Car Forum / Toyota / Camry / January 2009
Best year for a used Camry?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bob - 12 Jan 2009 14:02 GMT I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy?
SMS - 12 Jan 2009 19:25 GMT > I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with > 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models > starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would > that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? Avoid the current U.S. generation Camry (2007-2011)). I'm not sure when in that generation they switched to the problem transmission, but as you stated it appears to be 2007 when the problems started.
Any word as to whether the 2009 fixed the problem. I can't believe how cheap the Camry LE (2532) w/automatic is right now. Around $17K in L.A., around $18.5K up in northern California.
M.Balarama - 12 Jan 2009 23:11 GMT > I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with > 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models > starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would > that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? on the vehicle indenifation number-buy amy year that starts with a J-means made in Japan
Gib Bogle - 13 Jan 2009 21:22 GMT >> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on the vehicle indenifation number-buy amy year that starts with a J-means > made in Japan "indenifation" is that a Japanese word?
Winston - 13 Jan 2009 21:36 GMT >>> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >>> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "indenifation" is that a Japanese word? It's a phrase of moderate rebuke, often applied to my aesthetic sense. Street lingo for 'I deny fashion'.
--Winston
ransley - 13 Jan 2009 09:42 GMT > I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with > 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models > starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would > that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? 90 might be best
Winston - 13 Jan 2009 19:58 GMT >> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models >> starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would >> that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? > > 90 might be best I really like my 2000. Don't tow utility trailers with it, though! AMHIKT.
I love and hate my 2007. It gets good gas mileage because it is a total slug.
* Acceleration isn't just boring, it's unresponsive to the point of being unsafe. The 2000 is a dragster by comparison.
* Even at it's lowest setting, the drivers seat is *way* off the ground. This makes it easier to climb out of the car than with the 2000. The relatively low door jambs mean that you will bash your head on them a few times while learning the difference between the two cars, however.
* The suspension is so tight, speed bumps at 2 MPH cause your next door neighbor to hit his head on *his* moonroof. The 2000 is relatively cushy and shields you from such unpleasantness.
* The mandated TPMS (Tire Pressure Monitoring System) sucks bigtime because it forces you to pay the dealer to "register" each new valve stem when you swap summer / winter tires. If this is 'small government', don't show me 'big government', OK?
* Don't be over 5' tall. With the seat adjusted to it's lowest, furthest back setting, the top of your head will have marginal clearance to the ceiling. With the mirrors adjusted optimally for driving, the "high waist" design of the car will prevent you from seeing parking lot stripes when backing into a slot, over the side or via the mirrors. With the 2000, everything is easily visible.
* The intermittent squeaks and groans from the right half of the dashboard tend to disappear as the interior of the car warms up.
* The RF ignition key sometimes opens the trunk and sometimes sets off the car horn when you squat down to check tire pressure, etc.
* The various plastic 'racer boi' 'ground effects' panels stuck to the car sometimes come loose and have to be pushed back into place.
* The "maze" shifter is a nightmare. After a year, I still find that I've been driving in 3rd instead of overdrive because I shifted without looking. By comparison, the straight path of the shifter on the '00 (or practically any other vehicle) is intuitive and trivial to use properly.
Hmm. Anybody want to buy a gently used '07? :)
--Winston
Bob - 13 Jan 2009 20:14 GMT I tried to sit in a new Camry and noticed the ceiling was lower too. I'm 6' 4"
>>> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >>> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >--Winston Winston - 13 Jan 2009 21:33 GMT > I tried to sit in a new Camry and noticed the ceiling was lower too. > I'm 6' 4" Yikes! 6' 4" would be a challenge, to say the least! Perhaps you could remove the driver's seat and sit one row back? :)
--Winston
Sharx35 - 14 Jan 2009 05:37 GMT >>> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >>> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I love and hate my 2007. It gets good gas mileage because it is a total > slug. That's why I have a SIX cylinder Camry.
> * Acceleration isn't just boring, it's unresponsive to the point of > being unsafe. The 2000 is a dragster by comparison. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > --Winston SMS - 14 Jan 2009 14:31 GMT >>> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with >>> 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > * Acceleration isn't just boring, it's unresponsive to the point of > being unsafe. The 2000 is a dragster by comparison. That sucks. One really nice thing about the Camry was that even the 4 cylinder engine was very responsive. The engine has gotten larger with more HP, but the vehicle has gotten much heavier.
RD - 13 Jan 2009 14:12 GMT This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 (220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all over 250K. Just picked up an 04 and as it is said - time will tell. For me 1992 - 1996 have out shone all the rest.
