In '77, a Mustang II 302 (5 liter) with 2 bbl CV carb in CA had 130 hp, SAE Net as installed in the vehicle. Same as a current Corolla 1.8 liter four.
In '77, a Valiant 225 (3.7 liter) with a 2 bbl in CA had 110 SAE Net as installed in the vehicle. It wasn't hard tilt the playing field. LOL
I doubt you saw 225 sixes in farm machinery. You likely saw the predessor which was both verticle and an L-head design.
-Philip
Maybe you should look at the interior of the new Mustang. Looks like Walmart quality.
I had a 71 Dart Swinger with a black vinyl roof. Even had disc brakes back then. Too bad the Rocheseter, NY used to rust them so they would freeze up. Who needs brakes anyway?
0-60 References from:
I can't recall where I found the top speed, but I found the same figure twice.
Have I gone 124? Don't be absurd. As I pointed out earlier, that's 49mph faster than the limit on any road I've seen in the US. I do tend to push the envelope a little but not by 49mph.
Here's information on the V6 Camry:
The claim was that Toyotas are "generally underpowered." "Generally" was not limited by time. For comparison, I pointed out that Ford's produced plenty of performance dogs.
The fact of the matter is, two-thirds (or eighty per cent, depends on your source) of Camrys are driven away with the 4-cylinder engine. The market says "powerful enough." The people that buy these cars merge on the same freeways as the rest of us.
My experience is that Toyotas are not underpowered. I have an '01 Sienna. I road-tested all the other 2001 minivans and the Sienna was the one that seemed to me to have the most zip. I always merge where and when I want on a freeway and I get ahead of whomever I please leaving tollbooths, even carrying 5 passengers and luggage. I use the cruise control religiously, so I don't end up getting surprised with a ticket. 60K miles, no rattles and very little wind or engine noise, so it's hard to tell you're doing 95mph.
CHINESE? MikeBunt will just die! LOL
You mean like the ones they almost rolled over?
I am certain you are wrong about the top speed, at least for US 4 cylinder model (I am certain the speed limiter is set much lower than 124 mph, at least for the 4 cylinder models). If the engine actually produces 160 Hp (which is suspect in light of recent revelations about how Toyota determines horsepower ratings), the car might actually be able to do as much as 130 mph except for the built in speed limiter. However, since the base tires for the
4 cylinder Camrys are "T" rated tires (118 mph maximum safe speed) I am certain they are limited to a speed less than that. 130 should be possible for the V-6.So where are they getting the information on the speed limiter? "T" rated tires are standard on some models, so I believe that the limiter would not be set to a speed higher than the tires on the cars with those tires. I suppose the V-6 models may come with H rated tires and have a 130 mph speed limiter. Car and Driver claimed a Solara with the 3.3L V-6 could do 134 mph (but it also had tires with a higher speed rating). The sedan with the same engine should be able to do as well, assuming the tires are up to it. However, at least one site claims the top speed for the V-6 Sedan is 120 mph
But comparing a nearly 30 year old Mustang II to a current Toyota is a bogus comparison. Go back and look at a 1978 Toyota and compare that to the old Mustang II. Or compare the current Camry to a Fusion. But don't try to "prove" Toyota's have great performance by comparing them to a car out of the dark ages of emission control technology.
Most people that buy Toyotas are not interested in performance cars at all. So it is not surprising that they buy 4 cylinder Camrys. A 4 cylinder Camry is certainly adequate.And that just about sums up the whole Toyota product line - adequate. If you want to drive the automotive equivalent of a Maytag, go for it. I am pleased you find your Toyota "adequate."
I could say all the same things about the Pinto I owned in 1972 - except it wouldn't do 95 mph unless you had a tail wind. Clearly you are happy with Toyotas. That is great. I just don't think it is reasonable to try to claim they are anything more than the Japanese equivalent of a Buick. Which is not really a bad thing, if you like that sort of thing. And are you really driving your Sienna around at 95 mph? And do you think if the guy in a 2006 Mustang GT wanted to outrun you, that you could get ahead of him when leaving a tollbooth? Or even the guy in a Focus? The fact that you accelerate briskly, doesn't mean that your car is faster than another car, it just means you are willing to push it harder. I out ran a Ferrari this afternoon with my Vue....I am sure he was really trying hard.
