Our 2.2l Gracia gets aroudn 35mpg. Easy to fix, reliable, masses of space inside, handles like a shopping trolley. Make sure you check the length of your garage - they are longer than a Range Rover and won't fit in our garage.
ginga4lyfe,
Apr 6, 8:13pm
Yep both are right, good cars, I drove around the Wagon(auto) version for a while, it drove quite nicly and wasnt too thirsty untill i started to tow around a car with it, its a bit slow with towing the likes of a carbut did it quite happily non the less ( I was faster up the bombays than the trucks, so thats a plus :P ) otherwise i Found it quite comfortable, easy to move around in, easy to see my surroundings, and also quite easy to use to back trailers up narrow pathways/driveways, the only thing it was lacking was a decent radio :P
pollymay,
Apr 6, 9:56pm
I drive a windom with the 3 litre and it is pretty reliable. And I can get panels at any pick a part that match my colour when morons back into me. All parts that break cost only a few dollars used and I need the 3L for towing and I need cheap easily replaced gearboxes to match being an auto.
Suits me down the the ground, any savings I made on a euro would be eaten the moment a city moron backs into me.
ambo11,
Apr 7, 4:46am
We have a Gracia wagon, and its a damn good car. Economy is very good as far as I'm concerned, less than the 2.2 Acoord we had used.quiet, roomy and really comfy, an spend all day driving and still comfortable. One thing I noticed was it does not mind towing at all, normal 7X4 trailer with wood etc, hardly notice its there. In my mind they are the pick of the jap wagons for sure, and yes, the Gracia is much quieter, and better equipped than the NZ ones. Ours gets used for a family car/tractor/workhack. Can't speak highly enough of them.
richardmayes,
Apr 7, 4:57am
Really!
I think you need to start driving your V8 harder chap.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 11:55am
You do what you need to do Pap's its your money after all. I just fail to see the logic in buying a car that is rated as being more thirsty than the one you are currently using when the point of the exercise is to save money on fuel.
These people who come along and say "they do 35MPG and I own one" have not even taken a second to consider the conditions in which you are driving, and those conditions are not economical ones when you consider that you are using way over what your Honda is rated for in Urban driving (that or you are dong a few more KM's of travel at the weekend for you $130).
Personally, if it was me and I was hell bent on getting something like that I would at least do an accurate fuel economy test on the Honda, use that in conjunction with its rated economy to gauge whether you are likely to do any better than the Urban rated figure on the Camry.
Whenever you change cars there are almost always some extra costs involved as you attend to things that need doing. It seems a shame to waste the money and get the same or worse economy in return.
Good Luck!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 11:59am
Just one other thing, its not me saying they are that uneconomical its official economy figures that say that (13.5l/100km - 13.7l/100km depending on year and whos done the testing)
I was actually generous and used a figure os 12l/100km to account for the bit of non-urban driving but thats may be optomistic given a lot of stops and starts and hills.
wron,
Apr 7, 12:00pm
We have a '99 which has been exceptionally reliable, live high up in the Waitakeres, regularly go to from Auck. to Whangarei to visit elderly mum, sometimes to the Waikato to see the other one, very comfortable, my wife usually falls asleep on the NW motorway and wakes up just before we arrive! Has a generous sized boot - we have 2 dogs which we take to agility competitions -and tows a little trailer loaded up with camping stuff just fine. Actually Papa, you gave us a heap of useful ideas on this forum when we were selling our last wagon,a Mazda Capella a couple of years ago, many thanks! I agree about the length - she's quite long.
One of the turbo diesel Skoda ones came down an on-ramp in front of me recently, the guy planted his boot and man! did that car get up and f**k off. Pretty hot for a Mr Sensible type car. Too bad about the plume of black diesel smoke outthe back though.
mchatchell,
Apr 7, 2:23pm
Our 2.2 manual Camry does about 9.5l/100km around town, about 8.5 on a long run. It's really nice to drive, tows well and is really comfortable. It also has 3 full seat belts in the rear seat which was a huge bonus when choosing vehicles as we won't put kids in alapbelt.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 3:03pm
The manual ones do O.K around town. Its the Auto's that are a shocker, doing a run like Papariccardo's that torque converter is barely going to spend any time locked up.
Its also trying to do all the work with just 4 gears which means long ratios and the torque converter slipping even more to bridge the gap.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 3:17pm
But you didin't like that site!
