By on July 15, 2014

450x271xToyota_Camry_-_Cockspur_Island_GA_July_2012-450x271.jpg.pagespeed.ic.sKa9fpP0wD

Fans of the Toyota Camry have insisted that unlike lesser American and Korean rivals, their beloved mid-size sedan would never forsake the legendary V6 engine for a puny, profligate two-point-oh-tee. They may need to be ready for a plate full of crow.

Automotive News is reporting that the next generation Camry, which will be built off of Toyota’s all-new flexible architecture, may get a downsized engine as part of the massive overhaul. Quoting Toyota powertrain boss Koei Saga, AN writes

“It might be able to replace a six-cylinder with a four-cylinder plus turbo plus direct injection,” he said. “Compared to a V-6, we think this solution will be less costly.”

But marketers are evaluating whether Americans will accept the idea.

“Eventually we think this is where the technology is going, but right now we don’t know what the reaction of U.S. customers will be,” he said. “So probably right up until the last moment, we will have to be ready with both and watch customer feedback.”

Toyota has a perfectly good 2.0L turbo four-cylinder in the form of their new powertrain in the Lexus NX. But at 237 horsepower, it has a long way to go before it can put down the same kind of power as the 3.5L V6 currently powering the Camry, to say nothing of potential fuel economy losses that some of these engines are known for.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

245 Comments on “Toyota May Kill V6 Camry...”


  • avatar

    “Eventually we think this is where the technology is going, but right now we don’t know what the reaction of U.S. customers will be,”

    Fusion sales went up 22% with the dropping of v6 and adding Ecoboost. I know the styling has been an improvement, but interior is a little more cramped. I have more people excited about the fuel economy than concerned about the lack of v6. Most of them have been appeased by introducing them to the 2.0 version. V6 sedans will likely go the way of the V8 sedans and manual transmissions in the US market.

    • 0 avatar
      Spartan

      No, Fusion sales went up because it was redesigned. If we still had the V6 Fusion, it’d be selling like crazy and likely render the MKZ completely redundant. It’s a little redundant now, but that’s a discussion for another day.

      V6s are going away because the Tier 2 luxury brands want you to spend more money (MKZ, Lexus ES, Honda is still holding on, as is Nissan. Only a matter of time for them, too). This is why the V6 is dying in mainstream brands.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        That’s an interesting list of “tier 2 luxury brands”

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Do you know that Ford has only sold 871 MKSs year to date? That’s Crosscabriolet bad, but I digress… Sorry

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Really? I have seen a handful around town in at least three diff colors (so there are at least three here lol). Hard to miss the ugly ducklings in traffic.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Were they new or just a cumulative total, they’ve been around a few years. I live 4 blocks from a Ford/Lincoln dealer and I can’t remember the last time I saw a new one there

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            No, of the MY13s+. I see many more of the MY10-12s, probably a dozen in a two week period. There is a Ford dealer in Washington Co who puts them out very cheap, I’d say within 1500 of wholesale in some cases. Since the MY10-12 Zephyr has absolutely awful resale at auction, there is zero reason to buy a Fusion if you can get the correct version in an MKZ used.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Lincoln has sold between 4000 and 5000 MKSs YTD.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thx for the figures. Let’s call it 5,000 and its halfway through the year, what if they only sell another 5,000?

            Final year Lucerne/Deville sold 20K units apiece.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The volume is what it is. The MKS is a big sedan from a semi-luxury brand. It’s sibling, the Taurus, isn’t selling so hot either. The Explorer is the only thing that moves units for that platform.

            It will matter less when the MKS is a stretched MKZ that is selling in China too.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            From the Wall Street Journal July 14, 2014

            “The Lincoln MKS is hardly a top seller, with just 817 vehicles sold this year through May. Ford, F -0.17% which owns Lincoln, has worked for years to revive the Lincoln brand. Often regarded as outdated, the brand has struggled to find a niche among luxury buyers.”

            http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-cars-americans-dont-want-to-buy-2014-07-14

            Your source?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/lincoln-mks-sales-figures.html?m=1

            Tim Cain, TTAC contributor, and the guy that TTAC refers to for sales stats.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well, I guess the WSJ needs better sources, geez, who do you trust these days to give reliable info?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That Marketwatch article is terrible. Chrysler sold way more than 12000 200s so far as well. 45000+ and counting. Their Yukon stats are wrong too. I am not going to look through the rest as I can only assume they are all wrong.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack-in-the-Crack

          That’s Volkswagen Phaeton territory there.

          PS, I owned two of them, both 2005 V8’s.

      • 0 avatar
        mars3941

        I agree had Ford made the V6 still available in the Fusion it’s sales would be even better and closer to Camry, Altima and Accord the three that the car can’t seem to overtake. However your comment that the Lincoln MKZ is redundant is wrong, as the car is doing very well and sales are up close to 72%, out selling several entry level luxury models including Cadillac ATS, CTS and XTS. Overall Lincoln sales are up 31.4% all models included with the new crossover MKC just hitting showrooms now is already a hit.

      • 0 avatar

        Well “no” isn’t very accurate as I both acknowledged the redesign as a variable and I also correctly stated my observations on the sales floor. More people care about fuel economy and the feeling of power than how many cylinders make the power. I can not account for the number of people who won’t come in and shop for a Fusion because it doesn’t offer a V6 as I never speak to them. I can say most customers who buy the Fusion are happy with the 1.6/1.5 and don’t ask if they can upgrade to the 2.0 after a test drive.

        • 0 avatar
          tankinbeans

          Frantz, am I correct in assuming that you work for a dealer? I’ve been on and off the site for awhile and not an active commentor.

          That being said, does the 1.5/1.6EB suffer unusually high rates of waterpump failure? I’ve heard of at least two with the current generation Escape who’ve had their vehicles in due to a failed waterpump. I know it’s a different vehicle, but the powertrain is the same and weight really isn’t different enough to matter.

          My roommate has a 2.5 Fusion and I have a 2.5 Escape and the difference is under 100 pounds, if online estimates are to be believed.

          • 0 avatar

            I work in sales, and hadn’t heard of the issue, walked back to service and they hadn’t either. Not to say it might not be, but it isn’t something we’ve seen. Water pumps are pretty simple so it would surprise me if there was an issue, but I’ve been surprised before.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        No, I really think it was more then just a redesign. Having a V6 looks and sounds like old technology for many people. Especially when people are always trying to keep up with the Jones’s. The ecoboost brand has changed things for many auto companies. Ex: Hyundai and Kia have done great without the extra two cylinders.

      • 0 avatar
        Jacob

        Luxury brands have little to do with the demise of the 6-cylinder engines. Look at Audi A4 and BMW 3 series. The 4-cylinder versions are the most sold 3er now while A4 does not even have a V6 option. The issue is with the CAFE fuel efficiency standards, which are getting tighter with each year. When I heard of the last CAFE version, I instantly knew this will be a death toll for the mainstream V6 and maybe even for V8 in many luxury cars.

        Not only the V6 are dropping out of mainstream cars, but the V8 is also being dropped from the luxury brands. Volvo already stopped using V8s (after a brief experiment last decade) and there will be no more non-AMG V8 E-Class. The top A6 also uses turbo V6. The M3/M4 use a turbo 6-cylinder as well, (down two cylinders compared to last generation).

        It does seem like Ford is trying to use V6 to differentiate some Lincoln models from Ford, but I don’t think it’s really working.

  • avatar
    brettc

    After reading the headline I realized that Toyota has virtually no turbo charged engines in any of their North American lineup. I thought maybe the FR-S had a turbo but it doesn’t appear to. So if Toyota does start offering turbos I guess it’ll be a new thing to dealers and Toyota buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      djsyndrome

      IIRC, the last Toyota to have a turbo 4 in North America was the MR2.

      Which I wouldn’t mind having around again. At all.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      No turbo in the FR-S, it has a NA Subbie engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      It’s also quite interesting that Toyota chose to enter WEC racing with hybrid LMP1 cars that use a naturally aspirated V8 petrol engine, while the Porsche is racing a new hybrid car with turbo V4 and Audi is using hybrid turbo diesel. The WEC being a testing laboratory for these companies, I suspect that these choices are influenced by each company’s view of what the road cars should use in future.