Ed
Nooo, the subject was whether or not Toyotas are underpowered. I stuck to that.
If you don't care for our style, well, don't let the screen door bang you on the ass on your way out.
In your unsubstantiated opinion. The Toyota owners here seem pretty happy. I know I am. I've spent a lot less maintaining and repairing my '01 Toyota Sienna in 5 years than I spent on a Ford Aerostar in 2.333 years. My Toyota has been available for me to drive every day for the last 5 years. In 2.333 years, my Aerostar was was unavailable to me to drive for 45 days because it was in the shop (sometimes in a far-away state). My Toyota has retained a higher percentage of its original purchase price in 5 years than my Aerostar did in 2.333 years. If I go somewhere in my Toyota, I come home on schedule in my Toyota. When I went somewhere in my Aerostar, I never knew when I'd be coming home or what brand of rental car I'd be driving. My Sienna has NO squeaks and rattles. I've also got a 2000 Rav4 with NO squeaks and rattles.
In your unsubstantiated opinion. The market says they are powerful enough (your own observation is that most Camrys sell with 4-cylinder engines, if it wasn't powerful enough, nobody would buy them, they'd buy the V6). These guys:
My personal experience is that Toyotas are powerful enough. I have an '01 Sienna. If I want to pull ahead of someone and change into their lane, I do. I merge onto freeways when I want, into the gap that I want to hit. Leaving tollbooths, I merge in ahead of whomever I please. If I want to pass on a two-lane road, I pass. I do these things with 6 people and luggage on board.
In your unsubstantiated opinion. I've provided detailed comparisons, head to head against the Five Hundred in past posts. You've not responded. Compare resale values; the Toyota will cost less to drive because it will return more money when you're done with it.
Market share is extremely important. Where I work, a division VP that sold twice as much product while losing half his market share would be shot, pour le encourager les autres (pardon my probably sub-standard French).
I was in the Caribbean late last year. I saw exactly zero Ford, GM and Chrysler automobiles. That's just off-shore in our own back yard. That's pathetic.
If you come back, bring some facts for a change.
Well, tests do vary. Even at 9.5 seconds, that reviewer didn't seem to mind. In his own words:
"Personally I really like the 2.4-liter base engine. Im a big fan of
4-cylinder engines, and the 2.4 is one smooth operator. Like the sixes it offers the same high-tech Variable Valve Timing-intelligent (VVT-i) system, as well as dual overhead cams and 4-valves per cylinder. Output, of course, is down substantially over both 6-cylinder models, but at 160 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 163 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm, it moves the Camry along at a fair clip, reaching 60 mph from standstill in about nine and a half seconds in 5-speed manual mode, only available in 4-cylinder SE trim, or ten and half when equipped with the 5-speed automatic. "
They didn't bother to test with the now-standard 5-speed automatic. In any event, they called 9.2 seconds, "class-competitive," not "underpowered." I also note that they do some sort of scoring and the Camry LE V6 auto got a
71, which is their highest mid-size class score. They're not going to award that to a dog. And the 4 got a 68. The average for this class is a 57.In that case, they were testing specifically for rollover potential. Or are you referring to the cars that were so bad that they were unpleasantly surprised? The ones that caused them to start testing specifically for rollover potential?
Toyota has switched to the latest rating system and rates the engine at 154 hp.
That may be. The speeds I found are the speeds I found. Be as certain as you like but I'm going with 124 for the automatic until I see a test result from a reliable source.
Here's a reviewer who claims 130mph:
Or, maybe the Euro versions really are different:
Ford could have put a bigger engine in it. That turkey did a 14 second
0-60. However, we can ccompare the Camry to the 2006 Taurus, if you'd prefer. It weighs more and has slightly less power. "mike hunt" claimed "generally underpowered." If so, Ford's guilty of the same sin.
If the market is willing to drive 4-cylinder Camrys, then the judgement of the market is "not underpowered." Or do we all bow to your opinion?
In any event, I don't find my Toyota "adequate." I find it "superb." It's comfortable, quiet, reliable, has a great stereo, very roomy and enough power to do whatever I ask, short of all-out racing.
religiously,
Not normally. I usually drive a different car. On one of my early road trips with it, I was not using the cruise control and I was quite surprised to find I was doing 95mph in a 70 zone, uphill. There was no traffic around for comparison purposes and I hadn't thought I was leaning on it. It was smooth and quiet enough that my wife didn't notice (and having her notice would have been worse than a 25-over ticket).