RD
> I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with > 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models > starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would > that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? SMS - 13 Jan 2009 15:56 GMT > This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 > (220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all over > 250K. Just picked up an 04 and as it is said - time will tell. For me 1992 - > 1996 have out shone all the rest. 1992-96 was the peak for the Camry. In 1997 they started decontenting. I read that they got $2000 of cost out from the 1992-1996 generation to the 1997-2001 generation. They worsened the engine, the weather-stripping, and removed the hood springs in favor of a prop stick, among less visible changes.
Mark A - 13 Jan 2009 18:52 GMT > 1992-96 was the peak for the Camry. In 1997 they started decontenting. I > read that they got $2000 of cost out from the 1992-1996 generation to the > 1997-2001 generation. They worsened the engine, the weather-stripping, and > removed the hood springs in favor of a prop stick, among less visible > changes. Having owned both a 92 and 98 (both V6) I would not complain about the 1997-2001 generation. It is larger and quieter, and very reliable (assuming you use Synthetic Oil to avoid any possibility of sludge). The stereo speakers were crap, but I replaced them when I bought the car.
The "hood springs" (actually called Hood Support Prop Struts) went bad after a few years on my 1992 Camry and I had to carry around a wooden stick to prop up the hood (the struts cost a lot to replace). The "stick" on the 1997-2001 is much preferable.
anthonyzadeh@gmail.com - 14 Jan 2009 04:04 GMT > > This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 > > (220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all over [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > weather-stripping, and removed the hood springs in favor of a prop > stick, among less visible changes. I have a 2000 Camry CE and it has hood springs... and they didn't change the engine all that much. It is still a 2.2 liter dohc engine. Also, I have never had a problem with my weather-stripping. It's not cracked or damaged and does a good job of keeping the road and wind noise down. I have had this car for two years with no problems. It has almost 200,000 kms on it and is used every day.
SMS - 14 Jan 2009 14:50 GMT >>> This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 >>> (220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all over [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > noise down. I have had this car for two years with no problems. It has > almost 200,000 kms on it and is used every day. Hmm, did they put them back sometime in that generation? I could swear that my co-worker's 1997 Camry had a prop stick.
The article I read noted several changes in 1997
1) Less weather sealing (triple door seals dropped) 2) Hood prop instead of struts/springs 3) Removal of Power/Normal switch 4) Removal of Power Antenna (not necessarily bad, since these fail regularly) 5) Cheaper upholstery 6) Changes to the engine (removal of balance shaft) [not sure if this really happened]
mrdarrett@gmail.com - 14 Jan 2009 17:01 GMT > anthonyza...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 6) Changes to the engine (removal of balance shaft) [not sure if this > really happened] Balance shaft removed? Can you tell us where you heard that? Interesting.
I did some Googling, and here's a review that implies the balance shaft stayed on the '97: http://www.wheels.ca/article/21497
I didn't even know what a balance shaft WAS until you mentioned it. You learn something new every day. Thanks.
Michael
SMS - 15 Jan 2009 00:39 GMT >> anthonyza...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I didn't even know what a balance shaft WAS until you mentioned it. > You learn something new every day. Thanks. Apparently only the 1997 base model dropped the counter-rotating balance shaft.
As to the other stuff, Toyota is no different than other manufacturers, they decontent based on their beliefs as to how many sales they'll lose versus the savings they'll gain from lower manufacturing costs. Not many people will base their buying decision on a hood prop versus struts. The loss of the Power/Normal selection was inevitable as so few people understood what it did, though it was a useful feature for those of us that did understand the logic behind it.
The Camry is still a very good deal, at least out in California where you can buy the LE automatic for well under $18K, occasionally as low as $17K. Considering that we paid nearly $17K for our 1996 LE, with no ABS, only two air bags, no CD player, no TPMS, etc., the fact that the street price has barely changed after 13 years is pretty incredible.
mrdarrett@gmail.com - 15 Jan 2009 16:29 GMT > mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> anthonyza...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Apparently only the 1997 base model dropped the counter-rotating balance > shaft. Wow. Is the engine any louder / does it vibrate more? They sound important.
From wikipedia: "Balance shafts are most common in inline four cylinder engines which, due to the asymmetry of their design, have an inherent second order vibration (vibrating at twice the engine RPM) which cannot be eliminated no matter how well the internal components are balanced. Flat engines have their pistons horizontally opposed, so they are naturally balanced and do not incur the extra complexity, cost or power loss associated with balance shafts. This vibration is generated because the movement of the connecting rods in an inline engine is not symmetrical throughout the crankshaft rotation; thus during a given period of crankshaft rotation, the descending and ascending pistons are not always completely opposed in their acceleration, giving rise to a net vertical inertial force twice in each revolution whose intensity increases quadratically with RPM, no matter how closely the components are matched for weight."