  • avatar
    MBella

    This is the way things are going with CAFE. Every 2-2.5L naturally aspirated 4 cylinder wil be replaced by 1.4-1.6L turbos. V6s are going to be replaced with 4 cylinder turbos over 2 liters.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I say unto thee that 6 cylinders in mid range sedans are being phased out more due to the fact that automakers are increasingly desperate to produce a justification’for consumers to spend extra money on their higher priced “premium” stable mates/platform mates.

      “Wiseth is the purchaser with the V6 Camry or V6 Accord vs the plus 10 grand ES350 or Acura FaiLX.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Bingo!

        Except RDX

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        So you agree with Spartan (and me). The V6 Camry isn’t exactly a Lexus, but people will take the lower priced Camry when it has nearly the same performance, and the same reliability as the Lexus. Some people have even swapped badges!

        Toyota is figuring out that they can still have economies of scale for most parts and preserve the larger profit margins of their upscale line. Converting a Camry to a Lexus with Pep Boys add-ons won’t work with the turbo whine giving the game away!

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I agree.

          It’s never been more attractive for Toyota to get rid of the V6 in the Camry precisely because there’s so little substantive differentiation between the V6 Camry & Lexus ES350 (I do believe the ES is based on a slightly elongated Avalon chassis, but could be wrong, and in any case, there very similar chassis’ at any rate).

          VW/Audi, Ford/Lincoln, Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura…now even Cadillac/Chevrolet (Impala is essentially a Caddy XTS)…manufacturers are striving to differentiate products riding on the same chassis’ with engine designations and level of equipment available, along with some different skin deep styling changes and different material interiors.

          I am very much the type of person manufacturers do not like as I prefer to buy vehicles based on the soundness/quality of their chassis, suspension, motors, and am not easily swayed to pay more for essentially the same vehicle with a different brand badge even if they throw the most prolific smattering of high tech gadgets into/onto the “premium” platform mate.

          I’d rather have a qualitatively sound car with basic equipment anyways; less to go wrong, to deal with, and to pay for.

          But I realize most people want heated/cooled/ventilated leather seats eve in their Versa Note.

      • 0 avatar
        Jacob

        I don’t buy it. For decades, the automakers like Toyota, Nissa, and Honda had no problems offering similar V6 engines, on both their luxury and mainstream brand cars. Why the sudden change now?

        The real issue with CAFE fuel economy standards. Turbo engines are relatively new and underdeveloped technology with many possibilities, and they’re great for scoring high marks on fuel economy tests. Naturally aspirated engines have been beaten to death and there is little room for growth left in them.

  • avatar
    WheelMcCoy

    >> … to say nothing of potential fuel economy losses that some of these engines are known for.

    Derek, are “those engines” you are referring to the Turbo 2.0 or the V6? Turbos have been shown to have good fuel economy but only if you keep it out of turbo. V6 engines have been shown not to be so thirsty with cylinder deactivation tech.

    I used to think luxury divisions go for the bigger engines while the brands for the masses go for the smaller and eco engines. But I see things are now mixed and matched in all sorts of ways.

    • 0 avatar
      Dieselkopf

      A thought I’ve had for a while, but haven’t had opportunity to propose it. It seems that everyone likes the way modern turbo engines are programmed to have broad torque curves and minimal turbo lag. This allows them to behave like a larger engine. This is a good thing, I agree. And many people, I’m not picking on you WheelMcCoy, say that turbo engines will return good economy if one stays out of the boost. I am contending that by chasing broad power bands and minimal lag, we have created a system that is extremely difficult to keep off boost. Fine and dandy for performance. I drive a Mazdaspeed3 and enjoy running around with the turbo on the boil most of the time. I pay for it at the pump, but knew this going in.
      Perhaps the solution is to return some of the lag to the equation. Perhaps this could be accomplished by using the intelligent input of the electronic throttle sensor to allow for control of the bypass valve. Under low load conditions, when efficiency is desired, which are indicated by low, gradual pressure on the accelerator pedal, more exhaust can be bypassed around the hot side of the turbo, thus lessening boost and fuel consumption. Under conditions of high load and power demand, then less exhaust pressure could be bypassed and more boost created. Or to maintain consistent backpressure, do something similar on the compressor side of the turbo.
      Either way, I think there is a more fundamental issue with the way the turbo system is being implemented. But perhaps I’m biased. I don’t mind high powered front wheel drive cars that have a bit of turbo lag. Makes life more interesting.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    It will happen everyone is dropping the V6 in their bread and butter sedans and crossovers… It’s a sad day

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      It’s like the first time you heard “Highway Star” after Perfect Strangers and thought you misheard “Six Cylinders…All Mine!” – Mr. Gillan started it with eight cylinders, Mr. Coverdale sometimes blew it up to ten cylinders, and, then, when they finally got back together, they settled into the more pedestrian six cylinders.

      The explanation that, as time goes on, we settle for less, applies to cars in this case, too.

      A V6 in a grocery getter was one of life’s nicer cheap thrills.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    I never said “never” but I have always said they’d take their sweet time and wouldn’t do it until they were confident it wouldn’t hurt their “lasts forever” reputation.

    So anyway, this crow… Does it taste like chicken?

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Boooooooooo.

    “But at 237 horsepower, it has a long way to go before it can put down the same kind of power as the 3.5L V6 currently powering the Camry, to say nothing of potential fuel economy losses that some of these engines are known for.”

    So less power and less fuel economy in the age of peak oil production.

    Sounds like a winner! Demonstrate how truly stupid you are and build it Toyota.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Honda is the only one I know of that dropped the turbo-4 in favor of the V6 in it’s Acura RDX because more power and better economy. Yea, Honda

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      The 4-banger with turbo is more easily tweaked to get the lower emissions required, AND high “test” mpg. It’s the real world mileage and performance that will suffer: IOW, the customer loses, but government regulations are met.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      I’ll worry about “peak oil production” when it stops increasing every year.

      “Peak Oil!” has been coming REal Soon for … at least the past 20 years.

      It keeps not happening.

      (While, as a matter of pure logic, eventually there *must be* a peak, I see no reason to believe it imminent, nor more importantly that the drop-off will be as steep as the Peak Oil pushers want me to think – they’re applying a single-well/single-field model of production drop-off to world production; this is *completely inappropriate* for multiple reasons too long-winded to detail here*.

      * Short version: You can’t sum multiple curves with disparate sizes and starts into “one big curve with the same shape”, and the model necessarily ignores new production incentivized by prices.)

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      HMC KA23A1 was doomed to fail. Intwrcooler mounted on top the engine with no hood scoop, baffles restricting flow at peak output, and no direct injection like .GM Ecotec was using years before.

      http://m.autoblog.com/2007/11/22/la-2007-acuras-2-3l-turbocharged-i-4-engine-on-display/

      Even with a reflashed ecu the Honda falls on it face compared to others offering lessor 2.0T.

      http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/turp_0811_acura_rdx_k23a1_hondata_reflash/

      One asset of the 2.3 Honda turbo is it had the most torque of any Acura motor back then.

  • avatar
    Car Ramrod

    I wish they’d kill that color instead.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      +1

      • 0 avatar
        zamoti

        Though I can’t say I’m in love with that color at least it IS a color. Everything else has gone black and gray, at least Toyota is brave enough to make dusty cornflower blue a choice.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          I think it’s quite nice. The Passat also has a neat baby blue color, and I believe one other mid-sized sedan also does (Malibu?)

          • 0 avatar
            jhefner

            Ford Fusion. It happens to be the color Greenlight Collectibles released their 1:64 Fusion diecast in as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            I like the Fusion in that pearlescent seafoam color, but that’s only available on the Hybrid. The pearlescent blue on the C-MAX is also very nice and would be my top choice for that car.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Better than the baby puke green from around the economic meltdown time.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I am an outlier.

        Because I *like* “Reed Green”, as the Germans called it in the 70s.

        (e.g. http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/attachments/vintage-mercedes/38947d1165597313-how-many-colors-green-were-actually-imported-1973-1976-100_0299c.jpg)

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      You would have hated the 1960s, when various shades of blue were the most popular. Because of that, a blue sedan is a cliche, and today people want anything BUT a blue sedan.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        So because there were lots of blue sedans FIFTY years ago, today a blue sedan is a cliche and nobody wants one.

        I’m sorry that doesn’t hold water. The people buying blue sedans in the 60s are either barely driving now or dead. I see many new blue sedans, every single day.

        Sincerely,

        Logical Blue Sedan Owner

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          You’re not as logical as you think. I was driving blue sedans in the ’60s and I’m not even eligible for Medicare yet. There are over 80 million adults, still living, who also were driving in the ’60s.

