Camry Fuel Consumption !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[csv8]

Missus had to go to Perth and she hired a Camry. Not happy with the fuel consumption. She said "it's about the same as our Fairmont V8" modern 4 cylinder cars don't have as good a fuel consumption as our dinosaur ?

[pb02]

What economy do you get with your Fairmont? Also what was she getting with the Camry?

[csv8]

Originally Posted by pb02

What economy do you get with your Fairmont? Also what was she getting with the Camry?

Fairmont averages 22mpg around town and 29mpg open road.
Camry emptied its tank in 400kms, Fairmont does 500kms a tank

[Poetic Justice]

Might want to consider the tank size there champ.. I think you'll find the Fairmont has a bigger tank.

I had a Camry over the weekend just past. Was pretty happy with it to be honest. I put $20 in it on Saturday and last me from Ringwood to Melton to Altona and back to Keilor before I needed to put more petrol in it.

[XR8-260]

I don't think a 4cyl camry would use more fuel than a V8 Falcon/fairmont. But I heard that it uses more fuel that it's bigger brother, the V6 Aurion...

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by 3

I don't think a 4cyl camry would use more fuel than a V8 Falcon/fairmont. But I heard that it uses more fuel that it's bigger brother, the V6 Aurion...

Got an Aurion for work at the moment, have some interesting (dis)likes to communicate with you.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by blackout

Might want to consider the tank size there champ.. I think you'll find the Fairmont has a bigger tank.

I had a Camry over the weekend just past. Was pretty happy with it to be honest. I put $20 in it on Saturday and last me from Ringwood to Melton to Altona and back to Keilor before I needed to put more petrol in it.

The old Camry's had a bigger thank than my BA, but my God father was telling me that his camery (previous to the new model) was getting 7's. Was the Camry carring extra weight?

[MITCHAY]

I get more than that even when boosting my car :

[The G6ET Spot]

Have to agree with csv8,my brother traded his AU fairmont ghia in on a 4cylinder camry and has also said that the fuel economy is worse. So much so that he is going to sell the Camry (only 4 months old) and buy a BF mk2 Fairmont Ghia.

[new2ford]

Anti Camry though I am I'd have to say in fairness some hard figures are need to support this argument! Like litres per 100 km (or mpg if you must).

[TheSneakiness]

Doing some research on Carsales...

Both 2005 model vehicles (BF XT and Camry Altise)

Falcon fuel tank - 68 litres
Camry fuel tank - 70 litres

[uranium_death]

Based on the previous model of Camry, they found that the difference in driving a 4 cylinder Camry compared to a 6 cylinder Camry was something like a 4 dollar saving for refill.

However, given the comparative stress placed on the 4 cylinder motor when pulling the Camry compared to the 6, I'd take the 6 anyday.

I drove a Pulsar and it was the most unresponsive piece of poopie I ever drove. After that, I knew that 6s and 8s RWD were the only way for me.
Anything else will simply not suffice.

[sgt_doofey]

Common Rail Turbo Diesel FTW!
~900 kms out of a 60L tank. :
The Peugeot is averaging about 6.3L/100kms, which I believe translates to about 44MPG?

My brother has a 4cyl '02 Camry and he gets about 600kms out of a tank of petrol. His Camry also tows a 750kg unbraked trailer OK. A bit sluggish, but it gets going eventually.
Maybe the one the OP's partner had was a bit under the weather?

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Common Rail Turbo Diesel FTW!
~900 kms out of a 60L tank. :
The Peugeot is averaging about 6.3L/100kms, which I believe translates to about 44MPG?

My brother has a 4cyl '02 Camry and he gets about 600kms out of a tank of petrol. His Camry also tows a 750kg unbraked trailer OK. A bit sluggish, but it gets going eventually.
Maybe the one the OP's partner had was a bit under the weather?

6.3L/100km = 37.6 MPG.

Last year I had a 2005 Camry 2.4 Auto hire-car when the Fez was getting its rear bumper replaced (rear ended). For two weeks. Best fuel figure was 12L/100km combined, with worst at 14L/100km combined. Not the most economical 2.4L 4-cyl I've ever driven.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Common Rail Turbo Diesel FTW!
~900 kms out of a 60L tank. :
The Peugeot is averaging about 6.3L/100kms, which I believe translates to about 44MPG?

I get 400kms out of $30 of fuel. I win :P

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I get 400kms out of $30 of fuel. I win :P

Sorry, I still win. 942kms out of $62 of diesel. Or if I go LPG in the Falcon, 418kms for $28.57 :P

Originally Posted by Steffo

6.3L/100km = 37.6 MPG.

Hmmm. My spreadsheet calculates that as being 44MPG.

Using example above of 942kms and using 52.37 litres:
(Kms / 1.61) / (Litres / 4.55) = (942 / 1.61) / (52.37 / 4.55) = 585 Miles / 11.5 Gallons = 50.869MPG

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Sorry, I still win. 942kms out of $62 of diesel. Or if I go LPG in the Falcon, 418kms for $28.57 :P


Hmmm. My spreadsheet calculates that as being 44MPG.

Using example above of 942kms and using 52.37 litres:
(Kms / 1.61) / (Litres / 4.55) = (942 / 1.61) / (52.37 / 4.55) = 585 Miles / 11.5 Gallons = 50.869MPG

Just whack it into google... anyway... this is how I calculate it...

