Tom Suddard wrote: You guys seem to be missing the fact that this Camry does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. It's fun if you don't mind squealing tires and defacing the reputation of septuagenarians everywhere.
A Camry almost out ran me in my 911 a few years back....that does not mean I'll ever buy a Camry, but it did have me thinking about 911 Turbos...
I have driven my parents new Camry. It is pretty damn dull.
Sort of like the civic you used to have. It's too bad we have to leave everything completely alone and cant make even the slowest, blandest things more fun to drive. 0-60 in 5.7 seconds is a good start. I can fix the rest of it.
Vigo wrote:I have driven my parents new Camry. It is pretty damn dull.Sort of like the civic you used to have. It's too bad we have to leave everything completely alone and cant make even the slowest, blandest things more fun to drive. 0-60 in 5.7 seconds is a good start. I can fix the rest of it.
Civic is infinitely more fun.
Keith wrote: For a magazine with "motorsports" in the title, you guys pull some weird choices out of the press pool.
Thank god they also have the grassroots in there, otherwise it would be Miata/E30 Motorsports.
""
Curmudgeon wrote: Yep, another blandmobile which will sell in the millions to those who like their transportation drama free
I drive 25,000+ miles a year selling hoses, pump connectors, and expansion joints for piping systems. Sometimes I need to leave for a trip at 3:30am and sometimes I get home at midnight from Chicago's Midway Airport (I fly to places too). Sometimes I have to drive to Dayton or Muncie and be back the same day. To do my job I need a car that is reliable and cheap WITH NO headaches.
Exciting to drive? My first car was a 1.4 liter, 2 barrel, 4-speed, Datsun 310GX that might have pumped out 90hp? So what do I know.........................
Vigo wrote:I have driven my parents new Camry. It is pretty damn dull.Sort of like the civic you used to have. It's too bad we have to leave everything completely alone and cant make even the slowest, blandest things more fun to drive. 0-60 in 5.7 seconds is a good start. I can fix the rest of it.
This. You know what else is boring as E36 M3 stock? An early 90s Civic. A Saturn. A Protege. A Celica. Early Miatas ain't too exciting in stock form either. A god damn Honda Fit. They are all slow. The Fit is REALLY slow. None of them have exceptional handling in stock form. They all have spongy suspensions, crappy alignments, crappy tires, etc. For a group of people that encourage some really odd automotive abominations, I simply don't understand the Camry hate.
I'd like to try that Camry on track with springs, shocks, rear sway, and wheels/tires. I bet it would be pretty fun.
There are still commuter cars that are turds. The Nissan rental thing - Altima? - that I had when we went to the Mitty was an excellent example of a car company not trying. I have no idea what the 0-60 was, nor do I care. But the powertrain was impossible to drive smoothly and would not maintain a consistent speed on the highway. The steering felt like my old Land Rover when the steering box was too tight, with no self-centering at all.
0-60 is easy. All you need is power to weight. Everything else is harder.
I've owned a stock early 90's Civic. The one with the optional passenger's side mirror. It WAS fun to drive. 0-60 was bad, but the little engine was eager and the car was nimble. Early Miatas, of course, were quite a revelation in their day. Saturns...well, you don't want to hear about my test drive experience in one of those. It started with the side mirror actually falling off...
Keith wrote: I've owned a stock early 90's Civic. The one with the optional passenger's side mirror. It WAS fun to drive. 0-60 was bad, but the little engine was eager and the car was nimble.
Exactly. The new Camry is nimble as a boat, has steering designed to have zero feel and has an engine which really doesn't like to rev (my parent's is a hybrid though). Oh also no manual.
93EXCivic wrote: Exactly. The new Camry is nimble as a boat, has steering designed to have zero feel and has an engine which really doesn't like to rev (my parent's is a hybrid though). Oh also no manual.
I autocross a `88 Caprice Estate. It has all of the qualities you describe and then some. But you know what? It's an absolute blast out on the track. It's terribly slow; I rarely am faster than much else (aside from my friend's Volvo 240 wagon) but I get more ride-alongs than a good deal of other racers. Also, I haven't hit a cone yet. People love seeing it tossed around a course. Maybe some are laughing at me, but I have a good feeling that most are laughing with me.