          And yes, cliches die hard, lingering long after they should have disappeared. In fact, the image of captains of industry wearing top hats and tuxedos and smoking cigars in boardrooms is a cliche still quaintly held by leftists.

      • 0 avatar
        jhefner

        Used to be quite popular even in the 1980s. I must say I am surprised my father picked this color out, most likely because it was the only car available on the lot. But on sunny spring days in particular it really looks awesome; it practically glows with the blue sky reflecting off of it.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      I … like that color.

      I’m so damned sick of dark blue/white/black/red/greysilver.

      Colors. I want brown. I want tan. I want green. I want light blue. I want COLORS.

      (Disclosure: My Corolla is … boring Toyota Dark Blue. But that’s because it was a steal of a family offer, and I *don’t like the color*.)

  • avatar
    TMA1

    If the Camry loses the V6, how will it beat the FR-S in a drag race?

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Massively unsurprising. I put 280,000 miles on a Camry V6 (that happened to sit in the engine bay of an RX300, but, poTAYto (with VVTi), poTAHto), and it was bulletproof for all of those miles, so I have a sweet spot for Toyota V6s. Unfortunately, V6s these days have turned into yet another “enthusiast” option that Americans aren’t willing to pay for.

    I hope highdesertcat got his V6 CamCord while he had the chance.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      @Astigmatism: No, not yet! My grandson is finding it very difficult to find and trade on a V6 Accord or V6 Camry.

      The cars are out there, to be sure, but the dealers are pretty damn proud of them to where they sell them at a premium, with all sorts of dealer-installed crap no one wants or needs. (You know, like the $300 Silicone Sealant job to protect the paint, and the $1000 glass engraving job to reduce the possibility of theft.)

      One of the biggest bottom-line boosters is the OEM NAV system that is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. You can’t take it with you, or stuff it in your pocket like you can a Garmin, Tom-Tom or other.

      Contrary to what the 4-cyl enthusiasts have to say, the real-world buyers do understand the merits of the V6 in a midsize sedan AND the dealers know it, and thus charge accordingly. Four cylinders are for sissies. People who know and understand cars will choose a V6 in a midsize sedan any day!

      Bottom line: NO END-OF-YEAR DISCOUNTS ON V6 Accords or Camrys. At least not in Southern California where the grandson lives.

      These are sad days in the Kingdom.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        “Four cylinders are for sissies.” — I’m disappointed, you always sound more intelligent than that.

        • 0 avatar
          SaulTigh

          I’m guessing you’re objecting to “sissies” as an old-fashioned term for homosexuals? So sorry we can’t all be as enlightened as you.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          bomberpete, there was no other way to express the sentiment I wanted to get across.

          In another thread, the one about the Mazda6, I drew a lot of criticism for my preference of having a V6 under the hood of a midsize sedan.

          IMO, there is no replacement for displacement. I also believe fervently that MOST Americans don’t give a hoot about the price of gas, because they keep buying it at any price.

          With my grandson now actively shopping for a midsize sedan since his family recently had a small addition, my recommendation to him was a V6 Accord or V6 Camry. His father, my eldest son, agreed. We’re willing to pitch in financially, but not for a 2014 anything that is sold at a premium, at the end of a model year.

          So wanting to buy a V6 Accord or V6 Camry is not as easy as it should be. It seems the dealers know the value of a V6 Accord and a V6 Camry and are pricing them accordingly, padding the MSRP with crap no one wants or needs.

          The four-bangers can be had with great discounts., The V6 models are sold at a premium, at least in Southern California where my grandson shops and lives.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Desert Cat
            Do you think you could just state that you prefer cars with a V6 and simply OMIT the hate speech next time?

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            You didn’t draw a lot of criticism for preferring a V6. You drew criticism for making inaccurate statements, ignoring counter-arguments presented to you, and mistaking your personal preferences for fact.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Have him shop an Avalon. I think it is way better than the V6 Camry.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ajla, the Avalon may be a bit too large and too pricey for them.

            We figure with him trading a 2010 Wrangler plus $10K cash in hand, and the end-of-year discount normally applied as factory incentives, we should come in on a V6 for ~$30K, all in. What ever he is short, his dad and I will cover.

            Then there is the insurance in California, where fender benders are plentiful and hit-and-runs even more common. My grandson is 25, his wife is 26, so it is going to be high for full coverage.

            We got a quote from USAA for full coverage in California on a vehicle that is financed and it watered MY eyes. Hence the decision to purchase the new car outright, without a lien holder, so he can tailor his insurance coverage to what they can afford.

            But thanks for the suggestion. We have decided that a V6 Accord is the first choice and a V6 Camry the alternate choice.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          4-cylinders are for “namby-pambies” There, fixed it and offended no one, unless, of course you’re a namby-pamby in which case there are 4-cylinder engines just for you.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        “Contrary to what the 4-cyl enthusiasts have to say, the real-world buyers do understand the merits of the V6 in a midsize sedan”

        Is that why they are selling at 10% the rate of the 4-cylinders? All those damn sissies that can’t see the logic in buying a 270hp family sedan in a world of traffic jams and suburban congestion. Yesiree, floor that 3.5L and climb straight up the tailpipe of the column of cars in front of you before you even hit 4000 rpm.

        You’re the smart buyer! You spent $4000 for an overkill engine that can never be exercised properly during your ownership. One that sticks more weight over the front axle and produces so much power that it overwhelms the chassis. Why doesn’t everyone make this choice? Because they have no balls!

        I too lament the passing of the V6 midsize sedan, because I would appreciate the extra power even if I couldn’t use it often. But I can’t blame anyone else for not seeing it that way. You’re badly confusing your personal preference with “knowledge and understanding of cars”. Most people can look at a $4000 markup for an engine with more power than they need and understand it represents poor value.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          30-mile, If people want to settle for a 4-cyl anything, I have no problems with that, as long as it has no bearing on me or mine.

          My philosophy may be dated, and my beliefs may not be in line with modernity and marketing to youth that leads them to believe that 4-cyls are better than 6, but I believe that a V6 in any midsize sedan is superior to any other version of the ICE, barring a V8.

          And, now that my grandson is looking to buy a V6 Accord or a V6 Camry, we’re finding out just how difficult a task it is, to find a dealer willing to part with a V6 model at the end of the model year. They got them. And they’ll sell them at a premium. Even at the end of the model year.

          I may have to ask for help from my brothers who still have connections in the world of automotive retailing and my grandson may have to travel to get his new sedan from elsewhere, outside of San Diego County.

          • 0 avatar
            semaj82

            HDC- Looks like it must just be your neck of the woods…I searched around here in Chicagoland and V6 Accords are going for 1k under invoice; any color you want, as long as it’s boring*

            *says the driver of a black pseudo-Honda

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            semaj82, I live in New Mexico. My grandson who is shopping for a V6 Accord lives in Fallbrook, CA.

            Buying from outside California can bring its own problems when trying to get California tags on the vehicle. An out-of-state vehicle has to be smogged and must meet California emissions standards before it can be registered and plates issued.

            My grandson has some time, but he and his wife made the decision to try and take advantage of the year-end close-outs now being offered.

            They have transportation now, several vehicles, but all of them long in the tooth and not considered reliable, especially when traveling with a newborn.

            My grandson’s wife is hoping to be changing jobs from the Sheriff’s Department to the California Highway Patrol and a four door sedan will go a long way helping her with the baby seat, sill height, and entry level, as opposed to her dad’s antique Range Rover, her mom’s old minivan, or my grandson’s 2010 Wrangler they will use as a trade-in.

            My grandson will fall back on his antique Tacoma Standard Cab, Short Bed, to get to and from work at Camp Pendleton, not too far from where they live. It carries only the minimum insurance required by CA law, so it is pretty cheap to own and operate.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        In the Dallas area there a good number of low mileage used 2011 and 2012 Lexus ES 350s for about the price of a new Accord V6. Might be a good alternative.

        On factor in the decline in sales of V6 family cars has been the increase in performance of the base 4 cylinder models. When combined with more gear ratios, the 4 cylinder models offer acceptable 8 second 0-60 acceleration. The 4 cylinder models are not as smooth, but they don’t feel weak like they used to.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Maybe Dallas is the place to buy one then. I haven’t checked for awhile, but last I looked clean ES3xx did high 20s at auction. I suppose it depends on the dealer but I’d figure house pack + at least 4K to move them. I thought Accord EX-Ls were doing 27s new (maybe I’m wrong).