6.3L/100km...

So, 6.3 / 3.79 = 1.6622691292875989445910290237467 gallons

100km is 62.5 miles, so,

62.5 / 1.6622691292875989445910290237467 = 37.59920634920634920817545351474 miles per gallon, or 37.6.

Google returns 37.3 mpg if you type in 6.3L/100km in mpg. I think they use more precise gallon and mile figures then I do, but stuff trying to remember all those numbers, 3.79L = 1 Gallon is good enough for me.

Oh and btw... 942km from 52.37L = 42.6 MPG.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Sorry, I still win. 942kms out of $62 of diesel. Or if I go LPG in the Falcon, 418kms for $28.57 :P

Diesel is 1.30 here, so no you dont win :P

[mustang70]

my work vehicle is a 1996 2.2litre camry.engine is from an 02 camry.somewhat older than mentioned but christ theres no way in the world it drinks as much as the V8. i dont bother working out economy though,as work pays the bill so why would i care. it does however not use alot considering its a fairly decent sized car, goes ok if not loaded up ,and has a good sized rear area (wagon)not much smaller than a commodore of similar era, if only it wasnt so dull looking ...

[Ridin-High]

from my 60L tank, 70% highway driving i get 600-650 from full tank if im babying it

[The Monty]

My old 1.8L Camry, 1987 model 12.5L/100k's average.
AU fairmont 4.0L, 1999 model 10.4L/100k's average

[freedom_]

if its been treated like s***, wouldn't be surprised of high fuel consumption.

I've heard of this problem with camrys, simply because the car wasn't taken care of.

[Dezza]

When at cruising speeds, the 6 cylinders and V8s can be better with fuel because the engines don't have to work hard. On the highways, I've been able to get about 600kms out of a tank. This in what was essentially a stock EA Ghia (not so stock any more). Fuel economy is still great on the highways, as at 100kph it's only doing 2000rpm. Comparitively speaking, I've found a lot of 4 cylinders seem to be revving quite high when at 100 kph. On the other hand, driving around the city I'd struggle to get 400kms out of a tank. You'd probably find that the Camry would be more fuel efficient for city driving, the Falcon would be better for highways etc.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by ea_silver_ghia

When at cruising speeds, the 6 cylinders and V8s can be better with fuel because the engines don't have to work hard. On the highways, I've been able to get about 600kms out of a tank. This in what was essentially a stock EA Ghia (not so stock any more). Fuel economy is still great on the highways, as at 100kph it's only doing 2000rpm. Comparitively speaking, I've found a lot of 4 cylinders seem to be revving quite high when at 100 kph. On the other hand, driving around the city I'd struggle to get 400kms out of a tank. You'd probably find that the Camry would be more fuel efficient for city driving, the Falcon would be better for highways etc.

My 4cyl (turbo) revs at 2800 at 100 and I get excellent economy both city and highway. I don't drive it like a grandma either. Goes just as good as a 6 or 8 too.

You have to remember that 4cyl's generally aren't in really heavy cars too which sort of voids the engine working hard argument IMO.

[Dezza]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

My 4cyl (turbo) revs at 2800 at 100 and I get excellent economy both city and highway. I don't drive it like a grandma either. Goes just as good as a 6 or 8 too.

You have to remember that 4cyl's generally aren't in really heavy cars too which sort of voids the engine working hard argument IMO.

True, but I'm comparing a CAMRY with a Falcon, not a WRX

A Camry is only slightly smaller than a Falcon so it's a case of a small engine trying to lug around a big heavy car. That's the main reason why it's fuel economy is so bad. This is also one of the reasons why the 4 cylinder Commodore never took off. Even though the VB/VC Commodores were heaps smaller than the Falcon, they were still too big for a 4 cylinder engine.

[QualityCounts]

Don't know about the Camry. But my mate bought an Aurion a month ago. So far he has put in more than 3000 km. He's rapt with the fuel consumption. It consistently shows from 9.8 to 10.3 L/100km.

[coyote]

Ok got nothing to do with camry's except I hired one in Sydney recently and hated it.

My Gt averaged 12l/100K on the fpV run to Melbourne (with some motivated convoy cruising) and our XR6 averages 11.3 here in Brizzy (99% highway driving) 1% flat stick

[jdg]

I think both the Toyota Camry and Aurion get 9.9L/100km on the combined cycle...depends how much city/country driving you do.

[Cheech]

There is a difference in gallons:

Imperial gallon = 4.54609 Litres
US Gallon = 3.7854 Litres

Imp gallon on 6.3l/100 = Approx 43 mpg
US gallon on 6.3l/100 = Approx 36 mpg

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Cheech

There is a difference in gallons:

Imperial gallon = 4.54609 Litres
US Gallon = 3.7854 Litres

Imp gallon on 6.3l/100 = Approx 43 mpg
US gallon on 6.3l/100 = Approx 36 mpg

Exactly, but what is the etiquette?
I mean, MPG is a term used to describe fuel economy in the USA, and in the USA the gallon is 3.8 litres. So describing a US measure, should we use the US parameters for said measure?
Describing aussie fuel consumption is done in litres per 100klm, so depending on which definition you use there is no really correct unit of measurement in Australia with mpg. Sort of reminds me of that tree falling in the forest thing.