Toyota Road Trip

Either engine is pretty much loafing at 65, especially with the overdrive engaged. I wouldn't necessarily take a brand new car on such a trip to prevent break-in problems, but a car with at least a thousand miles or so should be fine.

Isnt the Corola lighter. Dont worry.

I have 212,000 on my 1.8 93 Corolla and drive it about 90 miles every day. It does up to 80 with no sweat, but I have the 3 speed overdrive transmission, too.

Charles of Kankakee

There is no problem in maintaining 65mph in both. Smaller engine in corolla is working with a smaller and lighter car. There is a huge difference in the comfort of the ride. Especially on long distance trips. And this is very important. I am surprised you think so long about the choice between corolla and camry. For me the choice is simple: CAMRY.

Do you mean you'll spell each other as drivers and just keep pounding along day & night? If so, you'll wear out yourselves before you wear out the Corolla.

Even on the southern route into California you'll be going through mountainous country, but the cars and their engines are well matched for normal loads. Will you have normal loads, or do you expect to load it heavily? If the latter, consider the Camry just because you'll have more of the load inside.

The A/C will be on most of the time. Perhaps a Corolla owner can comment on how that affects the available power in the mountains.

Brent

In flat terrain, neither car will have a hard time maintaining 65 MPH, even over long distances. The engine doesn't get tired like a horse.

In mountainous terrain, the Corolla may be a better performer than the Camry with a 4 cylinder engine, but a Camry with a 6 cylinder engine would be a better performer. Again, none of those cars would have a difficult time in the mountains, especially with only 2 people in the car, it's more of a matter of how hard the engine works.

You would not be punishing either car's engine under those conditions. I used to drive 1,000 miles a week and "broke in" 50 or 60 new cars, driving

1,000 highway miles right away, no problems.

I live in mountainous country and from what I see every day I can assure you a Corolla loaded with people and belongings does not have ANY available power, when driven in mountainous country with the AC on, period. You will be holding the throttle to the floor all day trying to maintain the speed limit and will get poor fuel mileage when driven that way. Buy a V6 Camry, if indeed they are your only choices.

Better yet since it is only a trip, don't buy EITHER. You can RENT a Ford Crown Vic with unlimited mileage for less than $20 day. The CV has plenty of room for more people, more 'stuff,' plenty of power, is a much safer vehicle, rides much better and will get 25 MPG at 65 MPH. Why do you think the police and taxi fleets prefer the CV? ;)

mike hunt

Well, I need to buy a new car anyway, since my 10-year old Tercel (with only 30,000 miles on it) is no longer driveable since I got Wyman'ed in it in September.

Louis Wyman, a man whose disdain for a continuous seat belt buzzer has led to the deaths of more Americans than died in World War 2. And many millions of serious injuries, many permanent and life-long.

Don't get Wyman'ed, brothers and sisters.

Does Canada have any laws regarding manufacturers' inclusion or exclusion of continuous seat belt buzzers, and/or interlocks? How about Australia, the U.K.?

Remember: The now-deceased New Hampshire Representative Louis Wyman who, at the last minute, amended a highway safety bill to prevent any U.S. goverment agency like the NHTSA from requiring seat belt buzzers to buzz any longer than a meager 8 seconds.

Representative Wyman is burning in hell right now, I'm happy to say. I checked Hell's web site, and it's confirmed. Wyman's been burning for 3 years now.

And you are a Nanny-State Democrat. Any responsible adult doesn't even need

8 seconds to remind him to buckle up. Read these two words and contemplate: Personal Responsibility. Arse. Twas the Congress that passed that nasty 1974 interlock law too. . . . I survived childhood without safety seats and bicycle helmets and we didn't need metal detectors at the doors of the schools I went to. . . .

If Pro is the opposite of Con, is Progress the opposite of Congress?

Charles

Charles of Kankakee

The NHTSA would have _scientifically_ determined what worked best for drivers and what saved lives.

Instead, the forces of ignorance led by Louie Wyman won out and torpedoed the NHTSA's scientific progress.

And when I say "forces of ignorance," I'm not making this a Democrat versus Republican issue. Both parties regularly shaft America. Look how many Democrats voted for the war--even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted yes (though Ted Kennedy voted no).

The NHTSA is another Government Nanny State organization most of the time. The government said that if enough states passed mandatory seat belt laws, then airbags wouldn't become mandatory. Instead, now we have killer airbags in our cars, front and side. That's why I'm keeping my older car until it falls apart. And to hell with you, too.

Charles

Still, you'd be well served to rent a car for a cross country road trip. It will save much wear and tear on your new vehicle.

What do you mean its not driveable, wake up it has only 30000 miles on it. Drive it.

Mike

I think he wants to have a good vacation. Adding a Ford to the mix increases his chances of a bad vacation. Plus, he probably wants to make it alive.

Dan

Please don't feed the trolls.

Mike Hunter wrote: snip

Which rental agency has this? You can probably rent a Camry w/V6 that will run circles around a CV and should get over 30 MPG.

Have to agree with this.

Can't agree on safer and knowing Ford I'm suspect of the 25 MPG.

Dates back to when all PD thought they had to have full-size vehicles (for hauling perps) with rear-wheel drive (more controllable in skids and etc). Most of this was due to personal preference, not managements. Many cops complained when anti-lock brakes were added as they couldn't skid to a stop (many times sideways) and claimed this was a faster stop. Many PD's are switching to smaller front-wheel drive vehicles as manufactures make them available with "police pachages" to save on purchase cost and fuel. Also, Ford undercuts the purchase price to fleets, government and etc. to get their vehicles exposed, i.e. cheapest vehicle you can buy. (They even did it on retail Taurus and the next smaller one at one time so they could claim #1 title, which Toyota beat by offering quality Camry's and Corolla's, not cheapness.) For 2 or 3 years we couldn't get any local GM or Chrysler dealers to bid as they knew they were going to be underbid by Ford. Lastly, with the exception of the Ford Superduty's, we have had more trouble with Fords in our fleet than any other brand. If they would only buy Toyota's. :-) davidj92

How about this? Rent a camry on the way out, rent a carolla on the way back. Then you will know which fits your needs best and you will be putting all those miles on a rental car, not your new one and then decide which to buy.

Better: Rent a corolla round trip. (Saves money over a one way). When you get to your destination, bitch about the corolla, make up something if you have to. They'll upgrade you to a camery.

BULL. The CV has more room under the body for mods such as better suspension and bigger powerplant.

. with rear-wheel drive (more controllable in skids and etc).

More bullshit. FW drive is much more controllable in skids. If they made a good fwd CV, the fuzz would be all over it.

More total bullshit. Sliding to a stop is something done in Starsky and Hutch. Not something they'd WANT to do in real life.

Of course, GM is still the number one car maker, not Ford. So you're wrong again.

Obviously, you've no clue what you're talking about.