Gen 4 Touring models - any performance advantage?

[Gammaray]

Hi all

Am looking for a Gen 4 V6 camry, have driven a few Touring models and they feel faster than other models, both in auto & manual form. Engine seems to rev more freely, and in auto gears are held longer, though mabye this just reflects previous owners driving tendencies!

I realise engines & power figs are identical to other models.

Red book has 0-100 figs of 8.7 for touring vs 9.2 for other models.

Any comments? And if there is a difference, how or why?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Gammaray

[trentmeyer23]

Most likely suspension allowing it to get power down better, otherwise identical.

[Gammaray]

Thanks Trent, I thought I was probably imagining it.

The revving more freely may also have been due to the 2 touring models having been the only ones I was able to test drive alone!

[Hiro]

http://news.drive.co...0824-13mt7.html

Stiffer suspension (9% at front, 20% at rear, which would help prevent weight transfer to the rear under acceleration) + better factory tyres (Michelin Vivacy)

And Redbook's acceleration figures for the 4th gen are all over the place, going from 9-ish down to 7.8 depending on the year and model (despite no mechanical difference and very little weight change) - could easily have been compiled from different sources which use different testing methods

[Gammaray]

Thanks for that link Ian, much appreciated.

I also noticed the random Red Book figures - manual Touring listed as 8.9 - well slower than the 7.8 listed for other manuals and slower than the auto!

A bit off topic - but are there more reliable sources for performance figures available?

[Hiro]

There's no such thing as a reliable performance source - magazines/websites will either use manufacturer's data, their own testing, or a third party (and sometimes chop and change between all 3). And amongst that, unless all cars were tested in the exact same method at the same track at the same day, then results aren't exactly comparable (unlike power figures which are constrained by standards and tested on isolated controlled dynos).

For instance, one magazine might test cars on the main straight of Eastern Creek (which is not quite flat), with 2 people in the car and a full tank of fuel. Another one might test at Avalon airstrip, which is flatter but has a much different surface (which will affect grip and thus launches), and with only 1 person in the car. For the most part, Wheels/Motor/Top Gear etc will use their own method relatively consistently (only using other figures if they are unable to test the car properly, or if weather was not conducive, and they'll usually say that in the review too), so the closest you'll get to a reliable source for comparisons is to stick with one particular media source.

[Gammaray]

Thanks again Ian, that makes a lot of sensse.

Back to original question - my mechanic suggested that ECU management adapts to driving style. I knew the auto boxes did, but he thinks it applies to manuals too. Could this explain the difference in engine revving more freely?

Asking because I bit the bullet and bought a 98 Conquest manual. While it goes well, the touring model I tried definitely revved out much more freely especially above 3000 revs, almost felt like it had a turbo!

I guess older cars vary a bit, but just seems strange that the 2 touring models both exhibited this characteristic and it seems more than just suspension stiffness making the difference - I don't think that would explain the significant difference in rev response.

[STYLSH]

Reset the ecu and give that a go. Otherwise the other 2 cars may have been better maintained, or just had a little tune up service or even had 98 fuel in it. 98 fuel will make a noticable difference.

Edited January 5, 2013 by STYLSH

[2XS]

So, Why did you by the one you did and not the one that revved better?

[Gammaray]

Reset the ecu and give that a go. Otherwise the other 2 cars may have been better maintained, or just had a little tune up service or even had 98 fuel in it. 98 fuel will make a noticable difference.

Thanks, I'll drive it for a bit and see how it goes, will try resetting ecu if no change. Already on 98 fuel, so not that.

So, Why did you by the one you did and not the one that revved better?

Ahh yes, that is the question isn't it? I'm still asking myself that a bit!

The manual was from a dealer of dubious repute. Log books looked good till 3 years ago, but no servicing since, though it had apparently only done 16K in that time. That said, it seemed in good condition and I guess not all their cars are necessarily dodgy! Was certainly tempted, but would have cost more upfront also.

The auto had 180K on it and while it was reasonably cheap it needed quite a few things fixed.

So the one I bought is in better condition generally, has had timing belt done, good service record etc. But still, I am wondering if I shouldn't have been a bit more patient.