# Review: 2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Should I be impressed with this?


----------



## BrianWillan (Feb 22, 2008)

News Bot said:


> Real-world fuel economy averaged of 7.5 liters per 100 kilometers or 31 mpg.
> 
> More...


On my 1997 Saturn SL1 with 1.9L 4 banger with 5sp manual, I get 6.16L/100km (45.8 mpg imperial) doing about 85% city driving. I am using moderate hypermiling techniques (no turning off engine at lights).

So for a hybrid, I would say that is not a very impressive stat for their fuel efficiency. I will say that the specs quoted in the article for economy for both city and highway was 5.7L/100km. 

Cheers

Brian


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

In reality, I have noticed that the fuel efficiency of toyota engines are among the worst, but since their vehicles are lighter and smaller on average the MPGs are still higher. The most noteworthy exception being the prius, which can still get reasonable mileage even with the engine running all the time.

But from the tacoma 4cyl pickup to the rav4, the toyos tend to be guzzlers from my experience. 31 MPG out of a state of the art family sedan is borderlining on guzzler status as far as I'm concerned. Earlier versions of the camry could already reach this number over 10 years ago.

GM, honda, and volkswagon (and some older fords) have all consistently been able to deliver hybrid like fuel economy long before toyota's marketing hype took over with their "hybrid synergy drive" nonsense. We have a 1988 ford ranger 4x4 and a 1997 rav4 in the family and even before converting the ranger to diesel it consistently was capable of at least as good MPG even though it was larger and heavier than the rav4 with a bigger engine.

I've used some mild hypermiling with my old F250 diesel, and was able to see close to 20 MPG even in urban driving conditions. Coasting in neutral is about the most extreme thing I ever do. Driving style matters no matter what you drive, but if you can get 48 MPG out of your car, I think it proves that toyota and their hybrids are over rated.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

News Bot said:


> Real-world fuel economy averaged of 7.5 liters per 100 kilometers or 31 mpg.


I drove 238 miles Saturday with my 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT V6 and got 30.7 mpg. I'm not impressed.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Looking in the local paper today, there is an ad for the mazda B2200 pickup that claims it will get 38 MPG, yeah - sure..... Looks like there are lots of bridges coming on sale lately with all the sub prime real estate......

Remember seeing an ad for the chevy silverado fullsize pickup a few months ago that claimed 28 MPG for the regular cab 1500 and 27 for the 4 door version. I personally think all the MPG estimates are crap except the ones you can verify yourself.

Granted they may have used the larger 4L canadian gallons to claim those numbers, but thats still only about a 5% increace from 3.78L gallons.


----------



## BrianWillan (Feb 22, 2008)

david85 said:


> Granted they may have used the larger 4L canadian gallons to claim those numbers, but thats still only about a 5% increace from 3.78L gallons.


Actually the imperial gallon is 4.55L so it is about 20% bigger than the US gallon.

ETA: <rant> I find it rather amazing that Canada has been on the metric system for more than 30 years and yet there are still many that still need to refer things in miles, gallons, inches, feet, pounds, etc. The one that baffles me is the liters per 100km for fuel economy. Is km/L so hard to grasp. Europe at least manages to understand that </rant>

Cheers

Brian


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

BrianWillan said:


> Actually the imperial gallon is 4.55L so it is about 20% bigger than the US gallon.
> 
> ETA: <rant> I find it rather amazing that Canada has been on the metric system for more than 30 years and yet there are still many that still need to refer things in miles, gallons, inches, feet, pounds, etc. The one that baffles me is the liters per 100km for fuel economy. Is km/L so hard to grasp. Europe at least manages to understand that </rant>
> 
> ...


Ahh, well there you go. I always used 4L gallons for my MPG calculations for simplicity sake because the fuel pumps read out in liters. Then I correct the estimate to 3.78L gallons for the final MPG number. I never had patience for the Liters / 100km system.

The imperial system is alive and kicking in this country if for no other reason than the construction industry. Its much harder to understand than metric, but I grew up with it, so its easy for me to use either one. Except that L/100km crap.


----------

