New Toyota Camry fuel consumption is 13L/100km

Lfatpeople on 16/01/2014 - 19:00

Parents recently bought a new Toyota Camry 2013 base Altise model with the end of year sale, replacing the 15 year old Toyota Vienta v6, and we were hoping that the engine size goes from 3.0 v6 to the new 2.5 would be more fuel efficient, however with the first few weeks and the petrol top ups, we found it drinking the same amount of petrol as the old car.

Contacted the sales Rep, reply was you need to drive the car for about 20,000 km before you can get a good average.. That would take us about two years before we get to those kind of mileage.

Official Toyota website says 7.8l per 100km, it says tests on regular unleaded, and we have been using shell e10, so 10% less fuel efficient is expected, also they might quote freeway testing and we are using normal suburban traffic, not city traffic, but at 13l per 100km is a bit off.

What do you guys think? Do you really have to drive a few thousand km before the fuel consumption to improve significantly?

Automotive Car Toyota

Comments

    • MATTDAMON on 18/01/2014 - 07:18

      Granny driving it, especially when it's new isn't a good idea, you should be giving it the beans a bit every now and again, this is particularly important for direct injection motors as they are more probe to build up on the valves and on the crown due to the design.

  • RockyRaccoon on 18/01/2014 - 10:51
    +4

    Firstly lets address the OP's original question, rather than rants on Diesel etc

    What do you guys think? Do you really have to drive a few thousand km before the fuel consumption to improve significantly?

    There are myriads of responses on the internet from many people with conflicting views, so it's by no means clear however according to the USA EPA, they have some opinions. (I avoided saying facts)

    So here is their opinion on the OP's question

    • As a vehicle ages, its fuel economy decreases significantly.

    A vehicle that is properly maintained will retain its efficiency for many years. The EPA tests vehicles with about 5,000 miles on the odometer to account for the break-in period since a vehicle's fuel economy will typically continue to improve over the first several years of ownership. Vehicles that are 10 or even 15 years old will experience little decrease in fuel economy if properly maintained.

    The Camry is a 6 speed auto, and this is where it's "economy" is improved by the more gears. However if the car is used in the city, the higher gears will not be of the same benefit as it would on a long country run. Hence the OP's parents if they drive in the city will not get the advantage out of this as reflected on the Toyota average use claim. There is no Camry altise manual to compare with but look at my figures below for the Corolla with Auto 4S Manual and 7S CVT. The 7 speed giving the best economy.

    Addressing some of the other points raised by posters here

    • Manual transmissions always get better fuel economy than automatics.

    Advances in automatic transmissions have improved their efficiency to the point that the automatic version of a vehicle often gets the same or better fuel economy than the version with a manual transmission.

    But before I get flamed, I am just quoting the website text (reference further down). When you check a car you are buying you can look at what the manufacturer says eg Mazda 3 7.9L manual and 8.2L Auto.

    Also it may be impacted by what type of Auto is used. Meanwhile the Corolla 4 speed auto sedan uses 7.4l, the 6S manual 7.3l the hatch 7S CVT auto uses only 6.8l.

    • It takes more fuel to start a vehicle than it does to let it idle.

    Modern fuel injected engines start very efficiently, especially when warmed up. Idling can use a quarter to a half gallon of fuel per hour — depending on your vehicle's engine size — costing you about 1 to 2 cents per minute. Turn off your engine when your vehicle is sitting still, except when you are waiting in traffic or waiting in a line where you would need to turn it on and off frequently. Restarting your engine too frequently can wear out your starter.

    • Vehicles need to warm up before they can be driven.

    Modern vehicles can be driven within seconds of being started, though the engine should not be subjected to extreme loads until it has reached its normal operating temperature. Plus, the quickest way to warm up a vehicle's engine is to drive it.

    • Using premium fuel improves fuel economy. (note this does not cover E10 vs unleaded see next point below)

    Unless your vehicle was specifically designed for premium fuel or knocks severly with regular fuel, you will probably experience no benefit from using premium fuel over regular. Consult your owner's manual to see whether premium is recommended and under what conditions (e.g., towing).

    • The fuel economy estimates are a comparison fuel economy each vehicle will deliver.