  • avatar
    nickoo

    I don’t mind cutting out the v6 on a non performance car. Properly paired with a High gear or CVT and it meets 99℅ of my driving needs as I have found out with 2 weeks in a base motor fusion. I still don’t trust long term turbo reliability on gasoline engines and would rather see roots or screw type supercharging with intercooling rather than a turbo with a clutched pulley for economy. It would pobably be cheaper too.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I have to think there are some packaging advantages to not having to allow for a V6 in these cars. As far as the reduction in power goes, the fours have enough push for what these kind of cars are used for. Does anyone really push a 6 cylinder Camry all that hard, or do they buy sixes out of habit?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I think it depends. If I am looking for basic reliable transport, I don’t mind an I4. If I am spending money (say near 30K+ otd) I want the V6. I will not be spending real money on TUR[D]BO for my generic Camcord sedan, I will simply not stepping foot in your showroom. Toyota was always the bastion of the sensible ownership experience no matter the powertrain and should remain as such.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      Years ago when I drove coast-to-coast in a presser Mitsubishi, my old man couldn’t believe I’d do such a thing in a four-cylinder engine. He had a hard time believing a Four wouldn’t self-destruct in the Rockies, i.e. Vega, Pinto, mid-Seventies VW, etc.

      He’s no longer around, but there is still a mentality among older buyers that grudgingly accepted V-6s as replacements for their beloved V-8s. But when even full-size truck buyers are accepting the V-6, I think we’re past that.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Don’t forget, it’s a safe bet that it’s probably easier to amortize engine development costs for a turbo 4 (sharing a block or something with the N/A version already made) than it is for a V6 (which is presumably completely different from the I4).

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        Also go try and get a tune up on a v6 vs. a 4cyl fwd sedan. The v6 will probably be $400 to $800 due to the fact the back 3 spark plugs are up against the fire wall.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I got a tune up for $200 on a 3800. I agree its a PITA vs an I4.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            A lot of those 3800 engine bays where huge compared to the camry and similar sedans engine bays of today. Many have to drop the engine to get to the back 3 cylinders. My father in law spent $650 for a tune up on his Hyundai v6 sonata. That cost was due to the v6 up against the fire wall.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Evidently with 3800 you disconnect something and roll it forward. I understand this is not something your avg mechanic enjoys doing, and its certainly something I’m not attempting on my own. I’ve done my own tune ups on my Saturns, much easier.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Evidently with 3800 you disconnect something and roll it forward.”

            Don’t buy a W-body. The C and H body have more room to work. Surprisingly, my N-bodies (2 of which had 90-degree V6s) also had more room under the hood than my Grand Prixs.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            C went out in MY96 and H in MY99. You want 3800 its G (FWD) and W till the end of production. Never attempted to do any work on a G-body so I can’t speak to it. Although Deville is G-body through MY11, so I would imagine it would have decent room inside to to the need to accommodate Northstar.

    • 0 avatar
      Prado

      I doubt they could realize any ‘packaging advantages’ by dropping the 6, because they still need an engine bay that is big enough to accommodate the Hybrid version.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Most of the extra componentry for a hybrid (the battery in particular) isn’t in the engine bay. The electric motors barely take up any space. You don’t need a V6-compatible engine bay for a hybrid with a four as its ICE.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        I have the PHEV version of the Fusion. The electric motor’s integrated in the transmission, and there’s an inverter that sits on top of the transmission, so it really doesn’t require more space than would the conventional 4 cylinder version.

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        The newer hybrid systems still don’t use as much room as a v6.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      “Does anyone really push a 6 cylinder Camry all that hard, or do they buy sixes out of habit?”

      They buy the 6 because it’s fully loaded. If the 4 was fully loaded, they’d buy that instead.
      Some people want the most expensive house in a cheap neighborhood (V6 Camry), others want the cheapest house in an expensive neighborhood (base 3 series). There is no right or wrong answer.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Really, because I see a right and wrong automotive answer in your analogy.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          I sure do too. I would infinitely prefer to have the car that has the engineering chops to support the much more powerful and expensive versions. My quite basic 3-series wagon is fundamentally the same car as an M3. A $38K loaded Camry is fundamentally the same car as a $16K stripper Camry, just with added tinsel.

          • 0 avatar
            baggins

            KRhodes

            You claim a range in price of 16k to 38K for Camry, 22K from lowest to highest.

            Cheapest Camry MSRP is 22.4K, that’s quite a way from 16K.

            Most expensive Camry is 33.3K which is quite a way from 38K.

            The actual spread is ~11K vs the 22K you site.

            I think you have a good basic point, but making up numbers that are 2X off reality makes you look like a blowhard.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Amen on the power thing – I was driving a friend’s new (at the time) ’04 Accord I4.

      Before I knew it, I was going about 100, *without even noticing*, on the freeway. (Because compared to my old Mercedes the thing was overpowered and *silent*.)

      I keep thinking I’ll get a V6 midsize for my next car, but not because an I4 is legitimately underpowered for any normal use, even moderately “sporting”.

      (Packaging? I’m not sure a V6 is really much bigger than an I4-Turbo… Maybe?)

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        I recall that when Hyundai/Kia got rid of their six cylinder Sonata/Optima, that they said they saved 90 pounds of structure over what they’d have needed should they have designed the car to accept a six.

        If Toyota does decide to drop the six, I suspect it will occur when the entire car is revised.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        A V6 is wider than a turbo four, which is important in transverse applications. By going four-only in the Sonata Hyundai was able to move the firewall forward a bit, giving more interior space. Ford could have enjoyed the same benefit but chose not to, presumably to allow for an easy V6 install in the MKZ.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    If it says “Camry”, people will buy it.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    All of this weight shedding/downsizing is great but I am really concerned with the longevity and cost-to-own over time with these newer trends. Age related problems on these ecoboost/turbo’d engines will be a nightmare for sure.. Keep it simple!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      This.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      All of these failures will come, the masses are used to the reliability of engine components, when these start blowing up its going to be a fun told you so moment. Unfortunately most won’t learn anything from it. The real loss are going to be the ones that make it into the hands of starting families, once they find how unreliable these systems are it will turn them off of the major culprits, ie Ford for a lifetime.

      Meanwhile I’ll keep my old reliable N/A engines.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        Thank goodness that the medium and heavy truck fleet abandoned turbos years ago, otherwise the grocery store shelves would all be empty now, and America’s highways would be littered with broken down tractor-trailers.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          So hard to know which is right: the uninformed opinions of a few people with minimal experience in turbos, or billions of miles of reliable transport by turbodiesels.

          Hmmmmm.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Are Peterbilts built to the same spec as a Malibu?

          • 0 avatar
            kvndoom

            Ooooh! The Camry is getting a diesel? I missed that part!

            Comparing the longevity of a turbo diesel and a turbo gasser… Yeah I’m not feeling that one. They aren’t built to the same standards. Otherwise all those big trucks that aren’t broken down wouldn’t be diesels, now would they?

          • 0 avatar
            ant

            As a truck diver, I can tell you that the mechanics replace the turbos on our trucks at 500k.

            This is done preventatively, as Ive never known one to fail before that.

            I have no idea how much this costs. I bet it’s a lot.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            @ant, thank you for beating me to the punch with your comment. I was just about to write the same thing.

            Last month I rented a Ryder Volvo tractor and in going over the maintenance log that comes with the tractor, it showed, clear as day, what maintenance this truck had, and at which mileage points the turbo was replaced. The tractor I got had nearly 300K on the clock when I checked it out, and it still ran strong as if it had been brand new.

            Regardless, 73mph, empty or loaded, was all I could get out of it on the Kansas Turnpike.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ HDC the reason you’ couldn’t go faster than 73 in that Ryder truck is most likely due to a speed limiter/governor and the speed that Ryder chose to set it or have it set at.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Scoutdude, yeah, it was the governor. Even in 1-6, low range, I was limited to 1200rpm. Lots of torque even at the bottom end, but the curve flattened right at 1200rpm.

            Other guys also had the same limitations, like guys I saw driving for JB Hunt and Swift. But the Independents, now there was a group who blew right past all of us 73-mph slowpokes! And they still had the grunt to pass going uphill.

            After the first leg of the journey, we asked our two Mexican contract drivers who were driving their own rigs, to form up behind us because they were independents and could go faster than the two lead tractors could.

