think
the police and taxi fleets prefer the CV? ;)


mike hunt


"Brent Secombe" <bsecombover@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:101220052135022397%bsecombover@yahoo.co.uk...[color=blue]
> In article <pan.2005.12.10.15.41.42.414.3483@bbbb.com>, Built_Well
> <bw@bbbb.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> A friend and I may be taking a cross-country
>> trip this summer from Missouri to Arizona and
>> California, and of course back to Missouri.
>>
>> This is another point for me to consider when
>> buying a Camry or Corolla. Is it harder on an
>> engine of the size used in the Corolla (1.8 liters)
>> to maintain 65 miles per hour over very long distances
>> than it would be on a 2.4 liter Camry engine (4 cylinder)?
>>
>> Would the Corolla's engine be punished or take a
>> beating traveling 5 or 6 thousand miles over such a
>> short period of time, mostling at 65 mph?[/color]
>
> Do you mean you'll spell each other as drivers and just keep pounding
> along day & night? If so, you'll wear out yourselves before you wear
> out the Corolla.
>
> Even on the southern route into California you'll be going through
> mountainous country, but the cars and their engines are well matched
> for normal loads. Will you have normal loads, or do you expect to load
> it heavily? If the latter, consider the Camry just because you'll have
> more of the load inside.
>
> The A/C will be on most of the time. Perhaps a Corolla owner can
> comment on how that affects the available power in the mountains.
>
> Brent[/color]

Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER.
> You can RENT a Ford Crown Vic...[/color]


Well, I need to buy a new car anyway, since my 10-year old
Tercel (with only 30,000 miles on it) is no longer
driveable since I got Wyman'ed in it in September.

Louis Wyman, a man whose disdain for a continuous
seat belt buzzer has led to the deaths of more Americans
than died in World War 2. And many millions of serious
injuries, many permanent and life-long.

Don't get Wyman'ed, brothers and sisters.

Does Canada have any laws regarding manufacturers'
inclusion or exclusion of continuous seat belt buzzers,
and/or interlocks? How about Australia, the U.K.?

Remember: The now-deceased New Hampshire Representative
Louis Wyman who, at the last minute, amended a highway
safety bill to prevent any U.S. goverment agency like
the NHTSA from requiring seat belt buzzers to buzz any
longer than a meager 8 seconds.

Representative Wyman is burning in hell right now, I'm
happy to say. I checked Hell's web site, and it's
confirmed. Wyman's been burning for 3 years now.

"Built_Well" <bw@bbbb.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.11.11.13.50.681.6398@bbbb.com...[color=blue]
> Mike Hunter wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER.
>> You can RENT a Ford Crown Vic...[/color]
>
>
> Well, I need to buy a new car anyway, since my 10-year old
> Tercel (with only 30,000 miles on it) is no longer
> driveable since I got Wyman'ed in it in September.
>
> Louis Wyman, a man whose disdain for a continuous
> seat belt buzzer has led to the deaths of more Americans
> than died in World War 2. And many millions of serious
> injuries, many permanent and life-long.
>
> Don't get Wyman'ed, brothers and sisters.
>
> Does Canada have any laws regarding manufacturers'
> inclusion or exclusion of continuous seat belt buzzers,
> and/or interlocks? How about Australia, the U.K.?
>
> Remember: The now-deceased New Hampshire Representative
> Louis Wyman who, at the last minute, amended a highway
> safety bill to prevent any U.S. goverment agency like
> the NHTSA from requiring seat belt buzzers to buzz any
> longer than a meager 8 seconds.
>
> Representative Wyman is burning in hell right now, I'm
> happy to say. I checked Hell's web site, and it's
> confirmed. Wyman's been burning for 3 years now.[/color]

And you are a Nanny-State Democrat. Any responsible adult doesn't even need
8 seconds to remind him to buckle up. Read these two words and
contemplate: Personal Responsibility. Arse. Twas the Congress that passed
that nasty 1974 interlock law too. . . . I survived childhood without
safety seats and bicycle helmets and we didn't need metal detectors at the
doors of the schools I went to. . . .

If Pro is the opposite of Con, is Progress the opposite of Congress?

Charles

Charles of Kankakee

The NHTSA would have _scientifically_ determined
what worked best for drivers and what saved lives.