> As to the other stuff, Toyota is no different than other manufacturers, > they decontent based on their beliefs as to how many sales they'll lose > versus the savings they'll gain from lower manufacturing costs. Not many > people will base their buying decision on a hood prop versus struts. I have bad struts on my '96, but couldn't bring myself to spend $100 on new ones. I carry a block of wood in the trunk, about 12 inches long x 6 inches wide x 3/4 inch thick, that I prop between the hood and the right strut, to keep the hood open. My wife's '99 has a prop and I appreciate that.
> The loss of the Power/Normal selection was inevitable as so few people > understood what it did, though it was a useful feature for those of us [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > only two air bags, no CD player, no TPMS, etc., the fact that the street > price has barely changed after 13 years is pretty incredible. Yep. And consider, for about $100 more you can get a Kenwood MP3 CD player from Best Buy...
Michael
SMS - 15 Jan 2009 16:34 GMT > Yep. And consider, for about $100 more you can get a Kenwood MP3 CD > player from Best Buy... Actually installed a single height DIN combination CD/Cassette unit in the '96. Still had some cassettes, and wanted a way to play them as well as having a way to hook in the MP3 player other than an FM modulator.
Mark A - 14 Jan 2009 22:27 GMT > Hmm, did they put them back sometime in that generation? I could swear > that my co-worker's 1997 Camry had a prop stick. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 6) Changes to the engine (removal of balance shaft) [not sure if this > really happened] 98 had a stick.
I had a 92 V6 and 98 V6, so here are my comments:
1) 98 is quieter, and I never experienced any weather intrusion on 98, so I don't what good the triple seal doors are 2) struts failed on my 92 and I had to carry a wooden stick in my trunk. Outrageous price to replace struts. 98 had stick. 3) I never used the power switch after I got done playing around with it for the first month on my 92. Just a waste of fuel 4). 97+ doesn't have external antenna (embedded in glass). 5). The cloth upholstery on the my 98 XLE was superb. I owned it 10.5 years and never showed any wear on drivers seat. 6). I had a V6 on both 92 and 98. 98 engine was definitely better and mine was in perfect condition after 10.5 years using Mobil 1
Sharx35 - 14 Jan 2009 05:38 GMT >> This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 >> (220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > removed the hood springs in favor of a prop stick, among less visible > changes. Well, I DO prefer the prop stick...less troublesome.
Bob - 13 Jan 2009 20:16 GMT I have a '98 now with 190K miles and it's showing it's age (Cleveland winters). That year is too old to consider again, so I'm looking for 2005 or later. Since the 2005-2006 range is the same design, and the end of the era, I was hoping they were good. I'm looking for one now.... I have not sat in one yet to see if I fit (I don't in the new 2008-2009!)
My choice is either a used Camry or new Hyundai. I like nothing else.
>This ones easy for me. I had a choice to sell either my 95 (290K) or 98 >(220K). I chose to keep my 95. We have 2 1992's and 1 94 and my 95 all over [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would >> that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? Pszemol - 19 Jan 2009 05:12 GMT > I have a '98 now with 190K miles and it's showing it's age (Cleveland > winters). That year is too old to consider again, so I'm looking for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My choice is either a used Camry or new Hyundai. I like nothing else. Which Hyundai you are considering?
p.s. I just realized a 3 year old Lexus IS 350 costs the same as new V6 camry...
:-) Bob - 19 Jan 2009 16:49 GMT Either the Sonata or Azera. Both are very roomy inside, which is one of my requirements. I drove a rented Azera for a week on business and loved it. If a Sonata, new. If an Azera, I'll have to go u$ed.
>> I have a '98 now with 190K miles and it's showing it's age (Cleveland >> winters). That year is too old to consider again, so I'm looking for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I just realized a 3 year old Lexus IS 350 costs the same as new V6 camry... >:-) Daniel - 13 Jan 2009 17:51 GMT 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would
> that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? ========= I've always had good results striking up a converstaion with the lead mechanic - preferably at the Toyota dealer, or an independent shop. They work with them on a daily basis and know the most current information. --- My '94 with 187K is just now the way I like it, but then I've replaced the leather interior, control arms, ball joints, axles, springs, struts, and keep the fluids and maintenance all like new. BTW the exterior gets Zaino, many people have remarked on the high gloss, one suspecting repainted.
Gib Bogle - 13 Jan 2009 21:17 GMT > I'm in the market to replace my 1998 Camry (bought new in '97) with > 190K miles. According to my research, it seems the later models > starting with 2007 have some transmission problems, yes? So would > that make the 2005-2006 a good year to buy? I have a good used 1991 Camry ;-)
|
|
|