Toyota's Lesson in Evolutionary Car Building

We have owned and operated a '90 Camry since 1995 and have been thoroughly satisfied with it. We bought it with 127k miles on it and it now has over 205k and had no major service issues with it. It is time for a newer vehicle, however, so we started to look for '95 or newer model. We ended up with a '95 Avalon due to the super opportunity we stumbled upon. However, we did seriously look at about half a dozen '95 Camrys. The following are my impressions relative to our '90 Camry. I have posted a complete review of the '90 model and I invite you to review it if you are not familiar with Camrys.

Toyota is often referred to as the "Japanese Mercedes." I believe that is unfair to Toyota. Toyota vehicles are built to be more durable than Mercedes AND considerably less costly to maintain. There developmental path for their vehicles is one of evolution. They seem to start out with a very durable but lackluster vehicle and continue to improve it with successive model years. The Camry is a good case in point. It started out way back about '83 as an "econobox" ugly-duckling. But, it had great running gear. As it "grew up" it got better and better looking and the mechanics and features continued to improve. Today, it is the best selling car in America. Take a lesson on this, Detroit!

We've looked at both 4-cyl and 6-cyl Camrys, most of them LE models.

There is little change in the body style and interior/exterior dimensions. The '95s drive, sound and feel very much like our '90 but tighter and quieter. The running gear is much the same. It still has the same quirky Toyota idiosyncrasies - cruise control that turns itself off (and dumps the set speed from memory) whenever it drops more than 15 mph below the set speed - forcing you to turn it back on it again and resetting the desired speed.

The good stuff is still there - variable intermittent wipers, delayed dome light, auto-turn-off headlights, opens only driver's door OR all 4 doors by choice, great gas mileage for the 4-cyl., auto transmission is even smoother than before, delayed auto-electric radio antenna to save wear and tear at each start-up of the vehicle, short turning radius, etc.

And that wonderful 16 valve 4-cyl. engine is still unchanged. It turns a slow 2850 RPM at 80 mph; about 2400 RPM at 70 mph. This is in overdrive. Yet, when acceleration is needed, it does not complain (but it does make a bit of noise) and kicks down a gear and acceleration is very good for a 4-cyl, especially for that low an RPM. There is no doubt it still gets 34 mpg cruising at 85 mph over flat terrain (I-5 from L.A. to S.F. or Sacramento).

The 6-cyl is very strong and smooth with less engine noise and vibration. The bigger engine makes it handle quicker and smoother but a bit less agile. The steering feels a little more dull with too much power assist.

One major improvement, the headlights are much better even though they still use the Halogen capsule bulbs like the '90. You can actually see further down the road at night, now. The '90's lights were dismal.

So, slowly, but surely, it has been improving with age and will last just as long as the earlier models so you gain from improved looks and newer engineering and lose nothing in the durability and reliability.

The car is still a great car and this is borne out by the 19 reviews posted to date on the '95 and only one is negative and that is due to his problems with the A/C, which may have been due to lack of proper use (he used it so seldom, it may have lost freon levels and overtaxed the compressor).

And, another confirming fact - the resale price is incredibly high for a 6-year old vehicle when compared to other brands in its class. Only Honda Accords come close.

In my opinion, all Camrys will last over 200k miles without major service if properly maintained. That's whey we looked for another Toyota. This is the benefit of evolutionary development, instead of revolutionary paths.

Jim

08/29/01 UPDATE: We recently completed a 2-week driving vacation in this vehicle. We started from Northern California, heading North through California into Oregon and Northeast through Washington and Idaho to Missoula, Montana, to attend a family reunion. From there, we headed North, again, up to Glacier National Park. We reversed our course to come back home. We put 3300 miles on the car and it performed flawlessly and it was very comfortable and safe for such a long trip. We averaged 25.4 mpg, overall. I think this is superb mileage since we cruised most of the time at 75 in California, 70 in Oregon and Washington and 80 in Montana and Idaho. This, of course, included a lot of mountain driving, possibly as much as 1/3 of the trip. And, we were fully loaded with food, gifts, luggage and 2 full sets of golf clubs. We were very pleased with the performance fully loaded and at speed for passing (lots of 2-lane roads in Montana). The V6 performed extremely well at altitudes of 4,000 ft. in the mountain passes.