    • 0 avatar

      On of many reasons leases are on the upswing for new cars is consumer concern for all the new technologies out in cars. Turbos have been used on long life vehicles for quite awhile and they don’t really worry me. Sure, a car with a turbo will need more turbos than a car without one.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        On new cars, I’m more concerned about the electronics over time than the mechanicals. You can maintain the mechanical bits, but the electronic stuff deteriorates over time, and once the problems start, they seem to cascade into a whack-a-mole situation.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Lorenzo, that sort of thought has occurred to me driving my 67 Mustang. The greasy bits of cars are more reliable than they’ve ever been, its the stuff that our forefathers never worried about that is troublesome. (Ignition switches is a great example.)

        • 0 avatar
          Alfisti

          This. need a screen to change the radio station? Good luck with that. It’s going to be a fiasco in a few years with people passing out in the south because the aircon is controlled via a screen that would cost thousands to replace.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      People keep saying this over and over, while modern turbo engines keep piling up miles with minimal or no turbo-related issues.

      Look at Subaru’s EJ — it’s not the most reliable engine to begin with, but later in its lifespan the turbos have fewer chronic problems than the NA version, especially when not abused (i.e. not in a BroRX).

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      Cost to own is proven in the higher cost of the v6 tune up. Those back 3 cylinder up against the fire wall really bring up ownership cost vs. a 4cyl.

      • 0 avatar
        baggins

        I think most new cars go 100K plus miles without needing a spark plug replacement, so I think while your point is valid, I dont find it terribly important.

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          The cost of new autos has increased so much, people are keeping there cars longer. And if that 100k mile tune cost $1500 for new belts and a set of spark plugs it totally increases the price of ownership. Right now if my Mariner was a v6 my 100k tune up would cost $650 or probably more. Instead I have the 2.5L 4 banger and that same tune up will cost me under $100. Because I can do it myself with out dropping the engine to get to those back 3 cylinders.

          • 0 avatar
            baggins

            98% of people dont do it themselves whether its a 4 or a 6.

            Its maybe 200-400 dollars more at the 10 year mark to get the work done, or 20 to 40 dollars a year.

            Immaterial.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            My 2010 has 98,500 miles on it. I guess that is high for some people. But, only having 100k on car at 10 years is almost the same. Not sure why people hate on 4cyl autos. I guess its the same old school argument that a v6 cannot compete with a v8. I guess it’s just a lack of knowledge issue.

  • avatar
    heavy handle

    Don’t know about anywhere else, but used V6 Camry-Accord-Sonata sell for less than 4 cylinder cars in Ontario.
    Some reasons that I can think of: “lifetime” plugs on the rear bank that you can’t pay any tech to change, rear disks that seize and rust, mediocre gas mileage, more complications overall (extra O2 sensor, etc) that defeat their reputation for reliability. All this for a V6 badge and some extra performance you’ll never use?

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Do they have different rear brakes than the I4?

      Weird, if so – the rears get so little comparative load that I’m surprised they’d bother to upgrade them.

      (And do all three of those brands have the same “unchangeable” rear (the entire back side, since these are transverse mounts?) plugs and bad rear brakes?

      Or is it a pick-and-choose thing?)

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        It used to be that 4 cylinder cars got drums in the rear, and V6s got disks. Rear disks had a reputation for costing a bundle to service (in rust-prone areas). Almost all mid-sizes come with 4 disks now, but the bad reputation remains.

        The unchangeable rear plugs are due to access. Toyota (for instance) would make you remove the whole intake system, and you would still scrape your knuckles against the firewall. No customer wants to pay a couple hundred for what should be a five minute job, so the rear plugs never got changed.
        Eventually they will seize to the block. At that point you’ve got an old Camry with a bad misfire and a $1200 estimate (minimum). Those cars either went straight to the crusher, or they sat on a lot, dragging-down V6 prices.

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          Please. Plugs are a normal maintenance item. While they’re changed, you can also replace gaskets and plug wires while at it. Two hundred bucks is not that high of a price to have them changed if the rest of car is running fine. You think turbo 4 engines will not have similarly priced maintenance issues down the road?

          I do agree that there is a lot of things not to like about V6 sedans. These are nose heavy under-steering gas guzzlers in a city cycle. Honda has already proved to everyone that a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder with a well tuned CVT will smoke many V6 dinosaurs from yesterday.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Correction: they should be normal maintenance items. Long-life plugs give owners the impression that they are not, and they are almost impossible to change on many FWD V6s. That means that they get skipped, and the second/third owner is stuck with seized plugs and a misfire (which also means your cat converter is dead). Now it’s even more expensive to fix, more than the car is worth.

            The V6s themselves aren’t unreliable per-se (no issues with the same engine in a front-rear layout), but mechanical accessibility makes them hard to service.

  • avatar

    I drove a 3.5L Camry XLE at the Ecoboost Challenge, and I frickin’ LOVED that thing compared to the Fusion 2.0T I also drove. Light on its feet, tons of power, rev-happy and fast. C&D clocked their last example at 5.8 seconds 0-60 and the 1/4 at 14.3 @ 101.

    In a CAMRY.

    I’m sure the take rate on the V-6 is low, but I’ll be sad to see it go if this comes to pass.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Look, a typical mid-sized, 4-pot Camcordimalibusion has over 160 hp to pull under 3500 lbs. They also can deliver 30mpg. A V-6 is a nice “muscle” option but CAFE and changing consumer tastes make them less relevant — especially if U.S. consumers learn not to dip into the turbos all the time.

    I see this is progress, but wow I’m getting old. It reminds me of the mid-Seventies when the US automakers pulled the 7.5 V-8 monsters from mid-size cars before they were down-sized. EPA standards, fuel prices, and consumer demand made it inevitable. And when my dad bought a V-6 Buick Century back in 1978, it was an “economy” engine that averaged a whopping 20mpg with 105hp.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      Those late 70s gm v6s were awful. Unbalanced so bad they shook the whole car at all speeds, low power, low reliability, low milage. My mom had a v6 skylark, my dad had a straight 6 nova, the nova was miles ahead of it in the power train…both cars died from rust, but the nova power train was still going strong at 250,000 miles.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        The 75-77 Buick V-6 had uneven crankshaft firing, but they improved it considerably in 78-79.

        We must have been lucky, because that 78 Century accelerated smoothly if slowly and got onto highways OK, held a decent 85mph cruise, and got up to 25 mpg on highway runs. It didn’t shake. It was a huge improvement over the Slant Six Valiant it replaced. We must not have gotten the THM200 grenade transmission, because it never gave any trouble.

        That Century lasted 10 years and 140K. It was still going strong before someone stole it off the Brooklyn streets. When I found it, it was trashed badly. Much as I loved that car, fixing it up would cost more than it was worth, plus little electrical things were becoming a problem.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      That’s because the de-tuning and smog gear throttled the 2-barrel “3800”. 27 years later, my 2005 Buick LeSabre with a much more advanced version of the same basic engine has 100 MORE horsepower and gets 23 mpg overall in a 400 pounds heavier car. Fuel injection, electronic ignition and a better valve train worked wonders.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Agreed. Great engine that got better with time. Too bad that except for the LeSabre and a few others, most of the cars GM put it in weren’t worthy.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    I think Toyota originally put a V6 into the Camry because they enlarged the Camry with every generation, to the point that the I-4 was under-powered.

    But in the last decade, the typical 2.5L I4 has gone from 160hp to close to 200hp, while transmissions have improved and better materials mean that each new generation of car need not add 300 lbs.

    So today the I4 has plenty of power for a midsized car. And given that people buying a Camry aren’t looking for a sport sedan, there really isn’t much reason to offer the V6. If you want a V6 that badly, go next door and pay up for an ES350.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      1. $10K+ premium for a Lex V6? No thanks.
      2. Gives Toyota dealers a compelling loaded product at a lower price point than Avalon and allows them to compete with Lexus dealers for people like most of us.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        28-cars-later,
        I hear you, but why should Toyota offer you a V6 Camry for 27K, when they can force you into a 37K EZ or a 32K Avalon? If the rest of the market is eliminating that option, shouldn’t Toyota follow?

