Toyota Camry 2200cc-what L/100km?

nico32, Jun 23, 9:25am
looking at a 1998 Gracia done 116000km, auto.
Car dealer reckons would get 9L/100km.just wondering if that about right or talking through rearend!

any major probs with these car!

pandai, Jun 23, 9:29am
Depends on the style of driving.

It's not flash, but it's as expected.

r15, Jun 23, 9:48am
i reckon 10l/100km would be perfectly do-able

werent all gracia's 2.5 litre v6 though!(im likely to be wrong, but it would be to check this)

2.2 is a 4cyl, 2.5 is a v6 - easy to spot under the bonnet!

nico32, Jun 23, 9:54am
is automatic, drive at speed limit,mostly open road 100km day

doug207, Jun 23, 11:51am
The 2.2 should be doing in the area of 8L/100km, a mate had the older bathtub looking shape in 2.2 manual form and that was in the high 7s. Not bad at all for a car of the size.

ceebee2, Jun 24, 4:15am
Depends whether its a V6 or the 2.2 4 cylinder.

_peas, Jun 24, 5:39am
I get between 7 and 8L/100km on the open road and approx 10-11L around town.Manual 2200cc 1994.They are pretty cheap to run, even working on them is simple really.

intrade, Jun 24, 5:57am
jup heard similar 4 pot 2.2 petrol toyota cheap on gas for what they are.

ema1, Jun 24, 8:08am
Gracia's came out in both the 2.2L .4 cyl engine as well as the 2.5LV6 I think the top line Qualis model even used the 3Litre V6 same as the NZ new V6 versions.
I've got an Avalon which uses an uprated version of the 1MZ-FE that the NZ new Camry's post 1997 use and I regularly get between 9 to 9.5L/100km economy, but go lead foot it and it will use a lot more than that.
Last time I did a South Island holiday trip in it admittedly driving sedately I achieved in the low 8's /100km economy which I was very pleased with.
The Avalon is basically a LWB & heavier version of the Camry platform anyway.
Bags of room and so comfy for a big tall person like myself.
The 2.2 Litre 4 cyl Camry should be good for 8-8.5Litres/100km but haven't got the legs of the V6 ones.
The V6 jobs with the 1MZ-FE engine are brilliant, talking from experience of owning one.

trouser, Jun 24, 8:24am
I wouldn't admit to that.

ema1, Jun 24, 8:58am
WHY NOT! I just did.! TOYOTA AVALON 2001 that is fella.
Cavalier yeeeea that's another story, wouldn't want to be found dead in one of those "Clayton's" Toyota's by General Motors.Chevrolet Division.

boat3, Jun 24, 9:04am
i had the earlier shape 2.2 camry sceptre wagon.2.2 ltr and at the same time had a vs calais v6 holden,the camry used more petrol than the holden!and was a bit underpowered i thought. a very good car though,as im sure the later toyota would be.i thought it was closer to 10 ltrs per 100 if driven gently.

ema1, Jun 24, 9:05am
Not a great difference to the V6 really but you have the pedal the 2.2 litre a bit harder thus less fuel efficient compared to the V6 in later Camry's 1997 onwards I'm referring to, though the 2.2 4 cyl engine was in the earlier body as well as the later ones.

franc123, Jun 24, 9:09am
Exactly, I'm not sure why anyone would think that 8-10L/100km highway out of a lateish model 2.2L four was good, it's not given the huge performance trade off compared to an Aussie six.In some situations they can even use more if it has to work hard.

ema1, Jun 24, 9:10am
There are other 2 litre plus sized cars that aren't a heck of an economical either.

franc123, Jun 24, 9:17am
Absolutely, I wasn't having a dig at Camry's specifically.

_peas, Jun 24, 11:09am
The 2.2 seems to get along alright on the open road.Mine has done everything asked of it.No race car by any stretch but loaded up with a weekend worth of gear and it goes well enough.Overtakes when needed.

ema1, Jun 25, 12:42am
I think it's a case of a basically underpowered vehicle being expected to perform like a more powerful car and thus they use more gas in the process.
Working hard or harder verses working leisurely isn't it!

moosie_21, Jun 25, 1:48am

thejazzpianoma, Jun 25, 4:11am
I agree, not very economical and not really a very good car for what they cost. You are doing some fairly substantial km's, why not consider something safer and much cheaper to run for the same money!
You should easily be able to get something much nicer that uses at lest 2 litres less fuel per 100km and that will save you $1200 a year for your running.

There are even likely to be cars in your price range that could save you closer to $1800 a year.

ema1, Jun 25, 4:28am
Toyota's economy! measure similar to what Holden did years ago with their 4 cylinder full sized Commodores which by the way weren't common in Australia funny that. I must say though the 2.2 Toyota 5S-FE engine is one hell of a lot better than that enemic Holden Starfire 4and the 1.9 litre Opel cam in head abortions that they struggled around with.
Strewth they were awful things and there weren't many days we didn't see them in the workshop back in the day with all sorts of woes, terrible things they were and thank god most of them have since died now.

franc123, Jul 25, 12:18am
Yes, I believe the Aussies dropped the Starfire at the end of the VH series, as was the 2.8L former 173ci option that was not offered in NZ market Commodores, they fours in Oz were considered to be a waste of time and an embarrassment really.Many of those 1.9's died of exhaustion fairly early in their life.A friend back in the day was given an early VK Royale as a company vehicle that was complete with power steering and trimatic, about the best thing you could say about it was it was fairly comfortable and well kitted out for the time, in every other way it was dreadful.IIRC the engine was getting very ticky and noisy by the time it was ditched three years and 60 odd thousand k's later, and it managed about 11L/100km at best in that time, he wasn't a hard driver either!How much longer it went for is anyones guess.