Re: Camry 2007 V6 - Fuel Economy in the City

New 2007 LEV6 approx 28 in city, 36-37 on the hiway. This is based
on the larger Imp. gal. Numbers would be lower in US gal. I drive about
110 K/hr on hi-way with a/c on as required. I love the car, first
Toyota I have had.


rq

<success_ny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158266373.480412.243350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> The official EPA numbers for Camry 2007 V6 with the 3.5 Liter engine is
> 31 miles per gallon on a highway and 22 in the city.
>
> For Honda Accord V6 with the 3.0L engine the numbers are 29 and 20
> respectively.
>
> Is Camry really that economical? What are the real numbers it gets in
> the city? I have to drive in the city traffic most of the time, so the
> "city" number is the one I am most concerned about.
>
> Thanks.
>[/color]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:50:25 GMT, "QQQQ" <qurandc@shaw.ca> wrote:
[color=blue]
>New 2007 LEV6 approx 28 in city, 36-37 on the hiway.[/color]

36-37 on highway? Do you drive 55 mph? That is impossible, you must
have done your math wrong.
[color=blue]
> This is based
>on the larger Imp. gal. Numbers would be lower in US gal.[/color]

Ok, now it makes sense. Translation to US Gallons: 30-32.
[color=blue]
> I drive about
>110 K/hr[/color]

62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?

[color=blue]
>on hi-way with a/c on as required. I love the car, first
>Toyota I have had.
>
>
>rq
>
><success_ny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1158266373.480412.243350@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> The official EPA numbers for Camry 2007 V6 with the 3.5 Liter engine is
>> 31 miles per gallon on a highway and 22 in the city.
>>
>> For Honda Accord V6 with the 3.0L engine the numbers are 29 and 20
>> respectively.
>>
>> Is Camry really that economical? What are the real numbers it gets in
>> the city? I have to drive in the city traffic most of the time, so the
>> "city" number is the one I am most concerned about.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:

[color=blue]
>62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
>optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
>want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?[/color]

'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH. (We didn't like ANY of the fours we test
drove, compared to the V6 -- Accord, Buick, Camry, or Maxima.)

'Cause it gets to 65 FASTER than a four when it needs to.

'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.

'Cause it can merge more easily than a four in heavy traffic.

'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.

'Cause it can cruise all day at 75-80 if that's what we want.

'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.

'Cause it can tow more than a four.

'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.

'Cause it's quieter than a four . . .

.. . . 'cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.

-Don (need any other reasons?)
--
"What do *you* care what other people think?" --Arline Feynman

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:52:35 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>
>[color=green]
>>62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
>>optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
>>want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?[/color]
>
>'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH. (We didn't like ANY of the fours we test
>drove, compared to the V6 -- Accord, Buick, Camry, or Maxima.)[/color]

Again, waste of money on V6 if all you gonna do is drive 55-65 mph.
[color=blue]
>'Cause it gets to 65 FASTER than a four when it needs to.[/color]

1.2 seconds. Congrats on $5,000 USD extra well-spent on saving 1.2
seconds on reaching 65 mph.
[color=blue]
>'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.
>
>'Cause it can merge more easily than a four in heavy traffic.[/color]

At 65 mph? Please.
[color=blue]
>'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.
>
>'Cause it can cruise all day at 75-80 if that's what we want.[/color]

But the problem is you drive only 55-65.
[color=blue]
>'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.
>
>'Cause it can tow more than a four.[/color]

If you are using Camry to tow anything you're in trouble.
[color=blue]
>'Cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.
>
>'Cause it's quieter than a four . . .[/color]

Not true.
[color=blue]
>. . . 'cause it's SMOOOOOOTH.
>
>-Don (need any other reasons?)[/color]

Sane and logical ones if possible.

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
[color=blue]
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:52:35 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
>>>optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
>>>want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?[/color][/color][/color]

[color=blue][color=green]
>>-Don (need any other reasons?)[/color]
>
>Sane and logical ones if possible.[/color]

Smoother, quieter, and more powerful than a four. Those fit the "sane
and logical" per your request. What else need be said?
--
"What do *you* care what other people think?" --Arline Feynman

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:47:49 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>[color=green]
>>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:52:35 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>>>
>>>
>>>>62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
>>>>optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
>>>>want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>-Don (need any other reasons?)[/color]
>>
>>Sane and logical ones if possible.[/color]
>
>Smoother, quieter, and more powerful than a four. Those fit the "sane
>and logical" per your request. What else need be said?[/color]

1) V6 and 4-cylinder vehicles are the same in noise (so no V6 is not
quieter)

2) V6 and 4-cylinder are the same in "smoothness" unless of course you
"floor-it", but since your max speed is 65mph I doubt you "floor-it"
much.