    The primary purpose of EPA fuel economy estimates is to provide consumers with a uniform, unbiased way of comparing the relative efficiency of vehicles. Even though the EPA's test procedures are designed to reflect real-world driving conditions, no single test can accurately model all driving styles and environments. Differing fuel blends will also affect fuel economy. The use of gasoline with 10% ethanol can decrease fuel economy by about 3% due to its lower energy density.

    My maths here if e!0 is 3% less efficient then the price difference needs to be 3%. (not 3 cents) so at $1.50 for unleaded E10 needs to be $1.455

    Original text and more found here

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/05/12/477296.html

    Owning the same car (2013) only recently purchased (300kms) I have av of 9.7l which includes freeway driving, but I am following the recommendation of not being consistent with my driving, it recommends varying speed and acceleration and not staying at the same speed for any length of time.

    The Toyota quoted 7.8l is a mixture of highway and town driving, and is only for comparison between models/makes. While a Mazda 3 auto is 8.2l, all this says is that if you drove both cars over the identical conditions the Camry will more fuel efficient. Again keeping in mind that the Camry has the 6 speed box, so if you drive in the country you would probably far out do the Mazda but in the city the Mazda may well out perform the Camry.

    This is probably in essence the issue your parents are experiencing.

    Maybe we really need the US style ratings of Highway/City figures rather than a rolled up all in one figure.

    And all that said if they are only doing less than 10K per year the fuel economy issue isnt going to be that big an issue.

    another helpful site is

    http://www.mynrma.com.au/mynrma/operating-costs-calculator.a…

  • aegcp on 18/01/2014 - 13:44

    My IX35 diesel has an average on 7.8 on streets. On road, the lowest has been 5.9. Can't complain!

  • stonemonkey on 18/01/2014 - 13:58
    +1

    You can check http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/ to compare fuel economy of different cars/models.

    For the 2.5l Camry (2012 -) It's shows 6.0 highway, 10.9 city, 7.8 average/combined.

    With the 3% ethanol tax you should be getting 11.2 worst case.

    It also may be worth measuring your consumption the old fashioned way (i.e fill up, set odometer to zero, refill and then divide litres used by distance travelled x 100) rather than relying on the computers consumption figures.

    • RockyRaccoon on 18/01/2014 - 15:16

      With the 3% ethanol tax you should be getting 11.2 worst case.

      Just keep in mind the figures quoted are average.

      If someone does a lot of very short trips in traffic, it will be greater, plus if they run the aircon etc.

      So it could be worse than the 11.2

      Thanks for the greenguide link

  • wortho on 18/01/2014 - 14:26
    -1

    Wifes Hyundai i30 diesel use's 4.9lts per 100km on a round trip Syd to Port Macquarie that we do every couple of months. Worse consumption ever in 5 years was 6 lt's per 100km on short trips in the city. No DPF to worry about on this this older model either.
    Amazing power for a 1.6lt engine too.

  • pao2x on 18/01/2014 - 15:17
    +2

    Use fuel tracking apps to check consumption not the car's computer. Liters filled / Kms travelled over a few cycles. I average about 11.5l/100km on my 2008 aurion, suburb driving almost no highway driving

    Try www.fuelly.com to compare real world consumption with other vehicles and track your stats.

  • WT on 18/01/2014 - 16:45
    +3

    One thing that you should also consider is that if your using 91/92 ULP and switch to 95 Ron E10 you may not see any real benefit.

    Most modern cars use some form of knock control, so if you don't reset your ecu it wont run the additional timing it can now use due to the higher octane fuel.

    Most cars can use an additional 4-5 degrees of ignition timing which can effect performance. Even in cruise conditions so you don't need to open the throttle as much.

    So if you want to really test if 91/92 compared to 94/95 ron E10 you have to google how/if your car has knock control and how to reset your ECU. If your car is low compression/timing e.g commodore/falcon I wouldn't bother, just run the 91

  • Architectonic on 18/01/2014 - 16:56
    +1

    The fuel economy will not magically improve by 20,000km, the difference is in how and where the car is driven.

    If you primarily drive in stop start traffic then your fuel economy will generally be terrible.
    The other aspect is how you drive it - to maximise efficiency you want to drive such that you have to use your brakes less. This generally means not accelerating to the speed limit in peak hour traffic (where stopping is likely), backing off the throttle as soon as you anticipate that you won't make it through the next set of traffic lights is expected.