        You may not like it, but Toyota shareholders will.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Because that sort of behavior p*sses off customers, GM has been guilty of such stuff for decades. So say Toyota does this and disenfranchises the 15% or so of the V6 take rate on Camry. How many of those customers will now shop an Accord V6 and swear you off? How many customers was GM losing when they made the I4 the only engine available in MY10 of the Lacrosse? So many that the 3.6 V6 became a no charge option in MY11 or MY12.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Well, the LaCrosse is considered a large, semi-premium sedan…one that caters to a demographic that really values V6 and V8 engines, and one that feels especially anemic with a four cylinder engine, IMO. A Camry, on the other hand, is a lot more tolerable with a four cylinder. But I think your second statement is correct. Dropping the Camry’s V6 could backfire on Toyota if competitor Honda decides to keep the Accord’s V6 option (and it will)…

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            My point, 28-cars, is that if Toyota eliminates the V6 in the Camry, and starts making a lot more money as a result, then Honda will follow suit. At which point, no mainstream automaker will offer a V6 midsize sedan.

            This has happened before – the Highlander killed the Camry wagon, at a much higher price point. Likewise, the Pilot killed the Accord wagon; the MX-7 killed the 6 wagon, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Point taken, VoGo, however:

            Toyota Camry wagon was dropped for MY97, Highlander did not arrive until MY01. Likewise Accord wagon was dropped for MY98, Pilot did not debut until MY03. I assume you meant CX-7 and not MX-7, which did not come out until MY07. I’m not even going to look up when Mazda dropped the 6 wagon because I know it was years before. Wagons were dropped before those models existed.

            http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/history.html

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Highlander

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Pilot

          • 0 avatar

            @28-Cars-Later

            “I’m not even going to look up when Mazda dropped the 6 wagon because I know it was years before.”

            Too bad you didn’t look it up. The last Mazda6 wagons were in 2007, when the CX-7 was introduced.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          ” If the rest of the market is eliminating that option, shouldn’t Toyota follow? ”

          Maybe.

          Or maybe not.

          After all, if you can steal customers from the competition [who might otherwise want an Accord or Altima V6] by offering a V6 for 27k, that’s better than *maybe* boosting ES350 sales a little.

          I suspect the people after an ES350 aren’t thinking of a V6 Camry anyway…

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          I think the popularity of cars like the Canadian 4-cylinder Honda Accord Touring proves that a lot of people do not care for the 6-cylinder in their premium car any more. If this was also sold in the USA, it would kill the sales of the V6 Touring as well as some Acuras. The truth is that drivetrains have gotten powerful enough that most people do not care for a V6 engine any more in their daily driven car. The “v6″ label meant “luxury” in the 90s. Today, other things are luxury. People want leather and heated seats, electronics, fuel efficiency, etc. In fact “hybrid” is probably the new V6, looking at how Accord Hybrid and similar cars are marketed.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          This is the kind of strategy that GM used 50-plus years ago. You had to go to the fancier division (Caddy or Buick for lux, Olds for innovation) and pay more to get the best features first.

          This made the stockholders and Wall Street very happy. Then Chevy and Pontiac demanded and got their own luxoboats, and within 15 years every division was selling against each other and the whole Sloan branding thing went to hell.

  • avatar
    Sky_Render

    “Fans of the Toyota Camry”?

    I assume the demographic you’re referring to has a large overlap with AARP membership.

    • 0 avatar
      jc130

      People are “Fans of the Toyota Camry” in the same way they are fans of stainless steel refrigerators.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        @jc130 This wins.

        EVERYTHING.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          A long overused comparison of Toyotas to appliances wins EVERYTHING? It’s the most predictable type of comment on any Toyota article, made thousands of times by thousands of people who think they are very very clever when doing so.

          He even used the most common appliance.

          Good job regurgitating, jc130.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Would it have been better if he had started the post with the word “This”?

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Actually, I think Camrys are most commonly compared to dishwashers. In plain white. A stainless steel one would be much to fancy to be an apt comparison.

            I suspect that 95% of V6 Camry sales are just because they are the most expensive one, and some people always buy the most expensive one. They will buy the turbo 4 just as happily.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            About half of the V6 Camrys listed on Cars.com are the XLE, so even if every single one of them was bought for loaded’s sake by someone who doesn’t know what a V6 is that’d still leave half of them to sell on their own merits in cheap(er) SEs.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      I had two guys working for me who were straight out of college and finally buying their own cars. One settled on a Fusion V6, three years used, instead of a new Fusion (he had Ford family), because he wanted the V6, and the other tried real hard to find a Camry V6 with some sort of lease deal at the time, and was never happy that he couldn’t get the lease deal on the V6 and had to settle for the I4. Being of the supposedly anti-car Millenial Demographic, I have to assume that kids are still happy to drive mom and dad’s car, provided it’s got a lot of power available, even if that has gone from a Cutlass Supreme to a Camry.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        About 15 years ago a car product planner said that Ford’s Explorer was selling better with the ancient V-8 than the SOHC V-6. This was despite the latter being more advanced, more fuel-efficient and w/more real-world power.

        Some of it was cheap gasoline, but another aspect was that people couldn’t believe a V-6 would match a V-8. The kids will see it differently.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          15 years ago, the Explorer’s V8 was the Windsor 5.0. The four point slow, OHC or not, didn’t hold a candle to it in any respect.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            The Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0 has great cylinder heads for upgrading Fox body cars (that aren’t Mustangs or Mk VIIs) and Panthers, especially the wheezy 150 hp Panthers.

            A rare case of a vehicle being more useful to some people in a junkyard than on the road. :P

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Is this the same advanced 4.0 SOHC that like to scarf its timing chain over the first four years it was offered?

          I think the V8 shoppers made the right call there.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    As the owner of a 3.5 ltr V6 Highlander the V6 is the best darn thing about it. Smooth power and torque, engine and transmission are matched well, and on a recent trip from Albuquerque to Santa Fe it knocked down an honest 21 mpg even clocking 80 mph on the hilly interstate. Going 300+ miles up and down the interstate AND puttering around the narrow and congested streets of Santa Fe I was impressed.

    Pretty good for V6 + 50/50 torque splitting AWD, 7 passengers (3 row model) and luggage for an overnight stay.

    Don’t kill a good thing Toyota. I may have purchased an “appliance” for my family wagon but given that my other rides are V8 beasts I do require POWER even in my appliances.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      The V-6 is a great engine and I doubt the Highlander or Avalon will lose it.

      Toyota’s strategy is to make the cheapskates pay for the privilege, whether in those vehicles or a Lexus.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I’m not a Camry basher like many other people here, but I just don’t *like* the Camry all that much because there are just better options (like the Accord, which is every bit as reliable). For me, the only way I’d ever consider a Camry is if it were the V6 SE model. But maybe they’ve make some equipment and structural improvements to the 2015 model…

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I rarely see V6 Camry models. I see V6 Accords very often.

    If you’re gonna spend the change on a V6 Camry, might as well just jump to the Avalon. There’s a quite minimal price difference.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Everything I hate about the current Camry, I love about the new Avalon. I’d rather take a CPO or used Avalon than a new Camry V6.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      I never thought I’d say this but the Avalon is an unbelievably nice car, especially for the money. I want one. It is really about 9/10 as nice as the Lexus ES. After helping my folks shop for a new car last month I was hoping they’d choose the Avalon but they went with the Accord V6 instead, which was certainly not a bad choice.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        I like the Avalon better than the ES from a styling standpoint, especially the interior. I’m a snob in that I like nice, uplevel versions of certain cars, but they don’t have to wear luxury badges. In fact, it’s better if they don’t. (which is why the Phaeton and the K900 have my name written all over them). There’s really only one Lexus I’d buy right now, and that’s the GS (possibly the NX, depending on how the 2.0T is). The only thing I’d miss from getting an Avalon and not an ES is the power tilt-telescoping steering column. That’s it.

        I wouldn’t be opposed to an Accord Touring (standard V6), and that’d be my Avalon alternative….

  • avatar
    sirwired

    Can a modern V-6 provide tons of power with pretty decent economy given the power produced? Sure!

    But the power (and certainly the economy) of a modern Turbo-4 (and even some large-displacement NA 4’s) is greater than a V-6 of not-that-long ago. Perhaps Toyota has figured out that most consumers are satisfied with what the 4’s can produce, and therefore don’t actually need a V6.

    That doesn’t mean more power isn’t fun, just that it’s not an inherently horrible decision to make it an option only on higher-end vehicles.

    The 4’s don’t produce quite the same mileage the sticker promises, but it’s still much better than an equivalent V6 under most normal driving conditions.