To each their own, I suppose.
Keith wrote: For a magazine with "motorsports" in the title, you guys pull some weird choices out of the press pool.
They gotta get to work every day. Abarth 500's are only available occasionally...
David S. Wallens wrote: Yeah, like Joe said, we get what the press car gods send us. We can (and do) make choices when it comes to stuff that we're going to track test, but for these little online updates we pretty much review whatever comes our way. Last week, for example, we had a Porsche Cayman.
Tell us about the Cayman.
Vigo wrote:How can someone accurately write about sports cars if he or she still thinks that average sedans drive like a mid-nineties Lumina?Bravo! Excellent way of putting it! .Id rather drive this camry than probably 96% of everything i see on the roads every day.
I wouldn't.
pinchvalve wrote: The Camry is the '32 Ford of our day. In 70 years, everyone will be hot rodding them.
I could only see a widespread nostalgia for hot rodded Camries popping up 70 years from now if there were a widespread hot rodded Camry scene around today or in the next couple decades to be nostalgic for. I don't really see that happening.
It does make me wonder, though - would '32 Fords have been the cars to hot rod if the postwar used car market had been full of Stutz Bearcats and Dussenburg roadsters that had hit the bottom of their depreciation curve?
I wouldn't.
I have a feeling the demographics over there are different enough to change my number to 80%, but that still doesnt change my point. lol
Vigo wrote:I wouldn't.I have a feeling the demographics over there are different enough to change my number to 80%, but that still doesnt change my point. lol
Vigo I'd rather drive your limo every day than a boring ass Camry....
BTW if you ever sell that car please keep me in mind. I saw one at the Nashville pull a part awhile back....sure with they would sell entire cars.
Hmmm Camry vs (insert modern sporty car here) at Road Atlanta? I could see it beating an RX8, FR-S, Cooper S, etc. While not as fun to drive, you can't deny it's performance.
Speed does not always = fun to drive
Yes the new Camry is quick. This does not make it fun to drive. My main problem is the lifeless, uncommunicative steering. The car just feels mushy and dull. It will go fast, but it never WANTS to go fast. Driving this car makes me wish for the bus, or a taxi, or a limo. It's almost like the aching muscle pain you get when you have the flu.......that's what this Camry makes me feel like.....horrible all over.
If you are looking for a practical appliance, the Ford Fusion does everything better than this Camry......except for drag race.
Wait, they still make the Camry? Guess I haven't noticed in years.... 
Actually, the Camry is one of the cars I recommend to complete non-car people when they're looking for their next "get me from point a to point b and I don't even want to put gas in it myself let alone fix it myself" car.
Speed does not always = fun to drive
Thats exactly what i was thinking after the first time i drove an LS3/6spd camaro. WAY faster than a v6 camry and totally underwhelming. Is it WORSE than a Camry? In failing to live up to its own visual and tactile hype, yes. I like over-achieving blandmobile family cars more than over-insulated 4200 lb 'sports cars'.
It's kinda like when the Dodge Challenger came out. Let's say SRT8. I said "Thats a piss poor Magnum srt8. It gave up all it's usefulness to become a coupe that weighs as much as a full size wagon and doesnt go any faster."
So you can see how actual usefulness colors my opinion.. Id way rather drive a 3.5L Sienna than a 3.5L Evora. One will surprise you and people around you every once in a while and be massively useful, while the other can almost NEVER exceed your expectations because it's a $70k super tiny sports car that wears it's personality like a wife beater shirt. Thats why tarted up 10-20 year old family sedans have been my bread and butter for so long (ooh a blandness pun!), and i think the new Camry is a nascent version of the kind of thing that interests me when it gets cheap enough.
I know i cant convince anyone. Im actually weirder than GRM forums.
The reality is that we can't all drive our rear-engined Yugos, stripped-out CRXs and Miatas every day, once kids and responsibilites come along. If you need a wheeled toaster, the Camry fits the bill and can whip our beloved E30s, Miatas and Civics on the highway.
These cars are sleepers, but are plenty capable of being entertaining in the hands of people who are entertained by cars.
If the Camry isn't big enough, there's always the swagger wagon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql-N3F1FhW4
You'll need to log in to post.