    Then again, I don't commute by car anymore as I hate getting stuck in traffic. I also hate public transport, but there is an efficient alternative…

  • hubertlam on 18/01/2014 - 23:24
    +1

    Two Hybrid Camrys in my household.

    2011 version: Rated 6.0L/100 km. That is for when the car runs with driver only, no air conditioning, and driving over 20 km per day without only going uphill (e.g. not heading up the Blue Mountains). Average consumption in Sydney is around 6.4L/100 km at best given the above conditions are met. With the gang of four + air con on in this week's ultra hot weather, averages around 7.5L/100 km.

    2013 version: Rated 5.2L/100 km. Same deal — 5.4L/100 km at best, and ultra hot weather it goes to around 6.1L/100 km.

    Wouldn't have thought of buying a non-hybrid after getting our 2011 one. We like it so much that when we needed a second car this year, initially we thought of the Prius V. But when a deal came up for 0% finance on Hybrid Camry, that was immediately picked over the Prius V. Both our cars are a pleasure to drive.

    • srhardy on 24/01/2014 - 09:59

      my dizl cruze gets 6.6-6.8L/100km FYI, paid $21k for it new (with leather in a hatch) makes hybrids look overpriced IMO

  • ozbargained on 18/01/2014 - 23:35

    Re: Fatpeople
    Maybe if you lost some weight…

  • ianosphere on 19/01/2014 - 03:06

    Camry Atara SX owner here. Done 5500kms-ish, average fuel consumption around 9.4L/100km. Filled up most of the times using ULP, occasional 98RON (once every 4-5 tanks of ULP). Driven mostly in Melbourne CBD area, occasional freeway and suburban. Lowest seen was 5.5L/100km, drove from Melbourne to Sydney. Hope this helps for the comparison.

  • onlyletters on 19/01/2014 - 09:09

    yes, you have to break in the engine and the components, the dealer is right, driving with the a/c on will chew up more fuel.

  • snajper on 19/01/2014 - 12:24

    As mentioned above it still a new car and would consume a fair bit for the first 5-10 thousand kilometres. It also depends on driving style… my wife drives newish 2.4L accord that guzzles more than my 4.0 fg xr6 as she drives a lot short distances even though I drive in heavy traffic but longer distances.

  • blitz on 19/01/2014 - 15:15

    As a comparison, our brand new Nissan Dualis (auto CVT) does about 8.5L per 100km (11.7km per litre), with only city driving. We're up to about 2000km.

  • wannagrababargain on 19/01/2014 - 20:47

    Fail. My 15 old BMW M3 averaged 12L/100km in suburbia with a 3.2L engine and not driving gently.

    Newer is not always better. They always come out with a newer, more powerful engine but add more weight to the car to compensate so you always end up with the same consumption. Unless you go down a class (ie from mid size sedan to a compact) you can't expect to make huge leaps forward in consumption.

    Same deal with laptops batteries. Batteries keep getting better but manufacturers take this opportunity to add more powerful CPU and GPU, ending up with similar battery drain time within the same class of laptop performance.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2014 - 21:26

    If the fuel economy was your major concern then you should have bought Hyundai i45. Mine(2.4L Elite Auto) does 11.5km per 1L(approximately 8.6L per 100km) though I believe Hyundai replaced it with a i40(which is basically a same car, but engineered and sourced from Europe) and no dealer has i45 in stock.

  • klowik on 19/01/2014 - 23:47

    The simple reason is most petrol cars(non turbo) need to rev up to about 3500-4000rpm to get near the max torque to pull car (generally about 1500kg for a mid size sedan )up to speed. The higher rpm the engine goes up, the more fuel you need to put in. If you are heavy footed, you are unlikey to achieve a good consumption figure. so if you don't mind to drive a bit slower, never rev past 3000rpm, then you should get a figure closer to 7.8l/100km. A diesel or a turbo petrol car(midsize sedan) can achieve about 6-7l/100km is because their engine achieve max torque at lower rpm, usually about 1500-3500rpm and most of the latest turbo technolgy achieve the max torque at a range of rpm not just at a point as the Natural Aspirated (NA)engines.In order for a NA engine to have more torque, a bigger capacity engine is required to achieve that. That's why sometimes a V6 engine can achieve a better fuel consumption. Therefore smaller engine has better fuel economy is kind of deceptive unless it's a turbo petrol or diesel engine. If car manufacturers don't want to go for the diesel or turbo option (bit more complex, less reliable or expensive), one way is to go hybrid(electric motor + engine) or they have to reduce the weight of the car (employing more aluminium or carbon fibre).

