Dear Toyota, Why Did You Make This Car a Camry?

[Max_Settings]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

The Camry the OP linked isn't exactly "lower-end". Sure it's not a $100K performance saloon, but it's solidly fully loaded mid-range full size sedan.

I think the Camry counts as a mid size sedan. It's bigger than something like the Civic or Corolla, but not as big as something like an Avalon or Ford Taurus.

[DildorTheDecent]

Toyota are getting nicer and nicer.

 

>Auto

*pukes*

[bimmerman]

There's a lot more to a sport sedan than just how it looks. The most critical aspect is how it drives-- does it wilt or does it rise to the challenge when hustled? Are the brakes confidence inspiring? Does the suspension let you guide the car, or is it fighting you? Does the steering have life and response or is it dead and artificial? Does the traction and stability control go OFF or 'off', and either way, is the car communicative at or near its limits? Where are those limits? Etc etc etc. Looks are the least relevant aspect.

 

Previous Camrys have been as engaging to drive spiritedly as a wet noodle. I'll reserve judgement on this one until I get a chance to drive it, because it sure does look nice...but who am I kidding. FWD? No manual trans? Nope, no interest whatsoever.

 

[/sport sedan aficionado's opinion]

[Max_Settings]

1 minute ago, bimmerman said:

There's a lot more to a sport sedan than just how it looks. The most critical aspect is how it drives-- does it wilt or does it rise to the challenge when hustled? Are the brakes confidence inspiring? Does the suspension let you guide the car, or is it fighting you? Does the steering have life and response or is it dead and artificial? Does the traction and stability control go OFF or 'off', and either way, is the car communicative at or near its limits? Where are those limits? Etc etc etc. Looks are the least relevant aspect.

 

Previous Camrys have been as engaging to drive spiritedly as a wet noodle. I'll reserve judgement on this one until I get a chance to drive it, because it sure does look nice...but who am I kidding. No manual trans no interest.

I never said it was a true sports sedan, it just has the styling elements like the front diffuser, rear spoiler, and rear splitter. And then it had the power, 301 HP. But yeah I'm sure handling is garbage compared to an actual sports sedan.

[dalekphalm]

13 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

I think the Camry counts as a mid size sedan. It's bigger than something like the Civic or Corolla, but not as big as something like an Avalon or Ford Taurus.

Sure, marginally, but it's not a huge difference. I would put it borderline between mid-size and full size. Personally I quite like the look of the Venza, which is essentially an SUV built on the Camry platform w/ leftover parts lol. Slightly jank? Sure. But it's visually appealing to me in a clean way.

[bimmerman]

Just now, Max_Settings said:

I never said it was a true sports sedan, it just has the styling elements like the front diffuser, rear spoiler, and rear splitter. And then it had the power, 301 HP. But yeah I'm sure handling is garbage compared to an actual sports sedan.

Power doesn't make a sports sedan (or sports car) either-- see BRZ and Miata for gutless and slow yet insanely fun and grin-inducing cars.

[Max_Settings]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, marginally, but it's not a huge difference. I would put it borderline between mid-size and full size. Personally I quite like the look of the Venza, which is essentially an SUV built on the Camry platform w/ leftover parts lol. Slightly jank? Sure. But it's visually appealing to me in a clean way.

They don't make the Venza anymore.

[Max_Settings]

Just now, bimmerman said:

Power doesn't make a sports sedan (or sports car) either-- see BRZ and Miata for gutless and slow yet insanely fun and grin-inducing cars.

I know, I'm just saying that is one aspect that it has. I know it's not a true sports sedan.

[Noyu]

meanwhile, in the Philippines, Camry's are already considered a luxury car.

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

They don't make the Venza anymore.

I know - it's sad. 2016 was the last year. Apparently it didn't sell very well.

 

Though that's not to say they won't revamp and re-release it later. Wouldn't be the first time they did that with an unsuccessful model.

[Ithanul]

21 hours ago, Technicolors said:

i see more and more of the 2018 Camry on the road now. actually getting to like the whole face change.

 

i wonder about the notorious Camry dent though 

Yep, I already seen several of them.  The look really stands out so easy to spot them.

I think Toyota is in a whole revamp the looks of their vehicles mood at the moment.

 

[ShredBird]

It's a good looking car, very aggressive.  I would probably opt for the new Accord though.  I don't like it as much looks wise but it's the better car platform wise.

[Max_Settings]

5 minutes ago, ShredBird said:

It's a good looking car, very aggressive.  I would probably opt for the new Accord though.  I don't like it as much looks wise but it's the better car platform wise.

I hate the new Accord. Ugly and much slower. 192 HP compared to 301 HP

[ShredBird]

10 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

I hate the new Accord. Ugly and much slower. 192 HP compared to 301 HP

You have the wrong numbers where are you getting 192?  The old V6 was about 290 HP and the new turbo inline 4 is in the 280s (It's a detuned K20C from the Type R).  Raw horsepower numbers does not a car make.  The new Accord creates max torque at a much lower RPM thanks to the turbo and it has a faster 0-60 time than the old model.

 

EDIT:  The hybrid accord has 192 HP inline 4.  The outgoing model used a 278 HP NA V6.  The new model has a 252 HP Turbo inline 4.  The new model is faster thanks to improved torque band.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Ugly and much slower. 192 HP compared to 301 HP

Horsepower translates more into top speed, but alone is also nearly a meaningless metric. My 350HP Ram 2500 can't go faster than my 245HP Dakota, due to differences in the trannies and the weight of each vehicle. 130MPH for the 2500, 135MPH for the Dakota, provided one disabled the firmware limitation that wants to lock both at 99.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Horsepower translates more into top speed, but alone is also nearly a meaningless metric. My 350HP Ram 2500 can't go faster than my 245HP Dakota, due to differences in the trannies and the weight of each vehicle. 130MPH for the 2500, 135MPH for the Dakota, provided one disabled the firmware limitation that wants to lock both at 99.

Yep, it is a meaningless metric. Most of the time it's just peaky horsepower rather than continuous anyways. Yay for marketing. Torque is probably a more relevant metric for consumers because that's what gets you going from a standstill. That being said... the average joe wouldn't notice most of the time anyways. 

 

[terrytek]

18 hours ago, ShredBird said:

You have the wrong numbers where are you getting 192?  The old V6 was about 290 HP and the new turbo inline 4 is in the 280s (It's a detuned K20C from the Type R).  Raw horsepower numbers does not a car make.  The new Accord creates max torque at a much lower RPM thanks to the turbo and it has a faster 0-60 time than the old model.

 

EDIT:  The hybrid accord has 192 HP inline 4.  The outgoing model used a 278 HP NA V6.  The new model has a 252 HP Turbo inline 4.  The new model is faster thanks to improved torque band.

V6 to me was better bc you could rev the nuts off of them and still make power. Turbo motors typically die up high in the rpm range. 

[ShredBird]

1 hour ago, terrytek said:

V6 to me was better bc you could rev the nuts off of them and still make power. Turbo motors typically die up high in the rpm range. 

The K20C has a pretty linear power band from 2500 to 6000 RPMs, plus VTEC, so from what I hear it's a screamer all the way to redline.