3) More powerful is definitely true. But all that power goes to waste
when you drive only max at 65mph.

Conclusion: you made an illogical, insane choice to buy V6.

Of course this is free world, do whatever you want. Who am I to stop
you from wasting thousands of dollars.

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
[color=blue]
>1) V6 and 4-cylinder vehicles are the same in noise (so no V6 is not
>quieter)[/color]

Yes, a V6 IS quieter. In EVERY car we test drove this was true. EVERY
car. A four has to rev higher and work harder than a V6 in any
vehicle. Higher revs and harder work mean more noise, and some of that
noise gets back to the vehicle inhabitants.[color=blue]
>
>2) V6 and 4-cylinder are the same in "smoothness" unless of course you
>"floor-it", but since your max speed is 65mph I doubt you "floor-it"
>much.[/color]

No, a V6 is inherently smoother than an inline four because of its
layout. Also, a four is working harder . . . see above . . . so I
don't have to "floor-it" as much. AND, my butt told me each V6 we test
drove was smoother than the four in EVERY car. EVERY one.
[color=blue]
>3) More powerful is definitely true. But all that power goes to waste
>when you drive only max at 65mph.[/color]

Hardly. It means quicker acceleration to that speed. And more power to
get to faster speeds when they are called for (like on freeways when
the rest of the traffic is moving faster and I match their speeds for
my safety).
[color=blue]
>Conclusion: you made an illogical, insane choice to buy V6.[/color]

To you, maybe. After we got done test driving all those cars with
fours and V6s it was clear to us that the V6 was the way to go for the
reasons I cited above. A little more expense and a little less economy
was worth the trade-off. Logically.

Have you ever compared a four and a V6 back-to-back in the same
vehicle?

-Don (making a logical, well thought-out choice)
--
Pooder approved this post . . . .

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:

[color=blue]
>Of course this is free world, do whatever you want. Who am I to stop
>you from wasting thousands of dollars.[/color]

Oh yeah, I should mention that we got a Camry SE V6 with a larger,
higher-output V6 than any other Camry has!

That oughta make you REALLY question our sanity!!

<CHORTLE>

-Don (doing crazy things since 1953)
--
Pooder approved this post . . . .

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:29:05 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>
>[color=green]
>>Of course this is free world, do whatever you want. Who am I to stop
>>you from wasting thousands of dollars.[/color]
>
>Oh yeah, I should mention that we got a Camry SE V6 with a larger,
>higher-output V6 than any other Camry has!
>
>That oughta make you REALLY question our sanity!!
>
><CHORTLE>
>
>-Don (doing crazy things since 1953)[/color]

You said you had LE V6 and now it's SE V6? Make up your mind already.
Which one you got?

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:29:05 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Of course this is free world, do whatever you want. Who am I to stop
>>>you from wasting thousands of dollars.[/color]
>>
>>Oh yeah, I should mention that we got a Camry SE V6 with a larger,
>>higher-output V6 than any other Camry has!
>>
>>That oughta make you REALLY question our sanity!!
>>
>><CHORTLE>
>>
>>-Don (doing crazy things since 1953)[/color]
>
>You said you had LE V6 and now it's SE V6?[/color]

I NEVER said LE.
[color=blue]
>Make up your mind already.[/color]

I ONLY said SE.
[color=blue]
>Which one you got?[/color]

Learn to read for UNDERSTANDING.

Let me know if you figure it out; the answer is right there in front
of you.

--
Pooder approved this post . . . .

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:21:00 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>[color=green]
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:29:05 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course this is free world, do whatever you want. Who am I to stop
>>>>you from wasting thousands of dollars.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, I should mention that we got a Camry SE V6 with a larger,
>>>higher-output V6 than any other Camry has!
>>>
>>>That oughta make you REALLY question our sanity!!
>>>
>>><CHORTLE>
>>>
>>>-Don (doing crazy things since 1953)[/color]
>>
>>You said you had LE V6 and now it's SE V6?[/color]
>
>I NEVER said LE.
>[color=green]
>>Make up your mind already.[/color]
>
>I ONLY said SE.
>[color=green]
>>Which one you got?[/color]
>
>Learn to read for UNDERSTANDING.
>
>Let me know if you figure it out; the answer is right there in front
>of you.[/color]

Damn you are an idiot or a dick.