  • avatar
    jc130

    “Fans of the Toyota Camry…”

    Now there’s a straw man for you.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Big (2.5 or so) four-bangers historically have had much more NVH than modern V6’s. Are the new little (1.6 or less) turbo Fours as smooth and quiet as a good six? There was a time when V12’s and V16’s were sold on their smooth running and effortless low-end torque.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I certainly hope not, I want good sixes to keep existing and this tiny turbo motor nonsense to be curtailed at least a little. No 1.6 turbo 4s for midsize sedans, please.

      That new 1.5 should be Focus only, I don’t care if it actually performs decently or not.

    • 0 avatar

      “There was a time when V12′s and V16′s were sold on their smooth running and effortless low-end torque.”

      And the I6 is internally balanced… These are not common motors any more, mostly for economy and emission reasons, but it’s a fact that better doesn’t always sell or make market sense.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        The I6 went away for packaging reasons: unless you’re BMW and don’t care, they take too much space away from the cabin.

        Also, there hasn’t been a proper I6 race car in 40+ years, so there’s no marketing benefit. Crankshafts flex when they get too long.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      If car manufacturers were to build cross plane 4 cylinder cranks, they would be smooth as a v8. Yamaha is the only one to build one and its a thing if beauty.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Some fans may have been claiming the V6 would never go away, Derek, but the more pragmatic amongst us have seen the writing on the wall. RAV4 was first.

    The V6 can apparently hit 60 in as little as 5.8 seconds. Guess how many people care about that when the current four cylinder gives them the performance of a V6 from not that long ago? There you go. Bye Bye V6.

    • 0 avatar
      LeeK

      Exactly. Only us auto enthusiasts get all upset when the trend has been increasingly clear over the past decade. Smoothness of powerplant sells to a small number of people. Fuel economy sells to huge numbers of customers.

      Fear of turbos also has to stop. They are here to stay.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Correct! And any of the options are good as long as you don’t keep the vehicle past the factory warranty expiration date.

        Let the breakdowns, repairs and unscheduled maintenance be someone else’s worry and expense.

        For others who would like to keep their precious and favorite ride longer, have them upscale and buy a V6 in a luxury or near-luxury brand.

        People have been doing this since the beginning of automotive time.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      I agree with you, and to be honest those damn V6 Camcords with their under six second 0-60 times have seriously upset the guys driving real sporty cars such as Mitatas, BRZ, GTI, Civic SI, Lexus IS250, Audi A4, etc. Even entry level Boxster had to work hard to keep up with those soccer mom sedans. This was just wrong. Seriously, who needs a midsize family sedan that accelerates like a mustang, but turns like crocodile.

    • 0 avatar
      turboprius

      Main reason for not getting a V6: cost.

      No need to spend two thousand more dollars on an already-expensive vehicle that has great power as is. The main turn off is the four-speed, but Toyota’s been using it forever. It’s proven itself.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        The price premium for the V6 is effectively $4000 for the Camry, whether you go SE or XLE trim. That’s ridiculous.

        Toyota hasn’t paired a 4 speed with the V6 in the Camry for about 10 years, though.

        • 0 avatar
          turboprius

          I was talking about the third gen RAV4. Sorry, I should’ve mentioned that in my comment.

          But four grand? For a Camry engine upgrade? I don’t think many would be willing to pay that much. I’d rather get an XLE four-cylinder than an LE V6 (if they made an LE V6).

  • avatar
    Alfisti

    Some of you really do need to drive smaller capacity turbo charged engines before making a comment. So many keep mentioning the low HP number but truth be told HP is such a 1960’s metric. The torque number will often match and at times exceed the smaller 6’s and more importantly is on tap at ridiculously low RPM which is what the vast majority of drivers need.

    I’m in a 9-3 wagon, 10 year old 2T engine and it absolutely flys onto freeways or if i need to pass but only has 200HP.

    I do agree though that some engines are just getting too small and i like the V6 option. My main gripe however is that buyers are looking at the EPA figure which is often WAY off for turbo charged cars unless you know how to drive them, mine (again 10 years old) will hurtle along at 120 drinking about 7L/100km, however if i spool, lift, spool and lift in traffic that can nearly DOUBLE.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I only take issue with sub-2.0 liter turbo 4s in midsize sedans and sub-1.5 liter turbo 4s in compacts like the Cruze. Midsize sedans should be in the 2.0 to 2.4 range and compacts in the 1.5-1.8 range, save the 1.4s and (ugh) the 1 liter 3 pots for subcompacts.

      I think GM had a 1.6 turbo engine coming for the Cruze, but I haven’t found much about GM’s supposed new Ecotec engines for the Cruze and Sonic…

      • 0 avatar
        Alfisti

        Broadly agree with that. Drove a Q5 a few months back and the 2T is immense, with the 8 speed it absolutely hustles along and my father in law (72 yr old old school kinda guy) said it must have a V8. I said it was a 4 banger and he flat out said i was full of it ’till he popped the bonnet.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    CAFE, Upselling, whatever. The biggest issue is DEMAND, or therefore lack of it. To me, it seems like 90% of Camrys I see in the wild are 4-Cyl.

    Honestly, for the price of a V6 Camry XLE, one can pretty much get an AVALON, which is pretty similar.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      10% of 400,000 plus cars a year seems like meaningful demand to me.

      There are scads of stand ins for a $30,000 XLE. There isn’t much left that looks like a $24,000 SE with cloth seats and no sunroof anymore.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    The V6 in the Camry isn’t going anywhere as it is part of the infrastructure of multiple Toyota vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      While the engine may not go away that doesn’t mean that they will keep putting it in the Camry. The fact that the Camry is Toyota’s best selling vehicle means that it has the highest effect on their CAFE results. So by dropping it from the Camry they can keep it in the Avalon and/or ES.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You’d think Toyota wouldn’t want to tweak the formula of their best seller and most profitable. Not for the sake of CAFE anyway. The Camry generates more than enough to offset any CAFE fines. In fact, Toyota is so far ahead of the schedule that it has CAFE credits to burn. And that’s just what they do with them.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Right now the are sitting pretty with CAFE but as the requirement increases everyone will be looking at all options for meeting that target.

          Yes Camry is Toyota’s best selling but I highly doubt is is their most profitable vehicle. One of the reasons that it is at the top of the sales charts is because Toyota is willing to buy that spot no matter how much it takes. A few years ago Toyota lowered the sticker price on most Camrys but kept the incentives as high as they had been and even increased them. They also have a huge advertising budget focused solely on the “ground to the ground” Camry “with things guys like like rimz”.

          I’m not saying that Toyota is loosing money selling Camrys just that GM probably made more money on the old Impala selling it almost exclusively to fleets.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I suppose I’m of a generation well behind current engine development. For me, I have serious if unfounded concerns about pulling 3500-4000 lbs. with a 4 cylinder engine.

    Maybe technology HAS improved to the point that these small engines pulling a large car for the long haul is OK, but I’m not yet convinced of long-term durability, especially with a turbo.

    If I were buying a new Impala with the option of a 4- or V6, I’d still take the V6. For a Malibu, not sure, even though I’ve driven a stop/start 4 cyl., and it drove just fine, if a bit weird.

    In the FWIW department – perhaps not typical – a neighbor bought his wife a V6 Camry a couple of years ago, and it was nothing but trouble – engine AND tranny problems which Toyota replaced. It appears to be fine now, but he told me it couldn’t touch his 2003 Monte Carlo SS for reliability! He still has the Monte, too.

    In any event, I hope I’m proved wrong about 4 cyl. engines powering large, heavy cars.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Over time, Toyota 4-cylinders have accumulated a better reliability record than their V6es, and many of them are in Camries, with a few in Highlanders and Venzas. Not every four is an Iron Duke.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      20 years ago, it was pretty typical for midsize sedans to have 150-200hp V6s, either standard or optional. These days, you can get that power out of 4 cylinders, while the V6 is up to 300+ hp, which was the domain of V8s back then.

    • 0 avatar
      zaxxon25

      Can’t get a 6-cyl in a new Malibu … 2.0L 4-cyl Turbo is the top option. 259hp, 295ft-lb torque.

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      I’m with you on the Impala, LaCrosse or Avalon. At take prices in excess of $30K, I’d want a first-rate V-6 too.