Instead, the forces of ignorance led by Louie
Wyman won out and torpedoed the NHTSA's scientific progress.

And when I say "forces of ignorance," I'm not making
this a Democrat versus Republican issue. Both parties
regularly shaft America. Look how many Democrats voted
for the war--even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted yes
(though Ted Kennedy voted no).

"Built_Well" <bw@bbbb.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.11.15.24.43.287.6758@bbbb.com...[color=blue]
> The NHTSA would have _scientifically_ determined
> what worked best for drivers and what saved lives.
>
> Instead, the forces of ignorance led by Louie
> Wyman won out and torpedoed the NHTSA's scientific progress.
>
> And when I say "forces of ignorance," I'm not making
> this a Democrat versus Republican issue. Both parties
> regularly shaft America. Look how many Democrats voted
> for the war--even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted yes
> (though Ted Kennedy voted no).[/color]

The NHTSA is another Government Nanny State organization most of the time.
The government said that if enough states passed mandatory seat belt laws,
then airbags wouldn't become mandatory. Instead, now we have killer airbags
in our cars, front and side. That's why I'm keeping my older car until it
falls apart. And to hell with you, too.

Charles

Built_Well wrote:[color=blue]
> Well, I need to buy a new car anyway, since my 10-year old
> Tercel (with only 30,000 miles on it) is no longer
> driveable since I got Wyman'ed in it in September.[/color]

Still, you'd be well served to rent a car for a cross country road trip.
It will save much wear and tear on your new vehicle.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:hPucndmGLuRspAHeUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
>I live in mountainous country and from what I see every day I can assure
>you a Corolla loaded with people and belongings does not have ANY available
>power, when driven in mountainous country with the AC on, period. You will
>be holding the throttle to the floor all day trying to maintain the speed
>limit and will get poor fuel mileage when driven that way. Buy a V6 Camry,
>if indeed they are your only choices.
>
> Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER. You can RENT a Ford
> Crown Vic with unlimited mileage for less than $20 day. The CV has plenty
> of room for more people, more 'stuff,' plenty of power, is a much safer
> vehicle, rides much better and will get 25 MPG at 65 MPH. Why do you
> think the police and taxi fleets prefer the CV? ;)
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

Mike

I think he wants to have a good vacation. Adding a Ford to the mix increases
his chances of a bad vacation. Plus, he probably wants to make it alive.

Dan

Dan J.S. wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> mike hunt[/color]
>
> Mike
>
> I think he wants to have a good vacation. Adding a Ford to the mix increases
> his chances of a bad vacation. Plus, he probably wants to make it alive.
>
> Dan[/color]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Mike Hunter wrote:
snip[color=blue]
> Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER. You can RENT a
> Ford Crown Vic with unlimited mileage for less than >$20 day.[/color]

Which rental agency has this? You can probably rent a Camry w/V6 that will
run circles around a CV and should get over 30 MPG.
[color=blue]
>The CV
> has plenty of room for more people, more 'stuff,' >plenty of power, is[/color]

Have to agree with this.
[color=blue]
> a much safer vehicle, rides much better and will get >25 MPG at 65 MPH.[/color]

Can't agree on safer and knowing Ford I'm suspect of the 25 MPG.
[color=blue]
>Why do you think the police and taxi fleets prefer the >CV? ;)[/color]

Dates back to when all PD thought they had to have full-size vehicles (for
hauling perps) with rear-wheel drive (more controllable in skids and etc).
Most of this was due to personal preference, not managements. Many cops
complained when anti-lock brakes were added as they couldn't skid to a stop
(many times sideways) and claimed this was a faster stop. Many PD's are
switching to smaller front-wheel drive vehicles as manufactures make them
available with "police pachages" to save on purchase cost and fuel.
Also, Ford undercuts the purchase price to fleets, government and etc. to
get their vehicles exposed, i.e. cheapest vehicle you can buy. (They even
did it on retail Taurus and the next smaller one at one time so they could
claim #1 title, which Toyota beat by offering quality Camry's and Corolla's,
not cheapness.)
For 2 or 3 years we couldn't get any local GM or Chrysler dealers to bid as
they knew they were going to be underbid by Ford.
Lastly, with the exception of the Ford Superduty's, we have had more trouble
with Fords in our fleet than any other brand. If they would only buy
Toyota's. :-)
davidj92