Here is the original reply to the author
___________________________
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:50:25 GMT, "QQQQ" <qurandc@shaw.ca> wrote:
[color=blue]
>New 2007 LEV6 approx 28 in city, 36-37 on the hiway.[/color]

36-37 on highway? Do you drive 55 mph? That is impossible, you must
have done your math wrong.
[color=blue]
> This is based
>on the larger Imp. gal. Numbers would be lower in US gal.[/color]

Ok, now it makes sense. Translation to US Gallons: 30-32.
[color=blue]
> I drive about
>110 K/hr[/color]

62 mph driver, makes sense for such good mileage. Remember kids,
optimal miles per gallon is 55-65 mph. Then again why the hell do you
want a V6 if all you want to do is drive 55-65?

[color=blue]
>on hi-way with a/c on as required. I love the car, first
>Toyota I have had.
>
>
>rq[/color]

______________________

Notice it says LEV6, now, I always assumed you are rq just posting in
another name "Don." However, now it seems like you are not rq but
shamelessly jumps right into a conversation without any context.

You need attention that much huh? Homeless shelter too boring?

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:

[color=blue]
>Notice it says LEV6, now, I always assumed you are rq just posting in
>another name "Don."[/color]

Assumed.
[color=blue]
>However, now it seems like you are not rq but
>shamelessly jumps right into a conversation without any context.[/color]

Shamelessly.
[color=blue]
>You need attention that much huh? Homeless shelter too boring?[/color]

Heh, heh, heh . . . pretty funny, Mr Blue.

It's a Usenet tradition to jump in to a conversation; that's how this
medium works.

The context was an assertion you made in this very public place. I
took issue with it. Then you made the assumption and shamelessly
ranted . . . .

It was amusing, though. Thanx.
--
Pooder approved this post . . . .

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:56:33 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>
>[color=green]
>>Notice it says LEV6, now, I always assumed you are rq just posting in
>>another name "Don."[/color]
>
>Assumed.[/color]

you butt into a private conversation for no reason but act like an
idiot. I should of known better.

[color=blue]
>It was amusing, though. Thanx.[/color]

Illogical sense of humor, like the way you throw money away. Like I
said, unfortunately freedom means idiots like you get to throw
thousands away for stupid reasons.

And why would I respond with another name as you "assumed". Did I say
something that I should be ashamed of or is it just your over active
imagination at work.

Let me say that the idea that someone shouldn't buy a V6 because they only
drive 65 mph, which by the way is the legal limit on a great many of our
high-ways, is so stupid that I don't know where to start. Try passing on a
mountain road with your little piss ant 4cyc and we can all gather and
scrap you off some 18 wheeler's grill.

rq rq rq

"Big Blue" <aclaritan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hld1h25u1g516fnm0ijtqldvl1p9ag1p37@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:56:33 -0500, Don Fearn <pooder@charter.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Notice it says LEV6, now, I always assumed you are rq just posting in
>>>another name "Don."[/color]
>>
>>Assumed.[/color]
>
> you butt into a private conversation for no reason but act like an
> idiot. I should of known better.
>
>[color=green]
>>It was amusing, though. Thanx.[/color]
>
> Illogical sense of humor, like the way you throw money away. Like I
> said, unfortunately freedom means idiots like you get to throw
> thousands away for stupid reasons.
>[/color]

I think it was Big Blue <aclaritan@gmail.com> who stated:

[color=blue]
>you butt into a private conversation for no reason but act like an
>idiot. I should of known better.[/color]

PRIVATE CONVERSATION?? Just you and the rest of the world!
[color=blue]
>Illogical sense of humor, like the way you throw money away. Like I
>said, unfortunately freedom means idiots like you get to throw
>thousands away for stupid reasons.[/color]

Hmmmm . . . it's tradition on Usenet that when one's argument is going
the wrong way, one resorts to name-calling. Thanx for confirming that
for me.

Enjoy the rest of your life . . . .
--
Pooder approved this post . . . .