  • 00 on 20/01/2014 - 00:10

    My previous car was a Fiesta Econetic diesel. I regularly achieved 3.7 - 3.8L per 100km.

    Great driving wherever you want without having to think about the cost at the pump. Great little car & was built in Germany too. Unfortunately Ford Australia no longer import them due to low sales.

    Wish I still had it but a stupid 4x4 ran up the back of it and wrote the whole damn thing off :(

  • ozboy on 20/01/2014 - 15:57

    As per redbook, 2013 camry altise, Fuel consumption for Urban is 10.9l/100km. I would not care about the 7.8l/100km which is mostly true if you drive most of the time in highway..However for normal day to day travelling you should expect something between 11-12l/100km..

    What the salesguy told you was rubbish, you don't have to wait after 20k in your odo to get the average fuel consumption. For my understanding when the engine is getting older and older the fuel consumption getting higher and higher.

    I would suggest you to try premium petrol RON98 for once full tank and check with your trip meter the consumption. Fuel consumption also based on other factor, i guess if all 5 seats are occupied and your boot also full with things, it may consume bit more..

    For my honda it says urban is 11.9l/100km, mostly i get around 11 or 12.5 for normal driving mixed with 60km -80km driving zone with stop in traffic lights..I always use BP ultimate, not sure this may make the difference.

  • Bigsta on 20/01/2014 - 16:14

    E10 use to be allot better but thats now what they call 95 and put a lower octane version into unleaded.

    I have personally found in my holden commodore 3.8 it did not mind it but my ford territory hates e10, runs much better on 98 or standard unleaded. around the city i get around 9L per 100 out of the commodore and about 17L/100kms in the territory but it is awd

    Its such a unjustified rip off what shell and caltex charge for premium, i try to get from interdependents where the diff is much less.

    ACCC really needs to investigate the petrol industry in Australia, oil prices are lower then they have been in 20 years and there is no justification for the extraordinary price hikes.

  • HoracePinker on 21/01/2014 - 00:05

    My 2.5L petrol x-trail chews 9.5L on highway around 14 in city. 1999 corolla used 6 litres highway driving about 8-9 city.

  • BlackV8SS on 21/01/2014 - 12:30

    Seems a bit off. My 6.0L V8 Commodore averages 13.4L/100 around town driving so one would expect a 2.5L to run significantly leaner.

    • AG_ACT on 21/01/2014 - 13:35
      +1

      Be careful what the trip computer says too. They can sometimes be VERY wrong. I have a 2013 lancer. When I first got the car, according to the trip computer I was doing 6.9/100 around town and a 52l fill was getting me 780-790km - close enough, cause on a couple of trips the car would say I got 6.5l/100.

      The first time I took it out on the highway… according to the computer 7.3l/ - did my head in trying to figure that one out… but filled up at 900km with the same 52ish liters, and that made a little more sense.

      Now, (4 months and 8000ks later), the trip computer seems to make a lot more sense. Could be something similar…

      • fatpeople on 21/01/2014 - 22:57

        Yeh, we worked out the fuel consumption using the old fashion way, that's by calculating litres of petrol at top up, against km travelled, didn't use the trip computer on the dashboard..

    • aedeau on 21/01/2014 - 13:57

      13.6L/100km in my VE SS. auto trans as well. aircon or not average doesn't seem to change much for me. Average speed 40 ish

  • jondave on 22/01/2014 - 10:34

    New cars do require some break in to achieve optimum efficiency, but 13L/100km is unusual for a 2.5L engine. I did 10L/100km average on a 2003 Honda (2.4L VTEC) I previously had. My buddy's 3.6L V6 Jeep is doing 16L/10L city/freeway per 100km. Toyota's quote of 7.8L may not be accurate but I don't think it's too far off.