Which year? For most Mustang GTs, of course not. On the other hand, a late-model Monte Carlo with the checkered flag motif on the rear quarter panels spun its tires as we were both leaving a toll booth and I ended up ahead of him. Maybe he backed off, maybe not. My point is that the Sienna has plenty of power for all driving situation's I've encountered. Not underpowered.
Which Focus? Actually, I think I have a pretty good chance against a Focus. That wagon version looks a little heavy.
In any event, underpowered? No.
Of course, perhaps a car that does a 9.5 second 0-60 is considered underpowered by those who need a big engine to compensate for something else. I've had 3100lb 114hp Volvo wagons (2), a 4000lb, 109hp VW EuroVan, a two-speed automatic 230CID Camaro (maybe 130hp?), a 70(?)hp, 2100lb(?) Aspire and a 68hp, 2600lb Cavalier wagon (with a carb, no less, so probably more like 50hp towards the end of my 10 years of ownership). I got along fine with them all. Passing on a two lane road and merging on the freeway took more planning with some of these cars, of course, but it helps to know what you're doing. In Boston, New York and Chicago it helps to have nerves of steel. I like the performance of my Sienna, it makes all those situations easier to deal with, but I don't need that performance to get around.
If you or "mike hunt" need a 400hp car that gets crappy gas mileage to feel validated as a man, well, go for it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Art" Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:14 AM Subject: Re: Oil companies collusion, again
As opposed to the K-Mart quality of a Camry?
What is your point? Are you just saying you don't like the color and material choices Ford used for the Mustang? I am sure they were infinitely debated and the subject of numerous Consumer Opinion Groups before the final choices were made. Just like at Toyota. It is not like a Camry is anything special. The last Camry I was in had one of the cheapest looking interiors of all time. Lots of non-descript gray plastic. Is that what you consider "quality.?" Are you suggesting the interior of the base Mustang ($19,800) should have the same sort of interior as the top of the line Camry (>$25,800)? The Camry XLE's interior looks pretty nice, but the base model looks like just another cheap non-descript Japanese car. The world is full of opinions about what looks good. My favorite interior is my 1992 F150 - vinyl bench seat, rubber floor mat (no carpet), and minimal door covering. Looks as good today as it did 14 years ago (or as bad - take your choice). It has certainly held up better than my SO's old Camry, or my Sister's Honda - both of which had/have very tired looking interiors (faded plastic, worn fabric, dead looking carpet, sagging headliner). What exactly constitutes a high quality interior?
Ed
But the bottom line is, if a car or truck can get to 60 MPH in under
10 seconds, it is quite adequate. You may "want" more power, but you really don't need it.
A person might WANT to find a reason to vote DEMONrat but they surely will NOT find a valid reason to vote that way.
But why settle for an underpowered car when one can buy one just as good and with enough power for less money? One can surly settle for an underpowered vehicle but you may not want to do so when you need to get out of the way a some woman in an SUV using her cell phone. LOL
mike hunt
Idiot. A) It's not "underpowered" if it can easily keep up with traffic. B) There's other variables in the equation besides power and price.
(top posting corrected)
Hehe. I think the troll owns one, actually.
Yes but you can not always be going down hill LOL
mike hunt
Back again? You forgot to bring something besides your lame opinions. Go get some facts.
By the way, who's building enignes for Indy, now? Toyota, Honda and ... who? Right. Must be all those 650hp Indy cars are "underpowered," too.
I recent drove through six southern states, even the 18 wheelers were passing all the Toyotas on the grades. The truck drivers call them "Dam Flatlanders," cars that can not get out of the way on a grade LOL
mike
In your dreams. The 4-cylinder Camry has a weight(lbs)-to-horsepower ratio of about 20:1. Going uphill, no truck is passing a Camry that doesn't want to be passed. Trucks don't even pass my 114hp Volvos if I don't want them to.
By the way, I see GM's bond rating has gone from "junk" to "scrape from shoe." And sales at GM and Ford were down "sharply", according to the Associated Press, while Toyota and Honda were up. Sales of the Ford Ranger, for example, fell 45% (see AP articles by Dee-Ann Durbin in your news outlet of choice).
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.