      I’ve done thousands of miles in four-cylinder Altimas, Camrys, Fusions, Sonatas and the like, and they’re not lacking anything. But they weigh less and are smaller. So to me, when the Japanese and Korean brands and Ford offer good Fours under $25K, it becomes a much different equation.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      You do know that there are 4 cylinder engines powering things like tow trucks, right (Hino – a Toyota subsidiary), and have been for a long time?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        JuniperBug, they should put four bangers in F150s, Silverados and RAMs, to see how well that goes over. Let’s see how many Americans will bite on that one.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Who’s to say that isn’t going to happen? I would bet that one of the Big 3 will throw a non-diesel 4 banger into a 1/2 ton. My bet is Ford because they aren’t interested in bringing the Ranger over and they have a 2.3T that can churn out over 300 HP/300 ft.lb.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      The large-midsize cars do just fine with a modern 4-cylinder drive train, even without turbo charging (see the current Honda Accord). And the discussion here is about these midsize cars, not the 4000 pound behemoths. And who said that a turbo 4 can’t pull those just as well? Give the technology a bit of time. A 2.0L turbo 4 engine should do just fine, but wait for a 2.5L turbo 4. This will be the final nail in the coffin of the naturally aspirated V6.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    Given the investments auto companies, and Toyota in particular, are making in weight savings materials, the naturally aspirated 4 might be all that is necessary by the next generation, or more likely the one after that. The turbo would be as easy switch since it would probably be the same motor used across a lot of Toyota and Lexus products, but when the weight of the cars comes back down they won’t need the bigger motors for most consumers. A 5-10% take rate won’t save an engine if packaging it basically screws up the car for the other 90-95% of customers. The new Sonata has full-size room in a mid-size by going 4 cylinders only they claim. Toyota could no doubt realize significant advantages without having to leave space for a V6.

  • avatar
    cartunez

    I miss the Cressida

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    I’ve driven and owned more I4s than V6s and honestly I’ve never really felt like I was missing anything with an I4.

    I had a 4.0 Aerostar as a first car and it was a dog, my Grand Prix was thirsty, and my Blazer had a strong engine (but cruddy everything else). My Buick, 2003 Century, is pretty strong too, but my mom drives that primarily.

    Call me a person that likes cars, likes talking about cars, likes learning to work on cars, but doesn’t need anything with obscene amounts of power with a mileage penalty. I don’t know if I would qualify as an “enthusiast” because I don’t masturbate to RWD, V8, Brown station wagons, but it doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      “Call me a person that likes cars, likes talking about cars, likes learning to work on cars…”

      Yeah, I’d say that qualifies as an enthusiast. Contrary to popular belief (though not on TTAC, which seems to have regard for diversity), you don’t have to be part of the MOAR POWER crowd to be an auto enthusiast.

  • avatar
    carguy

    It not a question of if but when Toyota will phase out the V6 in the Camry. There are a host of packaging and cost incentives that Toyota won’t pass up (and nor will Nissan or Honda). All manufacturers that had turbo engines have already done so and the only reason why Toyota, Honda and Nissan lag behind is that their turbo engines aren’t ready yet.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      My worry is Toyota phasing out the 5.7L V8 in the Tundra, and replacing it with the 4.6. I hope to be able to buy a new Tundra with the 5.7 when it comes time to buy my last truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      One interesting issue I wonder about is, if turbocharged engines are the next big thing, then why is Toyota racing a naturally aspirated V8/hybrid LMP1 car in WEC racing? This car was introduced just in 2012. Shouldn’t LMP1 be some kind of lab for the next generation technology development? Something is telling me that Toyota is still betting big time on naturally aspirated engines, but perhaps combined in hybrid drivetrains.

  • avatar
    285exp

    It’s all about CAFE, and just because the turbo 4 might get less mpg in real life it doesn’t mean it won’t give better EPA numbers. They’re teaching to the test, because that’s how they’re graded.

  • avatar

    I drove a 2014 Camry SE 2.5L for a week, it felt like “why do you need a v6 in a Camry”
    My leased car is a 2014 Accord Sport, again, that 2.4L feels really good and strong enough for this car.
    BUT! a month ago, I took a 1450 mile road trip from Arizona to San Francisco, I had a rental 2014 Avalon, I admit, that 3.5L is something you get addicted to, the sound, the smoothness, but I’m not sure I will trade it for that 36, 37, 40 MPG I get with the Accord, in a day to day normal driving, you really don’t need that extra power, with the same fuel tank size, every fill up on the Avalon will show 360 to 380 mile range, on the Accord, in NYC, I get up to 520 mile range, big difference.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I grew up driving in line “stove bolt six’s in full size Chevs and Pontiacs from the early 60’s. . A 64 Biscayne 6 auto was no ball of fire,but it did the job. By comparison my 2.5 four cyl Impala is a dragster .

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      mikey, I remember those times well. In 1961 my dad bought my mom a (used) 1959 Chevy Bel Air, straight-6 with a PowerGlide, Green and White two-tone. When my sisters got old enough to drive they used it for awhile.

      It wasn’t without its typical problems and need for tune-ups, but it served my family for quite a while. That six was no hot-rod, and the mpg wasn’t all that good, but it was transportation and it could seat six people, easy.

      Different times. Different cars.

  • avatar
    JREwing

    The thing that makes me question Toyota dropping the V6 in the Camry is that we still have the Highlander, the Sienna, the Avalon, and the Lexus counterparts that still need a suitable engine.

    Unless Toyota’s prepared to engineer a turbo 4-banger with a killer torque curve to handle all of these applications, it seems unlikely the V6 is going away for good.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      Where does the article say that dropping the V6 as the optional engine for the Camrys prevents Toyota from using the same engine in other Toyota/Lexus vehicles?

      And where you get the idea that a 4-cylinder turbo engine is not up to the task? There is already a rumor that Ford and Porsche are working on 4-cylinder turbo engines capable of +300 HP output. This sounds like plenty for a midsize car or a an SUV.

  • avatar
    goldtownpe

    Wow! 200+ comments for a Camry post. I can see why the Camry is the #1 selling car in the U.S.A. now. Even “car enthusiasts” can’t stop talking about it. Too bad Toyota doesn’t offered it in a wagon form with a manual tranny and in brown color.

  • avatar
    jrasero23

    This story really goes back to 2008, when Toyota discontinues the Solara and ends it’s short reign as the economy midsize sports car and Honda creates the bold 8th gen Accord Coupe sleeper. Both Toyota and Honda realized sports or performance cars sold very few units to warrant production, thus the Solara was killed and the Honda Coupe became a niche sleeper car.

    For me the death of the V6 is great since manufactures such as VW, Hyundai, and Ford have shown how turbos paired with four cylinder engines can really perform as good or better than any V6, but here is my problem. Toyota is somewhat late to the turbo charged game and while the launch of a turbo charged Camry would coincide with the launch of the Lexus NX 200t, there are a lot of kinks that need to be ironed out with turbo charging, Ford and even Hyundai know this first hand.

    If I was Toyota I would offer the turbo charged four cylinder standard and have the V6 still optional like Ford/Lincoln does but make the V6 a 3.7 and give it close to 300 HP.

    While I know my last comment will never happen seeing a turbo charged Toyota is good news. Hopefully Honda and Acura will finally follow since their once modern engines have failed to become updated.

  • avatar
    DrGastro997

    That’s too bad if a Toyota kills the V6 option. Who benefits from this cost savings? Toyota.

  • avatar
    DrGastro997

    That’s too bad if Toyota kills the V6 option. Who benefits from this cost savings? Toyota.

  • avatar
    silverkris

    From a practical standpoint, do most drivers really need a V6 in a midsized sedan for their driving needs? I drive a 2009 Camry with the 2.4L 4 banger, and it suits my needs very well – mostly suburban, some open road conditions, the normal commute. The only real advantage a V6 would have over the 4 cylinder is smoother acceleration/less noise at higher speeds, and better torque for going up hills and inclines. That has to be traded off with higher fuel consumption, higher
    maintenance/service costs of the 6-cylinder.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “do most drivers really need a V6 in a midsized sedan for their driving needs?”

      In the automotive space, most of what does exist doesn’t need to exist. Camry and its ilk succeed partially because they fit the needs of many consumers, which is all well and good. But many people are willing to pay for a little more.

      “That has to be traded off with higher fuel consumption, higher maintenance/service costs of the 6-cylinder.”

      Historically, real world V6 highway mileage is generally better in a heavier vehicle vs an I4. You pay for that privilege with lower mileage in gridlock driving, where the I4 or hybrid shine. I’m also not sure what higher maintenance cost you’re referring too, but such costs probably vary from motor/model/OEM to each other.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States