  • frostman on 22/01/2014 - 11:06

    I dont know why we need to have 2 pages of comments to answer a simple bloody query:

    A) The 7.8L/100km is only indicative, however you should get something (realistically around that figure) unless you putting pedal to the metal

    B) You cannot get the computer to get you on 7.8L or 8L or 8.5L until your vehicle has done atleast 5,000km to spit out an average and the engine fully "mould itself" with the components and produce the fuel efficiency.

    Problem solved!

    No putting neutral, and no driving under 20km/h to achieve, it.. the 7.8L is OPTIMUM, however in the real world, you should see the car after 5K have aroun 8-8.5L/100

  • JimmyF on 22/01/2014 - 11:44
    +2

    Based on the fact that you say it would take two years to do 20k km in the car, it sounds like your parents are doing lots of small trips. Cold engines use a lot of fuel as they warm up. So starting the car, driving 3kms parking for a few hours and repeating, means the car is always in the warmup cycle and will be heavy on fuel.

    Camry should average around 8-10 l/100km under normal mixed driving. This is reflected by looking on carsales at the second hand cars for sales and the pictures of the dash showing the tank average. 90% are in this range. (FYI The hybrid is around 6 l/100km)

  • Azn310 on 23/01/2014 - 12:24

    Hi, I know it might sound stupid but what method did you use to measure this figure? Was it a full tank to full tank or you just look at what the computer says?

    Switching to normal unleaded might help a bit, some cars just don't like e10.

    After first oil change it should be better, but wait I think Toyota has extended first oil change to 6,000 km? Used to be 1,000 (for those who love their vehicles)

    • theStinge on 23/01/2014 - 15:55

      "Complimentary" service is at between 1-3,000kms; First service at 15,000kms / 9 months (whichever is earlier).
      I've got a 2013 Camry Hybrid H and have done ~7,000kms so far. Don't understand why so many comments discourage the use of the trip computer — mine seems to be pretty spot on as I've done the "number of kms / Litres consumed" calculation as well.

  • srhardy on 24/01/2014 - 10:01

    +1 on the petrol priceing review as QLD has been screwed with +10c/l more for over a year!

  • WT on 24/01/2014 - 16:01

    You should change the oil for them, should be some cheap oil deals this weekend.

    Just use a good/cheap mineral oil. Something around $19 for 5L is about right. Should be about $15 Australia day discount.

    If the car has 5-10k on it change the oil filter too, if its small like 2-3k don't worry about it. Change it at 5k when you do another oil change

  • Cheeper on 29/01/2014 - 00:49

    That consumption is not right… the car is "new" ?? not a 10,000k demo?
    Then again it depends on how it is used and also driven.
    If it's use is a lot of short trips then don't expect the best economy, the same with driving with a heavy foot.

    Some tips to allow what is a top car be that car…
    Put decent fuel in it.. only BP Ultimate. Costs a few cents more but it is worth it.
    When you get your first service don't go to a dealership. Get a trusted mechanic or a mobile mechanic to do it at home. It is no big deal… it's just an oil & filter change and a quick check that the wheels have not fallen off.
    Get them to put decent oil in it 5-40 Pernrite for example… dealerships use the cheapest junk they can get. If you ask the dealer to put better oil in it the chances are you will pay for it but will not know if they did use it.

    Make sure the tyres have plenty of air in them, not the mad 30psi that might be in the handbook. We run 38 in our camry.

    After the above you should notice a big improvement in the economy, but again depending on how it is used.

    It is true that driven sensibly the v6 will be equal to or better than the 2.4 or 2.5 4 cyl economy wise depending on how you drive it. Both are excellent well proven and trouble free motors by the way. We have one of each so I can confirm this (not a desktop expert here… I actually own them).

    One thing for sure, they will still be driving it in 20 or more years and it will not cost a mint in repairs to do so. That is what choosing quality gets you… :-)

  • rscarff33 on 23/11/2015 - 11:22

    I have a MY2014 Camry RZ and it has a 2.5 litre engine. I don't have a heavy foot and it averages, (on the gauges) 8 litres per 100 klm, consistently. Sometimes, on long runs it returns about 7.5 l/100klm. I only use Shell or BP 95-98 Octane. My exhausts are still carbon free. I have done 10,000 klms and have no complaints as my older car, a 2002 Camry 2.2 litre engine was worse.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join