Actually seems the W8 is a bad example as there are two distinct sets of figures for it over mulitple websites, which is odd because I thought there was only one engine spec with those.
In terms of why I don't stick with one site, well no one site seems comprehensive enough and I find it easier to just google the make/model and l/100km. With the exception of this instance usually I check a few sites to get a fair idea. In this case I googled a few V8's to find one that matched the Camry nicely but that was only to prove a point and have a wind.
Anyhow, as someone who does their own math, going on the economy figures on the net and Papariccardo's description of his drive whats your prediction on economy for an auto Camry!
craig04,
Apr 7, 4:41pm
If you are comparing apples with apples, take the consumption for both models from the same site for consistency reasons.
My prediction for Papa's drive would be 11l/100km's if driven realistically. My wifes old 3.0V6 was doing 13l/100km's in Auckland's stop/start rush hour traffic.
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 4:57pm
O.K so your wife was operating at 83% of the urban rating for the 3.0 Camry.
Papariccardo in the 2.2 operating at about the same percentage of the Urban rating would be about 11.4 litres/100km which is in the middle between both our estimates.
The only thing worrying me is if Papa's km estimates are approximately right then he is operating well over the Urban rating for the Honda which makes me think we are both being optimistic.
I am actually curious to see what he does indeed get if he buys one!
craig04,
Apr 7, 5:04pm
Yes, it will be interesting to see. I guess everyone has their own ideas as far as fuel consumption is concerned. I always fill up to the brim and measure that way for accuracy. On the other side of the coin you get some people saying their 5.7l Commodores averaging 12-13l/100km's city driving. Fact or fiction!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 7, 5:36pm
Quite right. The problem I see in this thread is people not taking into account the non-average type of use, the transmission and the quite old engine and transmission design.
Many are just seeing it in terms of the number of cylinders and what other people are managing with very different usage.
The thing is despite that model Camry auto being a thirsty pig around town its actually pretty O.K on the open road with the torque converter locked up, and not too bad in free flowing flat suburban use. there lies the danger of confusion!
thejazzpianoma,
Apr 8, 7:49am
Thanks for letting us have a go and not taking anything the wrong way! Given you have other motives for making the change that alters everything drastically.
I was just concerned you were doing this only for economy and just couldn't understand why you do that when the urban fuel ratings point to your being worse off if anything.
With that in mind I would suggest you also keep an eye out in case a cheap 1600cc Fiat Marea comes up. Don't buy the 2000 5 Cylinder for your use though.
The thing with the Marea is its just a hard working no nonsense practical workhorse. Its the same super reliable and quite economical running gear as the Petrol Multipla. It will give you a bit more practicality than the Camry (they have some neat stuff like the rear bumper which folds down for easy loading) but the same sort of reliability from a basic no-nonsense design.
Real world performance wise they go much the same as a manual Camry but I am pretty sure you will agree after driving they go better than the auto Camry. (Pretty much all NZ Marea's are manual).
Anyhow, its worth keeping an eye out on the off chance one comes up as they give you everything the Camry does and more with better fuel consumption to boot.
BTW, having bought parts for these and the Camry, with the odd exception I would rather be paying for parts for the Marea.
If one comes up (and they don't every day) often you can get a tidy serviced one in the $2500 - $3500 price range. Don't be afraid of higher km's, I rate the 1600 Fiat Motor to last better than the Camry motor. Its not uncommon for those motors to have 250'000km on them and still not need any oil between changes.
Just think of it as a Petrol Multipla re-packaged as a wagon.
kcf,
Apr 8, 8:04am
Fuel economy ratings are a mysterious thing.
The other half somehow always gets better fuel economy in her Starlet turbo than I do when I'm driving it.I can't imagine how [innocent expression goes here]
angelab,
Apr 8, 10:18am
Hey jazz man. Our 2.2 camry uses NO oil between 15 k oil changes and that is the norm for these from asking around. ours is a wagon, manual, abs and twin airbags . Best car we have owned.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 10, 2:12am
I was in no way inferring they do use oil between changes. Was just pointing out you can expect a similar level of longevity from the Fiat 1.6.
Glad you are enjoying your Camry, the Manual one goes quite a bit better than the auto and dosn't suffer too much excess thirst around the City as you have probably noticed.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.